the 1st of October 1801, to April 1803; third, copies of all directions from the admiralty to the navy board, on the subject of working shipwrights, from 1783 to 1786.

These papers were ordered, and several others, without any comment. But on the question, that there be laid before the house an account of the expence of building and repairing of the Vesta, Pallas, and Narcissus, built at Plymouth, &c.

Mr. W. Dickinson rose, not for the purpose of objecting to the motion, but to shew to the house of commons the difficulty of procuring such information as that called for by the motion of the hon. admiral. For this purpose he should take the liberty of reading an extract from a letter from the navy board to the secretary of the admiralty, on the subject of some accounts on a former night moved for by the hon. admiral. The letter stated, that every effort had been made to comply with the orders of the house; that some of the accounts were prepared; others would in a few days be ready; but that a part of the accounts could not be made out in many months, though the several clerks were employed in preparing them during extra hours. These accounts were those moved for by the hon. admiral, respecting the amount of the original contracts, and of the annual expence of repairs of certain of his majesty's ships. He stated this not with a view to put any impediment in the way of the production of the papers moved for, but to prove to the house the difficulty of complying with such orders, and the expence that would accrue to the public.

Admiral Markham replied, that the accounts on which the hon. gentleman had commented, related to the original price, and the amount of expence of annual repairs of his majesty's ships, which accounts were already in the navy office, in a book called the Doomsday book. This book was now at the navy office. When he was a member of the board of admiralty, they had the book at that board. In this book were entered the original price, and the subsequent amount of repairs of each vessel. If the navy board were so lax in keeping their accounts they were very reprehensible, and the more so, because quarterly accounts were transmitted from each of the dock yards, respecting the whole expence of repairs, and for timber therein. He stated what he knew to be the fact, and if the navy board on receiving these quarterly statements neglected to carry them on to account, they must have been very inattentive to their duty.

Mr. Jeffery by no means objected to the production of this or any other paper which the hon. admiral might think proper

to

to move for. He should say, however, that of all the papers which the hon. admiral had yet moved for, only two or three were relevant to the charge which he meant to bring forward. The letter which his hon. friend had just read, was a proof to the house of the mode and manner in which the hon. admiral moved for papers; not one of the papers for which he had moved himself was of such a nature as not to be produced in ten days. As to the papers that had been last moved for by the hon. admiral, he could assure the house, upon the fullest investigation, that it was impossible, from the vast multiplicity of transactions which they comprehended, that any account could be produced, in any reasonable time, without material inconvenience to the public service. He hoped the hon. admiral would now move for all the papers which might be neces sary to his case. As to himself, he should not look upon himself as bound to confine his charges to the heads which he had already stated. They should extend to a far greater length, and embrace the whole conduct of Earl St. Vincent, during his administration of the admiralty, the system of terror which he continued throughout ·

The Speaker here called the hon. gentleman to order, as entering into a discussion not immediately arising out of the question before the house.

Mr. Jeffery wished only to explain the extent to which his motion might go, in compliance with what he understood to be the desire of the gentlemen opposite. He was anxious that it should not be understood that his motion was to be confined to the heads he had stated on a former day.

Mr. Tierney was so well aware of the consequence of putting any question to the hon. member, that he was not disposed to trouble the house any more on that head. He had found that questions would not lead to any direct answer, though they produced harsh language on the part of that hon. gentleman. The hon. member, no doubt, however undecided he may be at present, might during the summer make up his mind as to the course he should take, or regulate his future conduct, according to the suggestions of any person who might recommend to him any system of harsh proceedings. Without meaning any offence to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Jeffery), he thought he could more safely rely on the authority of his hon. friend (Admiral Markham), as to the relevancy of the papers for which he moved; and, therefore, should not reply to the hon. gentleman's observations on that head. He could not, however, but advert to the insinuations thrown out by his hon. friend

opposite

opposite (Mr. Dickinson), as to the difficulty of making out the accounts; and he appealed to the house, whether, when a grave charge was brought against Lord St. Vincent, such a consideration should deprive him of the benefit of papers which he thought essential to his case? He was not sufficiently acquainted with the nature of the papers now moved to judge, but from all he had seen of those already ordered, he could assert, that every one of them was material with a view to the motion proposed to be brought forward relative to Lord St. Vincent; and this, notwithstanding the confident assertion of the hon gentleman (Mr. Jeffery) opposite, when the question should come to be discussed. If there was difficulty in preparing the accounts it was not chargeable on his hon. friend. The question had not been brought forward by him, and for himself he deprecated it. Why did not the hon. member, if he thought his conduct deserved it, impeach Lord St. Vincent? When he had asked the hon. member the preceding day, (and he did not know how far it would be correct in him to state the substance of a private communication,) what proceeding he meant to adopt, he was told that he did not distinctly know; that he wished to make a statement on the subject, and if it was only on the last day of the session, that he would be satisfied. As to what the hon. member had stated respecting the reign of terror, the house would be judge how far these observations applied to Lord St. Vincent. The object proposed in moving for the papers was to prove the question whether or not Lord St. Vincent had been guilty of neglect in the administration of the navy.

Mr. Jeffery here called the hon. member to order. He had himself been stopped when proceeding to state the extent to which his motion might go, which he was doing in compliance with the desire of the hon. gentlemen opposite, as being out of order, and he could not conceive it orderly for the right hon. gentleman to discuss the merits of the case, as he appeared willing to do. The hon. gentleman here fell into the same line of observation as before, when

The Speaker reminded the hon. member, that by such observations he was not defending the order of the proceedings. The conversation was irregular, but it was the hon. member himself who had first been disorderly.

Mr. Tierney was only proceeding to state the grounds upon. which the papers were moved for, as he understood the difficulty of making out the accounts to have been urged as a species of objection to the motion. The view of his hon. friend

in moving for them was to shew, by a comparative statement, whether or not Lord St. Vincent was guilty of any neglect whilst in office.

The Secretary at War here rose to order. The papers were not refused, and he saw no use in the right hon. gentleman's proceeding with his observations, which must lead to discussion.

Mr. Tierney was happy that the right hon. gentleman was not disposed to resist the production of the papers with the weight of his great influence. But though that right hon. gentleman felt no objection, he should recollect that another gentleman (Mr. Dickinson) high in office as himself, and entitled to as much consideration, had stated the difficulty of preparing the accounts as an objection to the production.

Mr. Jeffery, again to order, saw no necessity for continuing the discussion, as no disposition was shewn to refuse the papers moved for.

Mr. Speaker-What shall or shall not be refused, will be decided by the vote of the house.

Admiral Markham hoped it would not be disorderly in him to assure the house, that all the papers he had moved for were necessary to the motion. The several motions of the hon. admiral were then successively agreed to.

A message from the lords informed the house, that their lordships had agreed to the St. Pancras poor bill, and desired the house would communicate to their lordships the evidence on which they had passed the Duke of Athol's annuity bill.— On the motion of Mr. Dundas, it was ordered that the answer of the house be sent by messengers of its own.

TROTTER'S INDEMNITY BILL.

Mr. Whitbread moved the second reading of the Trotter and other witnesses indemnity bill.

Mr. Alexander desired to know, whether it was intended by the bill to grant indemnity to these from all the consequences of the confessions they might be forced to make?

Mr. Whitbread replied, that the bill was not to force any confessions, but merely to protect the partics giving testimony from any criminal prosecutions, and not from civil actions.

Mr. Alexander gave notice of his intention to state his sentiments respecting the bill the next day on the question, that the speaker do leave the chair,' previous to going into the

committee.

Mr. Whitbread trusted the hon. gentleman would not ob

ject

ject to the bill being committed that day, as it was material that it should pass without any delay. The hon. member would have an opportunity of stating his sentiments on the third reading.

The bill was then read a second time, passed through the committee, reported, and ordered to be read a third time the next day.

SIR HOME POPHAM.

Sir W. Burroughs gave notice, that on Monday next he should move certain resolutions, founded on the report of the committee on Sir Home Popham's case. His object in moving these resolutions was, to obtain on the part of the house for that gallant officer, the same acquittal from any imputation on his honour and integrity, which he had already by the report of the committee. There were various other topics on which the committee had reported, which it was not his intention to bring into discussion this session. It would be for the house to determine next session how far it might be desirable to take these topics into consideration.

Mr. Sloane gave notice, that on Friday next he should move an address to his majesty, that he would be graciously pleased to order a remuneration to Edward Colman, Esq. for his thirty years zealous and faithful service as an officer of that house.

SOUTHERN WHALE FISHERY.

Mr. Rose moved the reading of the order of the day for the farther consideration of the report upon the southern whale fishery bill, with a view, as the right hon. gentleman stated, of postponing the order until the next day.

Mr. Barham deprecated any further delay in the progress of this measure.

. Mr. S. Bourne stated, that the delay was necessary in conse→ quence of the absence of the chancellor of the exchequer.

Mr. Calcraft did not see that the presence of the right hon. gentleman alluded to was so necessary upon this question. Irish business was gone through in the absence of the chancellor of the exchequer for Ireland; and he could not conceive why business, such as that then under consideration, might not be gone through in the absence of the chancellor of the exchequer for England.

Mr. W. Smith was against the proposed postponement, and. Mr. Jeffery was for it.

Sir C. Price conceived that there was a material question to be decided by this bill, namely, whether the same encourage

VOL. III. 1805.

3 Z

ment