could not but lament the harsh language that had been used by a noble and learned lord who had opened the debate, language that had not been provoked by any warmth of antecedent discussion. He thought it little consistent with the situation of that noble lord, or with the dignity of the house, to use that rude and boisterous language. Here the noble lord was called to order by

Lord Ellenborough, who insisted that the language in which he had expressed his sentiments, had neither been rude nor boisterous, but such as dignity and a manly avowal of his opinion warranted.

Lord Mulgrave proceeded. If such had been the language of the noble lord, if he had established his position by moderation, by argument and sound reason, he should have bowed to his opinion, and the weight of his talents and authority. But the language which that noble lord had used was such. as would have suited a demagogue in Palace-Yard; a man who wished to inflame the minds of the populace. To dwell upon the pressure of taxes, the difficulties of the country, and the want of continental co-operation, were topics which might be fit to urge to a popular assembly, but were ill suited to the dignity of that house, or to the character, office, and station, of the noble lord. He had every respect for that noble lord's official situation, and for his talents, but he felt it due to the house, to the country, and to the bench to express the indignation he felt, at hearing any noble lord stigmatise as a job any measure, before the merits of it had been discussed. He was sorry for the necessity of being thus personal, but he had the honour to hold in conjunction with others a high and responsible situation, and he felt it due to them and to himself, to repel the imputation, and to express that indignation which any honest man must feel at so unfounded a charge. He had said thus much to set himself right with the house as to his motives in voting for the measure.

Lord Ellenborough explained. If any thing perfonal had fallen from him, he fhould have perhaps merited the attack that had been made upon him. His obfervations had been addreffed to things, not to men. Without intending any difrefpect to any noble lord, he might ftate his opinion of a tranfaction under their lordships confideration candidly, and he should change altogether his opinions of moral principles before he could, with a view to the juftice of the cafe, confider this in any other light than he had defcribed it. The Lord Chancellor detailed, though briefly, the circumftances

4 C 2

ftances under which, in his various official fituations, he had confidered the merits of this cafe. In every way that he had confidered the queftion, it all came to this (and in ftating this opinion, he fhould degregate himself from any man, or any fet of men, as he fhould if delivering his opinion in chancery), that fitting there as a legislator and a judge, he could find nothing in the evidence to fhew that the compenfation granted in 1765 was inadequate in 1805. If they should go beyond juftice for the Duke of Athol, they would be called on to do the fame for others; and granting this claim, it would be impoffible to refift future ones. He had concurred elfewhere, in difcharging his duty under a folemn obligation, in the opinion of the attorney and folicitor general. They had nothing before them but the evidence on which the privy council decided against the claims of the Duke of Athol, together with the fupplementary statement of his grace and the refolutions of the privy council thereon. This was not fufficient to prove the compenfation inadequate. They had demanded information from the other houfe, and their lordships knew the refult. He did not call on any noble lord to adopt his opinion; he was anxious only to discharge his individual duty, and to ftate on thefe grounds his opinion refpe&ting the measure.

Lord Hawkesbury had never attended the privy council when this fubject had been under confideration. Whatever his conduct might be he could not be charged with partiality to the Duke of Athol. The fituation which he filled for the last year called his attention more particularly to the queftion. He came therefore to the confideration of the claim with an unbiafled and impartial mind. The noble lord then took a brief view of the cafe, in order to establish the opinion he entertained, that the bargain had been forced upon the Duke and Duchefs of Athol, and that the compenfation had not been adequate. The noble lord concluded by voting for the bill.

The Duke of Norfolk thought that as the annuity was confidered part of the compenfation, no claim for farther compenfation fhould be made till the annuity ceafed.

The question was then put, when the house divided on the queftion for the fecond reading

Contents 35. Not-Contents 11. Majority 24. The bill was then ordered to be committed the next day. And on the motion of the Marquis of Buckingham, the petition from the agents of the houfe of keys was referred

to

to the fame committee, and the counsel for the petitioners ordered to be called in the next day, to ftate the grounds on which they alleged that they were interested in the question.

Lord Ellenborough alfo expreffed a wish to have an extract from the deed of reftriction between the Duke and Duchefs, referred to in the bill, laid on the table.

TROTTEK'S INDEMNITY BILL.

On the fecond reading of Mr. Trotter's indemnity bill, The Lord Chancellor left the woolfack, and stated, that it was not his intention, at the prefent late hour, to trouble the house with his obfervations on this bill. He begged it to be understood, however, that his not doing so that night fhould not be understood to preclude him from the oppor tunity of expreffing his fentiments on it the next day. In his opinion, a more important bill, or one more peculiarly de ferving the attention of that house, had not appeared for the last half century. Adjourned at one o'clock in the morning.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

MONDAY, JULY 8.

The report of the committee appointed to confider the petitions of certain perfons who attended as witneffes at the committee upon the laft Middlefex election, pursuant to the fummons from the agents of Mr. Mainwaring, and who prayed a compenfation for their attendance, &c. was taken into confideration. The refolutions of the committee, which were read and agreed to, order the fum of 20s. per day to be paid to John Froft, Efq. and certain other perfons, for nine days' attendance; and that 10s. per day, for the fame period, be paid to James Mafon, and certain other perfons; and that fuch payments be made by George Boulton Mainwaring, Efq.

Mr. Ormiby moved that eftimates fhould be laid before the houfe of the fums neceffary to be provided for the payment of the infpectors and comptrollers of the lottery in Ireland, for one year, ending the 5th of October, 1805. Alfo for the falaries of the commiffioners, clerks, &c. of the latter. Alfo of the fum, &c. neceffary for the commiffioners for granting licenfes, &c. in Ireland. Thofe eftimates were ordered, and immediately afterwards pre

fented

fented at the bar by a perfon from the office of the chief fecretary for Ireland.

A clerk from the ftamp office prefented an account of the balances in the hands of the receiver general of ftamp duties.

A meffage from the lords announced their lordships' affent to the Leith port improvement bill, the Dublin baking trade regulation bill, the English and Scotch diftillery bill, the commiffioners of public accompts bill, the Spanish red wine bill, the Irish infirinary bill, the ftraw hat duty bill, the Dublin paving bill, and the pilchard bounty bill.

MR. TODD JONES.

On the motion of Mr. Hawthorne, leave was given that Mr. Wickham fhould, in confequence of indifpofition, be permitted to speak fitting.

Mr. Wickham accordingly addressed the house. The hon. member, adverting to a petition on the table from Wm. Todd Jones, expressed his regret that this petition had not been presented at an earlier period of the session, or that the hon. gentleman who presented it had not given him notice of his intention to bring the subject before the house; because, in that case, he would have been enabled have such a case laid before the house as would have fully vindicated his conduct, and that of the Irish government, with respect to the charge which the statement of the petitioner conveyed. But he was now, from the lateness of the session, placed in this dilemma, that he must either make an imperfect defence for himself and the government with which he had been connected, or bring forward circumstances which it would not be fair towards the character of the petitioner to mention, as he had not the immediate opportunity of replying to them. At the time when a right hon. gentleman, not then in his place, (Mr. Fitzgerald) gave notice of a motion with regard to the several persons arrested, and in custody in Ireland, under the suspension of the habeas corpus act, he did promise himself that such a motion would have afforded him an opportunity to exculpate the government of Ireland from the several charges which had been loosely thrown out against it. He naturally expected and wished that the motion of the right hon. gentleman would have led to inquiry, because upon such inquiry he had not the least doubt that the result would have been a full acquittal of the accused; nay more, a conclusive evidence of their title to public praise. After some farther prefatory remarks the right hon. gentleman proceeded to detail the circumstances

connected

connected with the arrest and detention of Mr. Jones. For some time after his arrest, which the Irish government was induced to order upon information, the particulars of which he could now, for the reason already stated, with any propriety describe, but which were quite satisfactory to their minds as to the necessity of the measure, Mr. Jones remained in prison without any particular inquiry having been instituted into his case. As soon, however, as the trials, which followed the insurrection of 1803, and which so much occupied the attention of the Irish government, had terminated, an inquiry into the case of Mr. Jones took place. The three allegations in the petition which he thought it necessary to notice were, first, the arrest of the petitioner; secondly, his being detained in prison after, as he states, the government had pronounced him innocent; and, thirdly, the harshness with which he was treated. Now, as to the first point, the right hon. gentleman said, that he had already stated the impossibility of giving a full explanation to the house without acting unfairly towards the character of the petitioner. But as to the second point, inquiry being made, it was found that, although the conduct of Mr. Jones was such as justified the strongest suspicion, and would have warranted government in arresting any man; still he being a man of warm temper, and likely to use expressions, and indicate designs which he did not deliberately mean, it was the opinion of government that indulgence might be safely extended to him. In consequence of this opinion it was intimated to a gentleman of the highest respectability at the Irish bar (Mr. Saurin), who interested himself for the petitioner, that government was disposed to liberate him, pro-vided he would quit Ireland, and retire to his residence in this country, where he had been for many years previous to his late return to Ireland. This intimation was communicated to the petitioner; and instead of replying directly to it, he immediately applied to the Irish government, asserting, that what proceeded from their disposition to leniency was a direct acknowledgment of his total innocence, and demanding instantaneous and unconditional liberation, with an indemnity for his imprisonment. With that demand the Irish government would not feel themselves warranted in complying; particularly because, after the trial of the rebels, and the fullest investigation of the charges against Mr. Jones, his case became much more serious than it appeared to be at the outset. Willing, however, to act with every possible consistent mildness, hist case was submitted to the crown lawyers, accompanied by this question,