The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1803-03-29 00:00:00

4.- -mgr.-

therm TAR 4S:tc would 1i tie Cotiseauctue,:frels
should rentain upon their barb, and glom.. be
produced as a precedent He asked, what would
then become of the fights ex elettions, iii support of
which so many provisions had been made ?
fie
hoped and trusted the house would rescue itself
from the disgrace of such a proceeding.
The question was then put for the Motion to be
withdrawn, and immediately negatived.'
The next question was, that James Trotter be
called to the bar, in order to be discharged ;
which
was also negatived, almost unanimously.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
then moved, that the Minutes of the Proceedings of
the Dunfermline Committee, as far as regarded the
summoning of James Trotter, be laid halve the
House.
Mr. TIERNEY thought this would not he suf-
ficient. With regard to the summons only, it was
sufficiently proved by the Report.
Mr. S. DUNDAS said, he must objet to the
produaion of ex pare evidence given in the absence
of the prisoner. If they empiired into corruption
on the one side, they should also enquire into it cn
the other.
Mr. TIERNEY di-xi:limed any idea of having
evidence brought forwa: d, with a view to proving
corruption, or to revise or investigate the proceed-
ings of the Committee. And proposed, as an amend-
ment, to add the words—" as far as they relate to
the conduct of Mr. Trotter."
The Lord ADVOCATE of SCOTLAND (in
his maiden speech) contended that the report of the
Committee was no more than prima facie evidence,
which could not authorise the infliction of punish-
ment. Suppose ..`.fr. Trotter, instead of confessing,
had denied the whole of the charge, and put him-
self upon the issue, he would wish to know by what
analogy or law of the British consitution could they
pettish the defendant ? It was now proposed to
punish Mr. Trotter, and to aggravate an offence by
other accusations, which the Committed had not
charged upon him. As to what had been said of
his offering a bribe of five hundred pounds, the
louse had nothing to do with it. If the Committee
had believed that evidence, it was to be presumed,
that they would have made it a subjea of accusation
against they
or at least would have applied ao the
I muse for leave to adjourn, till Trotter could he
found, as such testimony might infallibly have gone
to affea the scat of one of the candidates. To
try Mr. Trotter now for perjury, he considered as
anomalous, in the laws Of England, that Trotter
should incur all the circumstances he had noticed
upon a charge of bribery.
Mr. HOBHOUSE said the present objet was
not to lay a foundation thr a charge of bribery, but
to discover the reason why the contempt was prac-
tised.
Lord GLENI3ERVIE was strenuously for going
so far into the enquiry, as related to any thing that
could throw a light upon the motives of the pri-
soner, for witholding his attendance.
Mr. W. DUN DS contended, that it would be
unfair, as the evidence alluded to was nut given in
the presence of the Defendant.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
obviated this difficulty, by observing, that it could
affea the prisoner in nothing else but his contempt
of the warrant.
Mr. SHERIDAN adverted to what was said of
the Committee, not having believed what was stated
by witnesses upon oaths. But if the evidence should
prove Trotter to have been a mere agent, and af-
terwards to have absented himself—when this was
compared with his defence, it might prove his mo-
tives; though not aggravate the fail.
Mr. TIERNEY said, that if the evidence was
thought to go in aggravation, so may the prisoner
in mitigation if he could. For instance, if he could
prove, that at the same time he received the Speak-
er's warrant, he knew there was an attorney looking
out to execute a writ upon him, it would certainly go
something in the way of mitigation.
Mr. BR AGGE said, there was already ground
for a greater punishment than that proposed by the
Noble Lord (Euston) ; but when more aggravating
circumstances appeared, it was right, at least, to exa-
mine into them. The prisoner himself acknow-
ledged, that he would have come, had he known
that he would have been punished for staying away ;
but it should be a great aggravation, if, after saying
that it should appear that, as a principal agent, he
had known that the offence was punishable.
Thee
prisoner would have, if he pleased, an opportunity
of applying to the House to send for witnesses to
enable him to repel any aggravating circumstances ;
but at all events he meant to submit to have his case
judged of by the whole of what was against him.
Mr. SHERIDAN explained that his wish for
looking into the minates was nor to aggravate the
offence, but to discover the reason of his unwilling-
ness to attend.
Mr Wm. DUNDAS also explained that his rea-
son for objeaing to the ex parte evidence was chiefly
that it might Implicate the charatier of the sitting
Member without giving him at least an opportunity
to rebut it.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL thought the
question to be whether the prisoner wilfully absented
himself or not. Ile had no conception of aggrava-
tion without guilt, and could not find deeper guilt
without aggravating the punishment.
The Question was then put on the amended Mo-
tion for the pt odution of the Minutes, as far as they
related to the condua of Trotter, and agreed to.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said, he rose in consequence of notice, to move for
a Committee to enquire int, the expenditure of the
United Kingdom for a certain period. Ile thought
it highly important this subject should be thorough-
ly understood. His motion was, that it should be
referred to a Select Committee to enquire into the Ex-
penditure of the United Kingdom, from the sth
January, 1801, to the sth January, 1803, and that
the and Committee should report their opinion to
the House.—Agreed to.
The LORD MAYOR postponed his Motion re-
specting the Tonnage Duty till after the Easter re-
cess.

MIMI SALT DUTY.

General GASCOIGNK rose, in pursuance of his
Notice, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to
equalize by Weight the Bushel imported to that
Part of the United Kingdom called Ireland. He
stated, that notwithstanding the Aet of 4th Annc,
c. 14, by which it was.enafted, that all salt, sold
retail or wholesale, by the bushel, there was a dif-
ference in. imposing the duty on salt imported from