intended to be thrown over the Lord's day. Was not conversation between man and man as bad as reading a written or printed paper? But if this was not an immoral act, he could not see why the House should interfere in the business. Considering it as derogatory to the dignity of the House to take up this question, he should move that the word "now" be left out: and instead of this he would move, that the bill be read a second time on this day three months." duced people to neglect going to church. Mr. Martin thought, that if persons had not the Sunday papers, they would read worse publications. The papers which were published on Sunday were actually printed on the day preceding: the noble lord ought rather to have made his objection against the Monday papers. Mr. Jekyll was surprised how any member could gravely contend that this was a fit subject for parliament to exercise its functions upon. He trusted that he held no principles which were contrary to sound religion and morality; but when he heard the reading of a Sunday newspaper branded as an act of immorality, and connected with the enormities which accompanied the French revolution, he must tell the noble lord that this practice had no more to do with the French revolution than the fall of Babylon or Rome. The Sunday papers were printed on the Saturday evening, or early on Sunday morning, and published before divine worship began. Who, then, profaned the Sabbath? Was it the reader of such a paper? Was it any more a profanation of the Sabbath, to read a newspaper than another book? But there was the blowing of horns-a great annoyance, this, undoubtedly. But had not the police the power in their hands of suppressing this nuisance? This bill would go to annihilate at a stroke all the property embarked in these papers. If there was now an existing law against such publications, why was it necessary to pass a new law? Was the statute of Charles 2nd insufficient upon this subject? He could not help thinking that half the acts which a man did on a Sunday, were as criminal as the reading of a newspaper. He was sorry to see this kind of gloom # Mr. Windham said, he considered the noble lord's motion to be important; that it was of importance for the House to come to a right decision upon it; and that parliament should enforce the right observance of the Sabbath with efficient penalties. This observance ought to be marked by an abstinence from the customs, &c. of ordinary life; on this ground, exhibitions, buying and selling, &c. were forbidden on that day. The Sunday was to be distinguished by an abstinence from smaller acts, and not merely by an abstinence from acts of immorality, as stealing, &c. Some years ago it was proposed to suppress all public houses, &c. where company was received. He for one should have ob jected to carrying it to this extent, because he would have been unwilling to abridge the happiness and health of multitudes, and confine those to the metropolis, who could not go out upon any other day. But here the case was different. The inducement was different. It was no argument to say there was no positive harm in publishing and reading newspapers on the Sunday. On this ground why not open Astley's and Hughes's Amphitheatres ? For his part, he knew nothing immoral in seeing a man standing on his head. But he wished to consider the tendency of a man's destroying the distinction between the Sunday and other days. The noble lord stood here with the law and custom of the country on his side. And for whose interests was it that the House was requested to set aside these laws? With respect to the readers of these papers he would say, "lassati, nondum satiati." It was chiefly to public houses that people resorted who read the Sunday papers. And was this a practice productive of good to morals? magistrates had endeavoured to shut up public houses; but to this he felt strong objections; a public house was the poor man's coffee-house; man was likewise a The The upon the public. It was not necessary that persons should read newspapers on a Sunday, and the House ought not to hold out temptations of this sort. The indulgence would contribute to the gratification of a set of idle people, whilst it had a tendency to lead men from that which it was their duty to attend to on that day. An attention to the duties of the Sabbath had been gradually wearing away in this land; and the rejection of this bill he was afraid would be looked upon as a kind of sanction for this criminal relaxation. On all these accounts he should give it his firm support. YEAS NOES Tellers. Lord Viscount Belgrave S Mr. Jekyll Mr. Patten } 26 } 40 So it passed in the negative. The bill was then ordered to be read a second time upon this day three months. sociable animal; and therefore he should feel scrupulous about denying him the gratifications of society. But, though he could not go to this extent, he saw no reason to encourage such meetings on Sundays, by the introduction of newspapers into them. Did parliament want to bait the public houses with newspapers? to set up public houses against pulpits, or newspapers against sermons? He thought it was not too much for persons on that sacred day to hear religious instruction in the house of God. But newspapers had now outgrown their name; they had but little allotted in them for foreign intelligence, and were made the vehicle for The question being put, That the word conveying the instruction of those teach-"now" stand part of the question, the ers whom the proprietors of the Sunday House divided: papers engaged. Many people took their whole ideas from the instruction they received through the medium of newspapers. But was it fit to commit the morals of the people to newspaper teachers? A comparison had been made between stale news and stale mackarel; but the cases were not parallel: the readers of Sunday weekly papers seldom expected fresh news in them; besides news was not necessary to a man's well-being, as food was. legislature could not indeed, compel people to attend places of public worship on the Lord's day; but it would do its duty when it held out inducement to good, and refused its sanction to evil. If the House rejected this motion, he was afraid the public would have all sorts of ribaldry and atheism let loose upon them, through the medium of these papers. What could be expected from those teachers of mora. lity and religion, who wrote in these papers, men who were unknown and untaught, but who had acquired a facility in writing? How much better was it to refer the people to public teachers, who were known to be well educated, and were responsible for their principles and conduct. But to the obscure teachers in these public Sunday papers people would run, unless those precautions were taken which might lead them to better principles. Addison, in the Spectator, selected in his Saturday papers, subjects of morality or religion: so did the editors in their Sunday papers; but he could not give the latter credit for their motives: this he considered as a more selfish plan of theirs at first introduced, till such time as they found that their papers were tolerated and better established. The House ought to guard against letting loose this polluted stream Debate in the Commons on Mr. Palmer's Agreement.] May 31. The House having resolved itself into a committee of the whole House, to consider of the Agreement made between the rlords commissioners of his majesty's treasury and John' Palmer, esq. relative to his appointment to be comptroller general of the Post Office, and also of his Conduct in that Employment, Mr. Pierrepont said:-Had this, Sir, been a question of doubt or of difficulty, requiring the assistance of tedious investigation, or of legal argument, I should have been too conscious of my own inability to have had the presumption to propose it; or had it had a reference directly or indirectly to any party question, I should have been one of the last men in the House to have come forward; but considering it as I do, to consist of a few plain and evident propositions, supported by clear and undoubted testimony, and at the same time conceiving it to be a very important question, a question involving in itself the pledge of the public faith to a private individual, I shall intreat your indulgence, while I briefly state the' circumstances which I trust will support the resolutions I shall have the honour to propose. It is unnecessary for me to point out the many great advantages which this country has derived from the success of Mr. Palmer's plan for the improvement of the Post-office since its first establishment in 1784. This point being admitted, if Mr. Palmer has so materially contributed to the general accommodation of the kingdom, and to the increase of the revenue, ought he not to receive the compensation for which he stipulated, and which was promised him on the part of the commissioners of the Treasury? If my information be correct, he was, on carrying his plans into execution, to receive a patent appointment for life, with a salary of 1,500l. a year, and a per-centage upon the nett receipt of the post office exceeding 240,000l. a year. On the faith of this, he undertook the reform, and, notwithstanding the many difficulties he had to contend with, had the satisfaction of accomplishing it. He effectually performed his engagements; and when he claims his reward, has the mortification of seeing it withheld from him. The lords of the Treasury signify to Mr. Palmer, in a letter through Mr. Long, that they are of opinion that 3,000l. a year for Mr. Palmer's life is a just and full compensation for his services, and that they do not think themselves warranted, on the part of the public, to make any addition to that allowance. I would have admitted, that in this they had acted as wise and provident stewards for the public, had they not been implicated in an express previous contract which I contend they are bound to fulfil. No subsequent act of Mr. Palmer can defeat his right to it, not even those acts of indiscretion which are imputed to him, and on which the Treasury rest their justification. I am very far from approving the correspondence between Mr. Palmer and his deputy; but I think it necessary to state in his favour the testimonies of the postmaster general as far as his personal character is involved. In page 58 of the report, lord Walsingham is asked, "Had you ever any reason to entertain a doubt of the personal integrity of Mr. Palmer?" His answer is, "No, never, in the smallest degree." The same question is put to lord Chesterfield, who says, " he desires to abide by the answer given by lord Walsingham." Nothing, surely, can be more decisive than this testimony to obviate any aspersions that may be thrown upon Mr. Palmer's character: those noble lords knew nothing of Mr. Palmer, nor had any communication with him, but as connected with the Post-office; and they vouch for his perfect and unblemished integrity.-Having made these few preliminary observations, I shall take the li berty of reading the following facts established before the committee, and reported by them in the evidence laid before the House: Mr. Palmer's contract with government was, that if he should be able to carry his plan into execution, for extending and improving the posts, and for the more safe, expeditious, and regular conveyance of the mails, he was to have for his life 24 per cent, or the fortieth part only of all the future nett increased revenue of the Post-office; but in case of failure, he was not to receive a shilling for his sacrifices in the neglect of his other concerns, expenses, trouble, &c. &c. It is to be observed, that during the sixty years preceding this agreement, notwithstanding the great increase in the trade and commerce of the country through so long a period, the nett revenue of the Post-office had experienced from an alteration in the postage, and the no increase whatever, except what is derived restriction on franks laid on in 1764-5. On the contrary, for the nine years preceding the adoption of Mr. Palmer's plan, it had decreased 13,198/. 13s. per annum. So low a per-centage was originally proposed by Mr. Palmer to avoid the possibility of any dispute about the objects from which it might arise, and he he had formed of the advantage that would always openly professed the great expectations accrue to his family from it, if the plan succeeded, and his life was prolonged. In respect to the mode of payment by percentage, numerous instances occur of allowing 20, 30, 40, or even 50, none less than 107. per cent for the management of the post-office business, and its revenue, on the gross instead of the nett receipts. The late secretary, Mr. packet expenditure. Mr. Allen, who, in Todd, enjoyed 24 per cent on the whole gross 1720, made some partial improvements in the cross posts, as a reward for the benefit derived from it to the trade and commerce of the country, was granted a farm of those posts during his life, for above 42 years, and nearly the whole increased revenue to the amount of above 12,000l. per annum, which the postmaster general declared to be only "the natural fruits of his own industry and services." Mr. Palmer having, after some years perseverance against a continued opposition, effected his plan, and never having during the whole of that period, agreeably to his stipulation, received one shilling from government, was then, for the first time, informed, they wished a variation to be made in the plain and specific agreement before mentioned; and it was proposed instead thereof, that he should accept a patent appointment for life under the crown, with a salary of 1,500l. per annum and 24 per cent on all future nett increase of the post-office revenue beyond 240,000l.; which Mr. Palmer consented to, though it was 750l. per annum less than the 6riginal agreement. Agreeably to this modification, mutually agreed to by both parties, a draft, of an appointment for life under the crown, was drawn up at the Treasury, and to prevent future obstruction and injury to the public, in dependent of any control whatever, that Mr. Palmer, might be left to his own judgment in the improvement and conduct of his plan; this, however, did not take effect, because the attorney-general thought a new act of parliament necessary to confirm it. The board of Treasury being unwilling to apply for this act, Mr. Palmer was unable to obtain a completion of this promised appointment, and proceeded in the extension of his plans with the limited authority he was obliged for the present to act with, necessarily depending on the faith and protection of his employers. has experienced, and which required all his activity and perseverance, aided by the firm and liberal support of government, to surmount, against a most powerful opposition, and every obstruction that could be thrown in his way, by officers of this department." And after going on to state the delay, irregu larity, and confusion, that prevailed in the office, previous to the reform, and the beneficial effects arising from various and extensive improvements he had carried into execution, they declare, "Under these circumstances we are of opinion, that Mr. Palmer is justly intitled to the compensation he claims, being a very small part of that revenue which his ingenuity, activity, and zeal, have created, over and above the convenience and numerous collateral advantages which the public, and more particularly the commerce of the country, reap from the safe and speedy conveyance of the mails." The Commissioners of Inquiry, appointed by the House of Commons, report as follows, It is presumed the board of Treasury can viz. "The opposition which Mr. Palmer ex- produce no instance, from their earliest reperienced from the oldest and ablest officers cords, of an agreement more cautiously in the service, who represented his plan not guarded on the part of government, more adonly to be impracticable, but dangerous to vantageous to the public, or more comcommerce and the revenue, induced us to ex- pletely executed on the part of the indiamine and weigh, with great attention, the vidual contracted with. Before the reform, numerous documents and informations which the Post-office revenue, after the prohave been furnished us by both parties, ingress of near two centuries prior to 1783, opposition to, and in support of the measure; in consequence whereof, we are enabled to state, that Mr. Palmer has exceeded the expectations which he held forth in his first proposal with regard to the dispatch and the expense; at the same time that the revenue is augmented, answers are returned to letters in less than half the time, and with a degree of punctuality never experienced before; the expense is at a less rate per mile than upon the old plan, and has been effected for 20,000l. less per annum than the sum first proposed by Mr. Palmer, and the accounts of the Post-office are an undeniable proof of the great increase of its revenue in consequence of his plan.--As an engagement had been entered into, about the year 1720, by the postmaster-general for the time being, with the late Ralph Allen, esq. for farming the cross posts, and which met the approbation of the public, we were induced to inquire into the particulars, by which we found that those improvements were of a limited nature, and that Mr. Allen did not fully disclose his plan or mode of conducting it for above forty years, and that the profits he derived therefrom were very large: whereas the improvements suggested, and already executed by Mr. Palmer, are far more extensive, and of so much importance to the commerce of this country, as to have justified the measure, although it had been accompanied with additional expense; at the same time Mr. Palmer has acted with openness, and without reserve; nor is it probable he will ever reap the benefit Mr. Allen obtained.-We must farther observe, that Mr. Allen met with none of those difficulties that Mr. Palmer did not exceed 150,000l. The number of newspapers annually sent from the London office, was less than two millions. A very great annual expense was formerly sustained, both by government and individuals, for expresses, and the number used annually to Bristol alone, to exceed 200. The annual expense incurred in rewards for apprehension, and costs in prosecution for mail robberies, was formerly very considerable; exclusive of loss and inconvenience to individuals, it cost the public several thousand pounds. Since the reform, the annual post revenue, in April 1798, had amounted to above 600,000l. Number of newspapers now annually sent by the London office only, above eight millions. Number of expresses to the whole kingdom, both for government and individuals, when last examined did not amount annually to 40. for the whole kingdom. As to expenses for apprehension and prosecution of mail robbers, although the coaches have now travelled above forty million of miles, not a single robbery has been committed, or a passenger insulted. The terms for the conveyance of the mails on the new plan, are 24,000l. per annum less than Mr. Palmer originally proposed and contracted for with government, and with a saving of 12,000l. per annum in the expenses of their conveyance by the old mode. session of those facts, I shall entreat their Having put the Committee in possesattention to an Opinion given upon a consideration of the whole case: Mr. Palmer having, by Memorial to the lords commissioners of the Treasury, requested performance of the agreement made with him,, on the faith of which he undertook the Postoffice reform, viz. "That if able to carry his plan into execution, he should have, during his life, 24 per cent on the future nett increase of the Post-office revenue, but not a shilling otherwise;" and the lords of the Treasury having declined acceding to such request, Mr. Palmer, agreeably to the opinions of his counsel, applied to the House of Commons, requesting an investigation of his claims and conduct; in consequence of which, a committee of that honourable House was appeinted, in April 1797, " to consider of the agreement made with Mr. Palmer for the reform and improvement of the Post-office and its revenue, and who were empowered to inquire into the cause of his suspension from the office of surveyor and comptroller-general of the Post-office, and were instructed to report to the House the evidence which should be received by them respecting the several matters referred to their consideration." The committee so appointed have, after an investigation which occupied thirteen days (exclusive of several adjournments for the purpose of receiving farther proof on either side) reported the evidence, which was ordered to be printed, and is left herewith for your perusal. And your Opinion is now desired, Whether such evidence has established Mr. Palmer's statement as to the agreement made with him, on the faith of which he undertook the Post-office reform; and whether he does not appear to have fully performed such undertaking and supposing him to have possessed the patent appointment for life, which was made out at the Treasury, and stopped in consequence of legal objections arising from the Post-office act (but if executed would have rendered him independent of the postmastergeneral) could any thing now proved against him have afforded sufficient ground to vacate such patent? OPINION. We have perused the evidence contained in the Report of the committee ap pointed to consider of the agreement made with Mr. Palmer, for the reform and improvement of the Post-office, &c. and we are of opinion, that by that evidence, the agreement as nsisted upon by Mr. Palmer, is proved; by which, as it was originally made, Mr. Palmer would have been entitled to the per centage upon the increase of the then nett revenue of the Post-office; and that by the agreement as after modified, he was entitled to 1,500l. a year, and a per centage upon the nett revenue exceeding 240,000l, a year. And we are of opinion, that Mr. Palmer has fully performed his part of the agreement, much to the advantage of the public. We are also of opinion, (which indeed it is impossible to doubt) that if a patent had been granted to Mr. Palmer, as originally intended, nothing which has since passed could have deprived him of the benefit of his agreement; because all that is imputed now to Mr. Palmer arises from mis understandings and disputes between the postmaster-general and him, and which could never have existed if a patent had been granted to him as originally intended, under which he would not have been in any respect dependent on the postmaster-general. We are also of opinion, that though by the appointment which was granted to Mr. Palmer, different from that originally intended, he was made subject to the control of the postmastergeneral (because, by the constitution of the Post-office, as established by act of parliament, no patent could be granted to him, by which he was to act independently of the postmastergeneral), yet there is nothing in the abovementioned evidence which ought to deprive him of the benefit of his agreement, nor which would in a court of justice have that effect. It is established by this evidence, that the public derived from Mr. Palmer's exertions all the benefit which he had held forth as likely to accrue from them; and that he acted with diligence, and with perfect integrity in the discharge of his duty. And although we do not approve of the letters written by Mr. Palmer to his deputy, Mr. Bonnor, which are the grounds for depriving Mr. Palmer of the benefit of his agreement, and we do not mean to say that a subordinate officer in any department ought not to behave with respect to his superiors, we think those letters are far from a sufficient ground to deprive him of that benefit. We also think it very doubtful whether a court of judicature would have thought that any attention ought to be paid to those letters, because they were written in confi. dence to his deputy, and under an impression (though probably ill-founded) that the postmaster-general were unfavourable to him, or from mistake, or misconception, were thwarting him or impeding him in his plan. And we think it appears from evidence, that the deputy who communicated those letters to the postmaster-general, and thus betrayed his private confidential correspondence was himself worthy of no credit, and acted a very blameable part in the transaction with White, as appears from the report. (Signed) J. Mansfield, T. Erskine, V. Gibbs, William Adam. 24th April, 1799. I shall trouble the committee no farther, only to say, that the private letters which were given in evidence, and which are referred to in the Opinion, although not to be defended upon the principle of cor rect propriety, can never weigh against an agreement completely executed with so much public advantage, and so far beyond public expectation. As the representative of a populous and manufacturing county, which, in common with the whole kingdom, daily experiences the benefit of Mr. Palmer's plan, I have felt it my duty to bring this business forward; |