question, "Whether it would be proper to liberate Mr. Jones?" and their unanimous opinion was decidedly in the negative. Still more to ascertain the rectitude of their conduct, the Irish government transmitted the case of Mr. Jones to his majesty's ministers in this country, requiring their advice; and their answer was, that under all the circumstances it would be extremely unadvisable to allow such a person to be at large in Ireland. With this opinion from the law officers in Ireland, and the ministers here, the Irish government felt that they would have incurred a deep responsibility had they complied with the demand of the petitioner for unconditional freedom. But as to the charge of severity in prison, he could assure the house that nothing could be farther from the disposition and the desire of the Irish government than the wanton oppression of any prisoner. On the contrary, immediately on the arrest of the petitioner special directions were sent to the general commanding the district in which he was imprisoned, that the unfortunate man should be treated with every indulgence that was consistent with the safe custody of his person. Indeed it was remarkable that to none of the generals commanding at Cork, who were directed to inquire into the situation of the prisoner, did the petitioner ever make any complaint of harsh treatment; and he was surprised to see such a complaint in the petition on the table. The right hon. gentleman stated that he should have submitted these observations to the house immediately after he had seen the petition, had he not been prevented by ill health, and he was sorry to observe that an hon.officer (General Tarleton) to whom he could refer upon this subject, was not in his place. The right hon. gentleman concluded with again expressing his regret that this business should have been brought forward so late in the session, his wish that it should be fully investigated, and his confidence that the result would completely justify the conduct of the Irish government.

Mr. Wilberforce rose; but the Speaker observed that, although the house might dispense with a positive order to indulge a member whose character and conduct were accused to vindicate himself from the accusation, yet the same indulgence could not be extended to any other member who required to be heard when there was no question before the house.

Mr. Wilberforce had only one observation to make, and that was to congratulate the house upon the circumstance of the right hon. gentleman having come forward to make such a statement. The sensibility which the, right hon. gentleman

had

had manifested upon this occasion, was highly honourable to him, and it must be grateful to the house and the country to perceive that an important public officer was alive to the necessity of replying to a charge so serious as the oppression of a British subject.

SIR HOME POPHAM.

Sir IV. Burroughs stated that although he had given notice of his intention to bring forward that day some resolutions, the object of which would be to give Sir H. Popham the full and honourable acquittal which he had a right to expect from the report of the coinmittee appointed to examine his conduct, although it was desirable at once and completely to do away the foul and unwarrantable aspersions that were attempted to be cast upon the honour and integrity of this gallant officer, still he felt it proper, with leave of the house, to withdraw his notice, and to postpone this proceeding till the next session. This postponement he was induced to think necessary in consequence of the thinness of the house at the present period; and from a desire that the attendance should be as full as possible upon the subject, in order that the result should be as distinguished and honourable as justice required, and the honourable officer whose character was involved had a

right to expect. The resolutions which he meant to submit to the house early in the next session, he stated to be, 1st, that the accusation which had been made against the integrity and honour of Sir Home Popham, was unjust and unfounded, and utterly unsupported by any evidence whatever and 2d, that Sir Home Popham had conducted himself, during his command of the expedition to the Red Sea, with eminent ability, integrity, and zeal, in such a manner as to advance the interest of the public, and the honour of the service. The hon. gentleman stated that he thought it right to describe thus minutely the resolutions he meant to submit, in order that gentlemen might be aware of his purpose. The second resolution he proposed to support by a variety of evidence, and particularly the testimonials received by Sir Home Popham, from the Marquis of Wellesley and General Baird. The hon. gentleman was proceeding, but was interrupted by

The Speaker, who stated that he was exceeding the limits usually prescribed to members in giving notice of a motion.

IMPEACHMENT OF LORD MELVILLE.

Mr. Whitbread moved the order of the day for the further consideration of the articles of impeachment against Lord VOL. III. 1805.

4 D

Melville,

Melville. Before he entered on the question to which his notice referred, the hon. gentleman took occasion to state that it was his intention to move, the next day, for leave to bring in a bill to enable the committee appointed to conduct the impeachment, to continue their functions notwithstanding the prorogation of parliament. Although this measure would interfere with the exercise of his majesty's prerogative, yet he hoped the house would feel, from the peculiar circumstances of the case, that its adoption was essentially necessary. There were many reasons which called for the proposition of this proceeding, which, though extraordinary in its nature, was not altogether novel, for some acts of precisely the same kind were to be found on the journals. However, whether it would be right to adopt such a measure in this instance it would be for the house to consider after having heard the reasons that called for it. A witness whose examination was material to the impeachment had been summoned from Edinburgh, and it was possible that he would not arrive before the prorogation would take place.

Here the Speaker rose, and called to the recollection of the honourable member, that in giving notice of a motion it was not correct to state more than the distinct objects of that motion, and by no means allowable to enter into those arguments in support of it which should be reserved for the time when the motion might be actually brought forward. The right hon. gentleman concluded with pointing out to the hon. member the regular mode of proceeding as to the articles of impeachment, to which it would be necessary to add the saving clause, for the house to be at liberty to draw up any farther articles against the accused, &c. that might hereafter appear to be necessary.

Mr. Whitbread bowed to the chair, and immediately moved the order of the day for the consideration of the articles of impeachment, to which Mr. Whitbread said he should add a new one; the matter of which, however, had nothing new in it.

The articles were then read, article by article, in which some verbal amendments were made, and the question was put on each, and agreed to.

The new clause, which is to form the new article, referred to monies placed by Mr. Trotter in the hands of Mr. Mark Sprott, and which were applied to purposes not naval.

The clause being read a first and second time, and agreed to, the general title of the articles was also read and agreed to.

A saving

A saving clause was next proposed and agreed to, empowering the managers to prepare fresh articles of impeachment if they saw matter for them.

The committee already appointed to draw up the former articles were likewise ordered to draw up this clause, to prepare which they retired.

The committee was then ordered to withdraw, and shortly after Mr. Whitbread delivered in from the bar their report on the clause saving to the commons the liberty of exhibiting further articles of impeachment against Henry Lord Viscount Melville, at any time hereafter, &c. The clause, after the usual forms were gone through, was agreed to, and ordered to be added to the articles of impeachment.

On the motion of Mr. George Johnstone, an account was ordered of the net produce of the permanent and war taxes for the year ending the 5th of April, 1805; also for the year and quarter ending the 5th of July, 1805; also an account of the sums paid into and chargeable upon the consolidated fund of Great Britain, for the year and quarter ending the 5th of July, 1805.

Mr. Johnstone then moved that the order for taking into further consideration his financial propositions be deferred from the next day to Wednesday. Ordered. Adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

TUESDAY, JULY 9.

Judgment was given in the important Irish appeal cause, Redington v. Redington. The Lord Chancellor spoke at considerable length, when the decree of the court of exchequer in Ireland was reversed, and a reference was made with respect to part of the matter in dispute, back to that

court.

The Thames arch-way bill was read the third time, and passed; and various other bills were forwarded in their respective stages.

The Earl of Suffolk wished to offer a very few words to the house, which he deemed to be of great importance as to the object, which was to correct a misapprehension respecting. the treatment of Mr. Todd Jones. He had received letters from unquestioable authority, stating that he had a good and commodious apartment, was permitted to take the air in the ground belonging to the prison, at his own pleasure, and had

4 D 2

the

the convenience of such attendants as he required. His lordship said, he felt that he was irregular in making this statement, unconnected with any business before the house, but he also felt it to be his duty to make this declaration for the purpose of correcting an erroneous statement, which he conceived to be of importance.

Mr. Whitbread, attended by a large body of the commons, presented the articles of impeachment of Lord Viscount Melville, in maintenance of the impeachment by the commons, at their lordships' bar.

After the articles were read by the clerk,

Lord Hawkesbury moved, that a committee be appointed to search the journals for precedents, for their lordships' guidance in the proceedings on the impeachment: and also, that a copy of the articles of impeachment be sent to Lord Melville within one month from that time, and that he be allowed to the second day of next session to put in his answer. Ordered.

TROTTER'S INDEMNITY BILL.

On the motion that Mr. Trotter's indemnity bill be committed,

The Lord Chancellor said, that no bill of greater importance ever came before the house, and yet no grounds had been made out to justify it. Much of the objection he had to the bill had been done away by the articles of impeachment being actually laid on the table that day, because these contained some evidence, some reasons not before in the possession of the house; still many objections pressed on his mind. He believed there was no instance of the house being called upon for indemnity for transactions not known to the house. The checks the common law had put upon indemnity given to approvers were very severe, and most jealously watched in the administration of justice. They could not be admitted as evidence till themselves were charged by indictment; they must previously confess themselves guilty of the crime; they cannot be compelled to give evidence, but must do it voluntarily; if they vary in their evidence in the respective proceedings, they are liable to be executed themselves; and the same peril hangs over them if the jury is not convinced, and the person against whom they are evidence is not convicted. In the indemnity asked by this bill, it does not appear that Trotter and the others alluded to in it are accomplices. It departs from the principle on which indemnity is granted by

the