defcribing the hardships and cruelties fuftained by her huf band; it also comes out that this letter was written, not by Madame Defpard, but by a friend. He would not say that it was written by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtenay), for he had seen some of his writings, and he might affure the hon. Gentleman that the letter in question was as far fuperior to his literary productions, as it was above the former epiftolary specimens of Mrs. Defpard. The whole of the contents of that letter has now been completely contradicted, and those who so confidently brought it forward, were so completely confuted, brought to fhame and ridicule, that he was fure they would not venture to restate it again. He had, however, ftill to hope from the prudent caution of the hon. Gentleman, that whatever his private creed might be, he would not expofe it to the examination of his hon. Friend (Mr. Wilberforce), on such subjects as were better to remain filent here, and he would advife the hon. Gentleman to keep his humanity for Smith and Binns, his religion for Newgate, and his jokes for the hackney coachmen.

The House then proceeded to refolve itfelf into a committee on the bill, when on the motion that the speaker do leave the chair,

Mr. Courtenay rofe again, and contended, that not one fact adduced by him had been difproved; it evidently appeared that the prisoners had been confined in cells fuch as had been described, and that they were immured in a prison which was only intended for convicted felons, and not for ftate prisoners.

The Attorney General said, that when he first heard the propofition, that two negatives made an affirmative, his mind was greatly puzzled indeed; but he was as much aftonished when he heard the hon. Gentleman affert that, though every body denied what he advanced, ftill nobody contradicted it; but he must only fuppofe that the hon. Gentleman wifhed to fay fomething that might enable him to join in the laugh at himself.

Mr. Courtenay and Mr. Wilberforce feverally explained, after which the Houfe went into the committee on the bill, in which it was agreed that the bill fhould remain in force till the 21st of May, 1799. The report was then ordered to be received the next day.

The Secretary at War brought up accounts relative to the fupplementary militia and feveral voluntary corps, as far as the fame can be brought up.

The bill for enlarging the time for the merchants of St.

Vincent's

Vincent's and Grenada making inftalments on money ad vanced to them, was reported with amendments, and ordered to be read a third time the next day, if engroffed.

MILITIA EXEMPTION BILL.

The Houfe afterwards refolved itself into a committee on the bill for exempting perfons ferving in volunteer corps from being ballotted into the fupplementary militia. A fhort converfation arofe in the committee between Mr. Yorke, Mr. Burdon, and Mr. Dundas.

Mr. Yorke was fearful that feveral perfons might take improper means in order to obtain this exemption, which would tend much to injure the militia fervice.

Mr. Burdon highly commended the activity of Mr. Dundas in putting the country in fuch an excellent state of defence, but in his opinion our attention to the defenfive force of the country fhould not prevent us from training up an offenfive force which might as effectually contribute to our defenfive ftrength.

Mr. Dundas faid that he had provided fome new claufes that would do away all the apprehenfions of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Yorke): he was likewife happy to hear the obfervation thrown out by another hon. Member (Mr. Burdon) refpecting the propriety of providing an offenfive force; and it was his fincere with that Gentlemen would turn that obfervation feriously in their minds, as it might be proper, hereafter, to come to fome refolution upon it. He would now only remark upon one advantage that would evidently arife out of it. The French, from their plans of agrandizement, had got poffeffion of an immenfe tract of coast, which muft neceflarily be very vulnerable in many points, with an offenfive force of 15 or 20,000 men, we might be enabled so to harrafs and annoy them, that to counteract this force they would be under the neceffity of keeping no lefs than 100,000 men to protect their coaft. Thus an offenfive force would effentially encrease our defenfive ftrength and internal fecurity--but this fubject would foon, he hoped, be more fully and materially confidered.

The new claufes were then read and agreed to; the report was received and ordered to be printed, and to be taken into further confideration the next day.

The other orders of the day were then difpofed of, and the House adjourned.

HOUSE

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

THURSDAY, DEC. 27.

On the Motion of Mr. Manning the fecond reading of the Merchants Wet Dock Bill, which ftood for this day, was poftponed to Tuesday the 5th of February.

On the Motion of Alderman Sir II'. Anderson, the second reading of the bill brought in by the Corporation of London, for making Wet Docks, which flood for the next day, was poftponed to Thursday the 7th of February.

Mr. Shaw Lefevre gave notice, that after the holidays it was his intention to move for the repeal of the Acts of Parliament, both as they related to England and Scotland, which reftrained the fhooting of partridges from the 1ft of September to the 14th; and likewife to extend the period of fhooting partridges from the 1ft of February to the 12th.

Mr. Dent gave notice of his intention to move for leave to bring in a bill to remove certain doubts refpecting the place of holding the quarter feffions in the county of Lancaster.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr. Tierney faid, he now rofe to complain to the House of a breach of privilege. No man could with more than he did that the utmoft publicity fhould be given to the proceedings of the House. He was ready to make every allowance for the inadvertencies and inaccuracies which appeared in the reports which were published in the newspapers of the proceedings of the Houfe, defects neceffarily arifing from the hafte with which they were made up. He was convinced that in these reports there was no defign ftudiously to milreprefent what was faid, as it was the intereft of the editors that their accounts fhould be as correct and perfect as possible; and, as far as he could find, there was an endeavour in all the papers to give as fair a statement, and as near the truth, as the memory of the perfons concerned enabled them to do. There was a material diftintion to be made, however, between the cafe when errors crept into a report haftily drawn up, and another which appears feveral days after, and profeffes to be a more accurate account. In the committee on the Income Bill last Saturday. an expression had dropped from him refpecting what had been reported to have been done by a certain perfon to avoid the payment of the affeffed taxes, and was taken up with more warmth by fome perfons than he imagined it deferved. To the right hon. VOL. I. 1798.

X x

Gen

Gentleman oppofite, however, it did not feem to have given that offence which others had taken, for in what he had obferved upon the fubject, the right hon. Gentleman had conducted himfelf with a temper, a candour, and propriety, the kindness of which he deeply felt. Some Gentlemen called for the name of the perfon alluded to in fuch a way as induced him (Mr. Tierney) to fay that nobody had a right to call upon him to name the perfon. In the courfe of the obfervations he had happened to mention a rumour which was in general circulation, that a certain perfon, an acquaintance of the right hon. Gentleman, had avoided the payment of his affelfed taxes. The right hon. Gentleman, with an anxiety to juftify his friend, which did him the highest honour, afterwards faid, that the allufion must have been to the perfon lately appointed to the office of Poftinafter General, and if the allufion was to that perfon. ftated that nothing could be more deftitute of foundation. To this he (Mr. Tierney) had faid, that after what the right hon. Gentleman had ftated, fhould the Houfe hear nothing farther from him on the fubject he certainly was wrong; and he understood that, in this way, nothing more was neceffary to be faid of the matter. This converfation was differently reported in the different newfpapers; four days after the debate had taken place, and after a previous one had been given, appeared another account, profefling to correct the other reports which had been published. To this account was prefixed the name of the right hon. Gentleman, to attract more attention. After which followed what pretended to be a correct ftatement of what had paffed, in which no lefs injuftice was done to what the right hon. Gentleman had faid, than to what he himself had faid, inter fperfed with political remarks, calculated to injure individuals, and to inflame animofities. Of thefe remaiks he was not difpofed to take any notice, for to fuch things he was too much accuftomed; but the account of what paffed was inaccurately flated. This reporter had not fairly stated either the right hon. Gentleman or himfelf. It did not ftate that the right hon. Gentleman had faid, that if allufion was made to the perfon who lately was appointed Puft Mafter General, he could inform the Houfe that it was utterly unfounded, and that he (Mr. Tierney) had faid, that if the House heard nothing more from him on the fubject, they would take it for granted that he was wrong, and that the matter was at an end. There was another thing which was fingular in the appearance of this corrected report. The

Times

Times was not only a paper in great circulation, but likewife had a number of advertifements; and therefore three columns of that Paper would juftly be confidered to be worth a confiderable fum of money. He thought it highly probable, therefore, that the Editor of the Times would not have facrificed fo much of his Paper, unless fome perfons had thought it worth while to pay him well for the infertion of the account. So far as regarded himself, he was not affeed by the statement. He thought it was a thing which more concerned the House itself, than any individual. Confidering that four days had elapfed between the time when the debate took place and the infertion of this article, and the manner in which it was given, when it was evidently a deliberate attempt to call the attention of the public to what might have been forgotten, he thought that it became the Houfe itfelf to take notice of it.

The Speaker obferved, that if the hon. Gentleman intended to draw the attention of the Houfe regularly to the fubject, there were feveral modes of proceeding. He might complain of the breach of privilege committed by the printer of the paper in queftion, in publishing any account of the ceedings of the Houfe at all, and the aggravation of having mifreprefented what a member had faid. There was an order on the journals in the year 1771, in which this mode of proceeding had been followed.

pro

Mr. Tierney faid, he thought it concerned the honour of the House itself more than any individual, and to them he thought it rather belonged to act upon it. He thought he ought to have their affiftance, rather than to be checked in bringing it under confideration. There certainly was a mifreprefentation of what had paffed, both in the statement given of what had been faid by the right hon. Gentleman, and what had been faid by himfelf.

The Speaker fail, that as there was an exprefs order of the Houfe prohibiting the publication of thefe precedings, it would be neceffary to mark both the breach of privilege in publishing the report at all, and next the aggravation in mifreprefenting what had been said by a member, if that was complained of. The latter part could not be taken up without the former. If a complaint was made, the form of proceed ing in the year 1771 probably would be followed.

Mr. Tierney faid, that he did complain of the mifreprefen

tation.

The Speaker then faid, the form would be to complain, that

X x 2

in