The Sun.
London, England, 1812-02-26 00:00:00

OLD BAILEY.

Yesterday James Land was tried on an indiament
charging hint with .stealing a copper, the property
of William AI ton, and John Lloyd and Eleanor
Lloyd, father and daughter, 5t0,,:l also indicted for
receiving t!e same, knowing it to be stolen.
The prosecutor, it appeared, was a brazier, resid-
ing in the Harrow Road, and on the gth of January
last he placed the copper in question outside of his
door, from whence it was stolen in the course of an
hour. Some days subsequently the copper was
found on the premises of Lloyd, who keeps an old
iron shop in the Edgware Road, and from the evi-
dence of a woman named Sarah Balton, it turned
out that on the day when the copper was stolen she
was washing at Lloyd's house, and saw Land come
in. with a copper on his head, and having whispered
to Eleanor Lloyd, who was the only person at home
at the time, her father and mother being out, she
desired him to take it into the she,l in the yard,
where it was left. Sarah Balton observed to the
girl that she was sure the copper had been' stolen,
from the manner in which it had been brought,
and expressed her surprize that she should have re-
ceived it. Upon which Eleanor Lloyd Said," what
is that to you, mind your own businesi." In the
evening the father returned, and his daughter having
spoken to him, he immediately went out, it was
supposed, to meet Land, who was apprehended on
the Sunday following, secreted under a bed in his
uncle's house, at Brentford.

They were all found Guilty, but the Jury recom-
mended the girl to mercy, ore account of her having
aded under the influence of her father. She is only
13 years of age.
Same day the Sessions ended, when sentence of
Death was passed on Robert Green and Jtdrn Par-
ton, (or burglary ; Charles Wheeler, alia3 Walker,.
James Setree, and Edward Drone', for stealing a
heifer; Eliz'almth Buckley, Jane Bridger, David
Dickson, and Thomas Tomkins, alias Ekin Britten,
for stealing goods in a dwelling-house ; William
White, for returning from transportation ; and Ben.'
jamin Hitchcock, for secreting and stealing a letter
containing Bank notes.

Two were ordered to be transported for 14 years,
viz. John Cooper and William Stewart, l'wroty-
sev'en (or seven years, viz. Louisa Atherton, Wm.
Wells, John Wilson, Join Brownell, Abm. Nathan,
JO,eph Greaves, Jas. Dearing, Jonas Solomon, Thos.
Clark, Edward Evans, Wm. Nias, Thomas Happy,
Henry Feast, Henry Overton, Antonio Fianeisco,
Arthur Organ, Win. H.. Blaney, John Lloyd, Jas.
Land, Sarah Bone, Charlotte Jane Th,,rpe, Thomas
Jeffery, W-m. White, John Weller, John Green,
John Moreau, and Wrn. Bailey.

COrtN-EXCHANGE, FEB. 26.—This day we have
not many arrivals of Wheat, nor much of remain-
ing quantities, and fine samples obtain, somewhat
better prices; Barley in middling supply, and fully
supports its price ; Malt like ise ; Wohe Peas,
and Beans of the two ki,4s, at a very little• va-
riation ; there are lew fresh arrivals of. Oats, but
tolerable supplies on hand, and sales rather brisk at
a small increase in price; Flour this week is dearer,
s'.s. per sack.

Wheat -65 s a gos a zo6s Tick Deans (new) 411 s a 54s
Fine ditto - - zzSs a ixos Ditto (tine old) -55 s a 56s
Rye - - -52 s a 53s Oats - - sos a 345 a 38s
Barley - - sos a 58s Pot,:nd ditto 39s a 405
Malt - - 845 a 9.4 Potltoe ditto - 415 a 425
WhitePeascibbil.) 76s a azs Rape Seed - 601 a 661
Grey ditto -53 S a 63s tine Flour -95 s a loos
Roans . - 2i a 58s Secoills - . gos a gis

IMPERLIL PARLL4IIIENI.

HOUSE OF PEERS.

TUESDAY, rez. f.).

STRAFFORD PEERAGE.
"their Lordships, during the far greater part of
this day's sittings, were engaged in the further in-
vestigation of the claims to the Birony of Strafford,
in a Committee of PriVileges. Some debate arose
respecting the admissibility of a certain part of the
evidence, which, on the motion of the LORD
CHANCELLOR, was adjourned till Thursday. The
Committee then closed their proceedings, and the
House resumed:

The Bills upon the table, the whole of wbich were
nearly private or local, were forwarded in their re-
speet ive stages.
A variety of documents touching the operations
and etre& of the Orders in Council, were, on the
motion of the Earl of LAUDERDALE, ordered to be
laid before the House.

A part of these papers were forthwith presented
at thelegar, by Mr. Len oard, from the Privy Coun-
cil Office, and ordered to lie on the table.
Some Papers relative to certain pending Appeals
were presented at the Bar by Mr. Montgomery,
from the Courts of Chancery and Exchequer in
Ireland.

The House of Commons Officers Bill was read
a third time, and passed.
The second reading of the Nottingham Frame
Breaking Prevention Bill was postponed tilt Thurs-
dgy, in pursuance of the arrangement proposed iast
night. .

Alter. dispatching some judicial business, tll.2ir
Lordships adjourned till to-tuorrol,v.

ROUSE OF COMMONS.

TUESDAY, FEB. 25.
Ona motion for the 2(1 reading of the Cambridge
and Bishop Stortford Canal Ili!,
Sir J. SEBRIGHT opposed the motion, on the
ground that it bed not been attempted to prove
that this Canal would be of any public utility.
Colonel DUCKETT defended the Bill in a speech
of some length. He contended that the Canal
would be al great utility that there was scarcely a
farmer in the country who would not be benefited
by it, and he therefore hoped the House would al-
low it to go to a Committee.

Mr. CAIVERT was averse to the measure, and
thought there was no reason for entertaining the

Mr. BRAND spoke on the same side.
. .

Admiral HARVEY supported the Big ; and after
a few words from another Hon.- Member, the
House when the..numbers were—

For the second reading - 84
Against it - -

Majority

A Message from she Lords annonticed.their Lord-
ships' concurrence in the House of Commons Offi-
cers Bill, and several private Bills.

MR. WALSH.
Mr. BANKES rose, pursuant to notice, to more
for cettain papers relating to a Member of that
House, which were nece,sary for him to ground
the case on, whici► it was his intention to bring
lorward, and that complaint which he meant to
prefer. In the first place, he would move for " A
Copy of the Record of the Conviction of Mr. Walsh,
at the Old Bailey, of Felony." He would then
move in humble Address to the Prince Regent,
praying that he would be graciously pleased to
cause " A Copy of the Pardon which had been
granted to Mr. Walsh, together with a Copy of the
Judge's Letter, in consequence of which the Pardon
was granted, to be' laid before that Honourable
House. Here he thought it became him to say,
that the Pardon granted could not have been granted
to Mr. Walsh, but as it might have been granted to
any other individual. Whether Mr. Walsh had
been the highes: or the loixest person in the State,
whether he had been a Member of that House, or
one of the- meanest individuals out of doors, he
could only have been exempted from punishment
by a free pardon. The next parer he should call
for was, the Letter from Mr. Walsh to his brother
dated Dec. 5, 181 1, and produced at the Old Bailey.
on his trial, in which he confessed the offence w ith
which he had been Charged. He should also move,
that Mr. Jenkins, the Solicitor for the trial,
(paired to attend the House with the Letter which
he -had just mentioned. - fa addition to motions for
those papers, &c. the only proposition which he
should at present submit to the House was, " That
Mr. Walsh, a Member of that House, being now
at large, be. ordered to attend. in his place on Thurs 7
day next, to answer to the said complaint."
After a few Words from an Hon: Member,which
could ❑ot be diitintily heard in the gallery, the mo-
tions of the Right Hon. Gentleriaan were surerally
put 'and -carried ; and Mr. Walsh ordered to attend
.in his place on Tbursdiy next.

FRAUDS OF BANKERS.
Mr. DaummoND, after a few observations on the
law, as it now stands, respect to Bat4keri,
entrusted with the Money of,others, for special; pur-
poses, having set fOrth the inconveniences at present
felt and.the necessity of inflitaing severer. punish.
tent in cases where such money was improperly,
applied, moved for leave to bring in a Bill " for
more effettually preventing the embezzlement of
money, or other effe,•_ts, left or deposited with
Blnkers, Merchants, Attornies, Agents, Brokers,
and others, fur sale custody, or other special pur-
poses."

Mr. JOHN SMITH quite agreed with his Hon.
Fiiend in thinking that greater severity was called
fOr to punish that species of fraud against which
the Bill proposed to be brought in was direated.—
In innumerable inst:inces the public were obliged to
deposit their money with Bankers for safe custody
to a large amount. As the law at present stood,
the sums so deposited were unProtaled, and he
therefore thought great benefit might be hoped from_
the measure to be brought forward by his Hun.
Friend.

Mr. MORRIS. thought there was a singularly dis-
gusting anomaly in the law on this subjed as it at
present stood. The servant of the party entrusted
with money could be punished for a breach of oust;
while the master escaped with impunity. FM
(pined this anomaly would not altogether be rem,v.

ed by. the Bill to be brought in. He certainly did
not mean to oppose the motion, but he thought
many of the inconvenietices. at present complained
of might be traced to a watt- of caution i the par-
ties depositing their m ney, and Ire wouL: not
give
thetn. a penal statute to guard that whi, h w .11 pru-
dence they might guard themselves. They might
be discreet in the choice of their ba• ,ers, watch
over their condu&, and see that ,their securities
were forthcomin,,, and that would be more likely
to prevent the evil complained of, than the making
of it a capital offence. He tnou4ht there might be.
less objeCtion to making 'such an offenc a misde.
meanour; than to making it felony. The law pro-.
posed might have the effeet of, the parties deposit-
Mg money becoming more supine than they went
at present, more negligent instead of more diseteet,
He had always an objenbon to making laws on par-
ticular cases.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER SEl'd, with
respea to „the Hon. Gentleman's last 'argument,
there could be no difficelty in considering whether
the crime should be punished as a misdemeanour or
by transportation. He did not think the .A6t would
have the effe6t.of making individuals less discreet
than thevotherwise would be. If what had hap-
pened in the last year had not. awakened those de-
positing money to look after their own concerns,
he thought nothing would. The evil -would be
more repressed by the dread of punishment on the
parr of those to whom money was entrusted, than
it would be encouraged by the consequent n4i-
gence of those to whom it belonged. His Hon.
Friend ought •not to have been charged with fram-
ing an Ad on a particular case, The Bill proposed
to be brought in was not founded on the conduct
of Mr. Walsh, nor on any other recent case, Lut
on what had been complained of for years, and of
which the enormity of the.offence and the justice
of severely punishing it could not be denied.
Mr. HORNER agreed with the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman, that the measure. was not founded on a
particular case on the spur of the moment. It was
a law to meet that which had long called fora re.
mecly, if it was in the power of the Legislature to
supply an efficient remedy.' He doubted if the Bill
proposed to be brought in would supply such a re- -
medy„ In order to meet, the obieti of the 13,11, its
-provisions were. to extend to all sorts of pro-
perty entrusted • to all sorts of persons for ny
specific bust or puti:o'ic. Now w. e i it was
considered What large .sums were so deposited in
this country, it was important for the House to be
aware of the elle& that the Bill might have-on the
Courts of Equity„ If, in this respett, the Bitl were
not properly guarded, more, injury would be done
by its effe& on.Courte of Equity, than it could do
good in any other respett. •
Mr. A. BARINEI thought some measure of the
ea'ure of that proposed, was necessary; but a dif-
ference ought to be made between what was given
as a commercial trust, and what was placed in a
Banker's
,handt, ie.; a deposit, for sate custody ; be-
twten the case of him who left the property en-
trusted to hint to go with his own, in. a cute-•
mercial undertaking, and he who violated a par-
ticular trust, as had been done in the case of Mr.
:'alsh.

Mr. MANNING spoke in favour of the Bill, which,
he co►itended, was more intended to secure the
money deposited :or safe custody, than to operate
in any other case.

The que,,tion was then put, and leave given to
bring in the Btli.

Mr. DRUMMOND immediately brotaght it in. It
was read a first time, ordered to be printed, and to
be read a second time on Tuesday next.
PARISH REGISTERS.
Mr.RosE reminded the House of the steps he had
taken on the subject of Parish Registers in the last
Session ; he spoke at some length on the n:,,gligent
manner in which they were kept at present in most,
-parishes, slated several cases of great hardship aris-
ing therefrom, and in particular noticed the case of
the widow of a sailor, who, in consequence of her
inability to procure her husband's register, lost all
that was due to him when he died, from its being
claimed by his brother. The Right Honourable
Gentleman then proceeded to state the plan he
wished adopted, and concluded by moving, "for
leave to bring in a Bill for the better regulating Pa-
rish and other Registers."
Mr. BATHURST thought the object was a 'good
one, and ought to be supported, if it did not make
too violently against the feelings of individuals, The
Registers were at present a mass of confusion, and
required to be regulated.

Lord FOLKESTONE; upon the understanding that
the Bill was different from that of the last year,
said he should not oppose the bringing of it in. He
then stated the principal objedions to the former
Bill, which he thought accounted for the opposi-
tion it had met with. As to the evil intended ;o ha
remedied, it appeared to him that under the law,
even as it stood at present, the Bishops had the
means of enforcing regularity in their different dio-
ceses. If , the law .was not sufficient, it woulJ
better to give it additional vigour than resort to any
new eicperithent. He feared the present Bill -w;Js
intended as A source of revenue, it being, as he under-
stood, the intention to appoint a new Office with
two Clerks.

Mr. W. SMITH' regretted 'the ill blond that ap-
peared on the tormer occasion. No person, he
thought, who had had ary conversation With the
Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Rost) could susp.ct
Oleic -was any intention of making it a source -of
revenue. He strongly reprobated the idea that the
Bill was intended to favour Dissenters, and agreed
generally in the propriety of the Bill.
After a few words from Mr. D. GIDDY and Mr.
Rose, leave Was given.
Mr. WILSON gave notice that he would on Thurs-
day next, the sth of Match, move for 'elite to
bring in a Bill to amend the 26th of George 11. le-
hating to Orphan and Illegitimate Minors.

DROITS OF ADMIRALTY.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, he rose in consequence of
his notice to submit a motion on the subject of the.
Droits of Admiralty. When the same subject was
discussed on a former occasion, no Gentleman de-
nied that the House had a right to look into the ap-
plication of the Fund; on the contrary, the Chan-
cellor of ttie Exchequer had declared himself ready
to meet inquiry, and was desirous even to cowl •iis
It was in order to meet this challenge, that be (Mr.
B.) had brought the motion before the Housf.
He deemed it unnecessary for him in the outset of
this motion to ritake ab 7 &an ri

in the it:Stance .of -Parliament grants ; but if he
could shew from the papers belore. the House, that
there were many grants made from this Fund, the
reasons of which were not explained, he thought,
that would afford a sufficient ground to require fur-
ther and more minute inquiry. He divided these
cases into,four classes, The first included sums
paid, but not indisputably so, upon the shewing of
the accounts to the captors of prizes. The second,
sums paid apparently for the same purpose, but.af-
fording reason to thlok that they were not so ap-
plied. The third, sums paid without any grounds
being stated; and the fourth, sums issued for vari-
ous services, which bad no relation whatever to the
nature of the fund. He then proceeded to quote
instances in illustration, according to those dis-
tillations. He did not deny that large sums
were justly issued to the captors, on many occa-
sions very prudently and justly ; but lie submitted
to the House that preferences have been shewn in
many. He then-mentioned the case of Joseph Al-
' cock, Esq. and, various Commanders, who in the
year 1810 received 250,0001. without. the appoint-
ment of Commissioners; as in other cases, to exa-
lt:sine the justice of the claims. He did not say the
grants were.improper, but they were tint made in a
proper_ way, and he thought the only inquiry that
could be instituted was by a Committee above stairs.
He did not mean to throw any blame upon those
who paid or those who received the pay,- but as
doubts must heentertamed on the subjea, he thought
it right that they should be cleared up. It was usual
to remunerate those who had not succeeded in the
condemnation of the prizes and among them he
should enumerate the compensation of 18,0001. and
20,0001. to Lord Keith, whom he belieYed to be as
honourable a man as any living, for the, American
vessels seized by him, but not condemned. He was
sure the Courts of Justice here made no distinction
between American and English patties, but if any
thing was calculated to countenance such clamours
es existea on a hat subje&, it was indemnifications of
this sort, which he was sure could be satisfactorily
, explained, and which ought to be explained. •He
therefore gave this opportunity to Government to
justify itself by a select Committee above stairs.—
When a charge of this kind was made against a
Right Honourable Friend of his (Mr. Arbuthnot),
on a former nigh he came oown to. the House in a
snarly manner, and explained all the items; in the
same manner, he thought, would those, to whose
cases he alltided, wish for inquiry and explanation.
He next adverted to the cased Rear-Admiral Louis,
who was indemnified in the same manner. The
ins-
pression which such statements must make on neu-
trals would be most unfavourable to the character
of the country. • He knew a private case which had
happened in the year 1799 or 1800, of a prize named
Circe being taken by a privateer named Daphne, the
value was -30,0001. and the, vessel was condemned.
Afterwards, however, the privateer being informed
against for having infringed the Prize Al, by not
not mostering a proper-number of men, the whole
was paid into the Droits of the Crown, and the
. parties saddled with heavy costs, insomuch that Mr.
Jacob, the Commander, was ruined, his share of the
expence amounting to 17001. The information was
not give by one of the harpies.of Westminster Hall,
but by a Reverend Gentleman of the Church of
England, who being reduced to the state of the pri-
mitive Christians by poverty, commenced a reverend
informer, for which he was rewarded with the sum,
according to the papers on the table, of 5,7781. He
afterwards received 1,6171. for similar exertions.—
He then reprobated the characters of the, two wit-
nesses brought forward in the case of Jacobs, and
maintained that no distinction should be drawn be-
tween it and Sir Home Popham, who received from
the Treasury a grant of 21,0001. An attempt was
imputed to Jacobs to smuggle some • tobacco on
shore, but Sir Home Popham , was charged with
smuggling chests of tea ; and- the only diffetence
that he knew between both was, that Jacobs was
not on board wherethe attempt was made, .and Sir
Home Popham was. It would he endless to enter
into all the clses, and improper, as they were not
'fit matter of inquiry here, where evidence could not
be produced to satisfy the doubts of individuals. In
the second class he would notice a sum of 9321. to
Sir William Scot', for his services in deciding the
*cases of American captures. He was'sure this could
be cleared up, but it was liable to perversion in Ame-
rica. The whole wealth of India he was confident
could riot influence the Right Hon. Judge in -any
deei‘,ion whatever ; but would all in Boston and
Philadelphia give him the same character, or
• pace the same dependence on his integrity ? The
expenses he (Mr. B.) was sure ought to be, paid,
but in another manner. A bare explanation in that
House was nut sufficient ; the -items should be in-.
Testigated by a Committee above stairs. He next
noticed the case of Sir George Young, who receiv-
ed 22541. for a capture while Governor at the Cape
of Good Hope ; of the Earl of Dunmore; who re-
f Laved e 7921. ; and of Major-General Keppel, who
tad been remunerated by a large sum taken
from the same fund. He proceeded to-the third
cast, viz. sums of which there was no account;
the first of these was 'on the 19th of June, 1897, to
Captain Spencer. There was also a sum of 13,0001.
and subsequently a sum of 19001. to the Commis-
oonera foe managing the Portuguese property. It
ought tobe explained why this was not. paid out of
the property itself. There was an item of 2191.
:o a Turkish subject for compensation for injulies
sustained by him at. Copenhagen, while at the same
time the claim of British subjects, under similar cir-
cumstances, to the amouut of 250,0001. were reject-
ed,- 'The last class related to those grants wholly un-
connected with the sources whence the fund was du-
.The largest of these were the grants to the
ou n ge r branches of the Royal Family. Previously
to the augmentation in 1806; of the allowances to
the junior branches of the Royal- Family, it appeared
that in the course of one month no less a' sum than
75,0001. had been granted to them out of the Droits,
and subsequently, that. no less a sum than 70,5001
bad also been granted to them out of the same
Droits. But it
.was a most extraordinary citcum-
stance, that while the Bill for increasing their al-
lowances was in progress through Parliament, the
sum of 60001. was granted out of the Droits of the
Admiralty to tl'e Duke of Kent. A Noble Friend
of Lis was Minister at that ,period, and it was but
justice due to him that this grant should be satisfac-
totlly explained, which no doubt it could be. When

the till alluded to was .passed, the buite- of V.OiA
was not comprehended in its provistrns, on th estate-
ment, that frOin his office as Commander iv Chief,
and from other emoluments, he derived an income
of 26,000,). 'Vet, io'lBoa,-- when his Royal High-
ness still retained those offices,. it appeared that he
received out of the Droits no less a sum than 20,0091.
On .the whole it appeared, that to the different
branches of the Royal Family 184,0001. had been
granted out of the Droits of the AdMiralty ; and he
could not make this statement without lamenting•
that those illustrious individuals had not found it
possible, in common with •the other classes of the
community (many of whom were oppressed with
burdens almost intolerable), to keep their expellees
within their incomes. There was a grant of 7 or
8001. to Captain-Temple, to'defray the expeoces of
a prosecution for the murder of a seaman, of which.
alleged crime Captain Temple had been acquitted ;
no doubt most satisfatiorily; But if this •was a pro-
per grant, why not extend a similar grace to (Fliers
who had equal claims. For instance, Captain Tom-
linson, a, very gallant Officer, who was tried for
forgery at the Old Bailey, about 18 months No.—
No sooner had the case been opened, than Itstice-
Le Blanc declared that he must be instantly acquit-
ted, which he . was, therefore, most honourably.--
Captain Tornhuson's charattee stood as high, after
this service, as ever. He had since been promoted.
Bet he had in vain endeavoured to obtain from this
fund the expences, amounting to near too-01. which
he had sustained in consequence of. his prosecution.
The cases of Captain Temple and Captain Tomlin-
son might possibly be quite: dissimilar ; but this
ought to be strewn before a Committee of Inquiry.—
These were the various grounds on which he
upon the House to- appbint a Committee. He asked
it on the part of the individuals who seemed to be
placed in suspicious circumstances ; he asked it on
the part of the different administrations, who ap-
peared to have lent themselves to the purposes of
those individuals ; he,asked it on the part •of the
country, as the relations of Great Britain with Fo-
reign Powers was ie3plicated ; and he asked it on
the part of the 'constituents of that House,' who
were entitled to 'know the exati appropriation of
the public money. Ile concluded by moving;
" That a Selea Committee be- appointed to in-
quire into the application of the various sums
received as Droits of the Cro.vn and DrOitS of Ad-
miralty, and to report the same to the House."

The CfrANCELLOR of the -EXCHEQUER Was sure
that the House would not think that the paper
which had beep produced on the motion of the
Honourable and Learned Gentleman, exhibited a
sufficient appearance of abuse to:wirrant the ap-
pointment of the proposed Committee, Most of the
cases alluded to by the Honourable and Learned.
Gentleman had nothing in them, and the Ho-
nourable and Learned Gentleman's observations
arose from the state of ie'aorance in which he can-
didly professed himself to be on the subject. But
was it a just ground for a Committee that an Hon.
Member did not happen to know what he was talk-
ing about He would explain to the House briefly,
and from recollection, the circumstances of some
of these cases. The first was the sum 'of 269,0001.
paid to Mr. Alcock -for the Merchants trading to
Spain. Nothing could be more easily explicable.
Various Merchants trading to Spain had their pro-
perty sequestrated there. By the Treaty of Amiens,
the Spanish Government consented to make good
their claims. War however broke Rut before that
could be done, a war originating in the capture of.
some Spanish frigates ; and out of the proceeds of
those identical frigates it had been thought just by.
Governmeet to satisfy the claimants. Another item
to which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman alluded,
was the sum of 54,0001. paid to several Comman-
ders, for ships that had been captured and taken
into Cape Nichola Mole. • The lads were these :
A, Court of Prizes had been erected at Cape Ni-
chela'Mole, which was composed of Captains of the
Navy, which considering itself legal, condemned
certain prizes brought in there. On an appeal how-
ever to this country, the Court was declared illegal,
and the sentences null. Of course no c'nidemna-
tion took place, and this grant was for the purpose
of repairing to the captors the loss which they would
otherwise have sustained. Was this an abuse of the.
fund ? The next case was that of Lord Keil h. Had
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman been at that pe-
riod a Member of the ,Profession, he would have
known that the detention of the American ship by
Lord Keith was a subjed• that involved as much
legal disquisition as any that - had ever occurred.—
Lord Keith thought he had a good right to detain
the ship at the Cape. of Good Hope. The Captain
being sullen at his detention, took no care of her,
and she was totally lost. A suit -was commenced
against the Underwriters, who were cast ; they, in
turn, obtained damages from Lord Keith, and
Government very propeily determining that Lord
Keith should not be ruined by this transaction,
gave Dim the sum which appeared in the pa-
per. With respad to the grant to the Clergy-
man- vilio had given information of the Made--
quate force of 3 privateer, it was well known that.
the law considered it a grave offence, punish-
able with a fine of tool. and a year's imprisoment,
for the Captain of a privateer not to have a force
equal to that for which be had contraded with Go-
vernment in his letters of marque. In this case the
privateer was so circumstanced ; not only, there
fore, did the capture belong to the Crown, but the
Captain was also in the state of a culprit. The per-
son by whom the information was given was as-
suredly entitled to the reward which had been as-
signed him. There was one point adverted to by
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, the exa& state
of which he wished the' House d:stiu&ly to under-
stand. It was the grant of 9001. to Sir William
Scott, for deciding certain" causes. The Honour-
able and Learned Gentleman had said, that this
might go over to America, and' that it might
there be supposed, however, unjustly, that this
money was paid to- Sir William Scott, fur. the
purpose of influencing him in his decisions.—
The fa6l was, that these were not decisions in
in the High Court of Admiralty ; but that they
were decisions by reference of a vast variety of cases
of American claims, so referred, for the purpose of
sawing the claimants trouble and expense. Sir
Scett was the British referee, and his Hon.
and *Learned Friena near him the American refer-
ree ; the latter had been paid
.by the Americans,

149NDON : Printed by THOMAS WOOD, of No. 35, Maiden-lane, Covent.garcien;
fkt the Syg QUIGS, No, lig, &ram!, where 4ityerii.se-piepts, Orders

„ .
the former by tbd grant which had called forth the
Hon. and.. Learned,--Gentleman's animadversions.
With respect to -the Portuvese Commissioners, he
was sure the House would feel, from the peculiar
circumstances of the ease, that those'expenses could
not not be paid out of the property. As to the
Danish claims, no doubt they were cases of consider-
able hardship, as all those, must be in which indivi-
duals Suffer by the wars in which their country is
engaged. On investigation, however, it appeared
that these claims were, not of a nature which would
justify, the required satisfaEtion, and ro thew that,
Government had no sinister view 'on the _sub-
jea,every shilling of the drOits accruing from the
expedition to Copenhagen had been given -to the
captors. He was sure that the Howie would not
coincide the Hon._ aed Learned Gentleman in
the view which he took of the 'grants that had been
made out of the droits to the various branches of
the Royal Family. This-fund, being under his _Me-
jesty's controul, his Majesty bad thought proper to
apply-it to relieve these branches from embarrass-
ment'when required. It was merely a case in which
a parent exercised a Clisp. sition to assist a child out of
a;fUnd belonging to himself. ' If that did not appear
justifiable to the Honourable and Learned Geetle-
man, he would have quite as much ground to argue
on the subjea at present, as if an inquiry were gone
into upon Next came the case of Captain
Temple, - This circumstance occurred the year be-
ford lie came into Government ; but he had no
doubt that the grant was made to Captain Temple,
because. the circumstance which occasioned the ex-
pence grew out of the discharge of his duty. But
did it follbw that the claim of Capt. Tomlinson, or
of any other Officer, must necessarily be granted in '
the same
,way ; The Hots. and L-arned Gentleman
said, that at the opening of Capt Tomlinson's
the Judge declared that a verdict must be -found of
acquittal. This struck hire differently from the
mode in
.which it seemed to strike the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman. From all his experience in
the Courts of Justice, it appeared to him th.rt Cap-
tain Tomlinson must have been
_acquitted, not on
the merits of the case, but in consequence of some
defeEt in the iediament. -Let that 'hoWever be as
it might, if the alleged offence was not supposed to
be committed in the discharge of his duty, Caplan)
Tornlinson's case was not, at all analogous to that
of-Capt. Temple. He would not refer to Sir H.
Popham's case, because on that Parliament had
already pronounced a decision. But it was whim-
sical to hear the Honourable and Learned Gen-
'tleman, who condemned the grant made to
Sir Home Popham; instance a case of claim,
which he describes as nearly similar in chataCter,
and then condemn Government for not having at-
tended -to it This was a kind of double-handed
stroke which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had
made :—You-lave granted, yon are wrong—You
have-not granted, still you are wrong. He-bad now
gone through most of the cases touched upon by
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, and shewn that
the charge of a misapplication of the fund was
wholly unfounded. If the Hon. Gentleman wished
for further information in the shape of papers, he
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had no objection
to their produaion ; but he was persuaded that the
House would agree with him in thinking that no
grounds had been laid for the appointment of a Com-
mittee. The House of Commons had abundant
business without the multiplication of unnecessary
Committees, the increase of which in late years had
already become a most serious evil.
Mr. BROUGHAM, in explanation, distinctly dis-
claimed the slightest. intention of imputing to Sir
William Scott the least improptiety of conduct ;
but he-blamed the mode. in which the -item was
described in the paper. With respect to the con-
duct of Government towards • Sir Home Popham
arid the other individual whom he had mentioned,
all he had said was, that as theiir cases were the
same, it ought to be Aplained why their treatment

was d
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated the facts in the
case of Lord Keith in the same way as that in which
they had been stated by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer. He -then proceeded, to the best of his
recollection, to 'detail those .in the case of Cap-
tain Tomlinson. Captain Tomlinson's vessel had
been repaired at Dartmouth. The person by whom
it had been repaired, a man of tile name of Tanner,
became a bankrupt, and by his books it appeared
that his charges were much lees than thbse made to-
the Admiralty. It was discovered that these last

were forged. Two bills of indianient were, in con-
sequence; found, the one against Tanner, the other
against Capt. Tomlinson. On opening the prose-
cution against Tanner, it appeared that the forgery
had not strictly been committed in the county ill
which in the indiCtinent it i.vaslaid to be committed.

'Ehe consequence was, that the Judge diredei the
acquittal of Tanner, and the inditiment against
Capt. Tomlinson being under, .11).: 'same circum-
stances, his prosecution was also abandonttd.
Mr. EIBRBERT (of Kerry), .bote the highest tes-
timony to the character of Captain Temple, than

whom, a more humane and honow able man did nut

exist. On his trial, there dirt not aprear the slightest
ground-to suppose, that the man of Whose murder
he was accused, had died in consequence of the pu-

nishment *flitted upon him. A fever was the
evident Callie of his death, and the Judge in this
case diretted the immediate, acquittal of Captain
Temple.
Mr. CRO'KER observed, that the lion, and Learned
Gentleman declared that Capt..Tomlinson had been
most honourably acquitted. Without giving any
opinion on the tuer►ts of Captain Tomlinson, he

•
must say that the Hon. Gentleman's statement Was
altogether fallacious. Capt. Tomlinson had, com-
manded one of his Majusty's ships, which it'be-
came necessary to repair at Dartmouth. The bill
- [trade for the repairs done was utterly false, being
enormously higher than the expen,es actually in-
curred. This bill, it was alleged, that Capt. Tom,
linson had countersigned, by w hick it was rerhtered
payable at the Navy Board. When presented by
the Shipwright, after the lapse of a con,lderable pe-
riod, it was found to be either a forgery or a fraud.
—For this offence, the: Shipwright and Captain
Tomlinson were indi&ed in Ml.illesex, as hav-
ing commiatd it in Middlesex. The Shipwright
was convi&ed ; but on the opening- of the trial of
Capt. Toallirlso,n, the Judge obss-rved that there
might have been ,1/44. collusion in Devonshire, but.