should take them up immediately. The noble lord continued to argue in favour of the motion; and urged every possible union with the western world, now that the tyrant of the globe had so completely cut off our connection with the Continent.

The Earl of Liverpool said, that when once a principle of action was laid down, it ought not lightly to be renounced. The noble earl had never made the admission that the acquiescence of neutrals was necessary to justify our retaliation of the hostilities of enemies he had always contended for retaliation, and thought that neutrals ought to call upon the original aggressors. The order of the 7th of January was therefore to be defended upon the broad principle of the decrees of France, and the right of Engfand to retaliate them. It was impossible to read the cor respondence before the House, and say that America displayed a disposition to act fairly and impartially between the two belligerent powers. The proposition made by Mr. Pinkney, was this:-Should France repeal, or satis→ factorily explain, her decrees, to America, the continuation of our orders was to be construed into war: should -Britain repeal all her orders, the president would in a reasonable time revoke the embargo. Thus the same pro position was not held out to the two belligerents, but the balance of favour was greatly on the side of France. As to our colonies, it had always been considered that they could not subsist, not only without intercourse with Ame rica, but without that intercourse being carried on in American ship ing. It had been found, however, that they not only had existed without both of these, but had thriven. The exports of manufactures from England had been greater every where but to America; and that they had not been so there, was the consequence not of the embargo, but of the non-importation act. The revenue too had greatly increased, instead of diminished; but it was said that the year from which this increase was calculated was not a fair criterion, as it contained a quarter during which the orders had not been issued. The noble earl was very much mistaken, however, if this quarter was not the most productive of the whole four quarters.

Lord Grenville replied to the observations of the noble lords who had opposed his motion throughout the whole debate.

The Earl of Liverpool said a few words in explanation,

The House, then divided on the motion of Lord Gren

ville;

Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

FRIDAY, FEB. 17.

IRISH PECULATORS.

Sir John Newport rose, pursuant to his notice of yesterday, to move for leave to bring in a bill to render the embezzlement of public money, by any collector, agent, or other person entrusted to receive the same, felony without benefit of clergy. Not anticipating any objection to the bill, he felt it unnecessary to trouble the House at any length now. He found, so long since as the 29th of his late majesty, a bill had passed, to render it felony without benefit of clergy, for any person employed in the collection of public monies in Ireland, to embezzle any sum above 501. That bill, however, had become obsolete, and was not sufficient to answer the objects of this bill, which was to carry the law further, and to reach the principal as well as the deputy officers entrusted with the receipt of the public money. He therefore moved for leave to bring in the bill. v

The Speaker suggested to the right honourable baronet,' that the regular course of proceeding in such cases, was to move for leave to bring in a bill for the better prevention of frauds and embezzlements in such cases, and leave it for the Committee on the bill to insert the punishment to be inflicted on offenders.

Sir John Newport amended his motion.

Mr. Foster wished to apprize the honourable baronet that he had a bill in contemplation, which he intended shortly to introduce, and which, besides embracing all the objects of the bill now proposed, would extend much further. He therefore wished the right honourable baronet to postpone the introduction of his bill until the other should come before the House: if, however, he wished to persevere, there would be no negative to his motion.

Sir John Newport said, it would be time enough to withdraw his bill, when he should find that his objects were answered by the bill now announced. It had been already provided by a regulation, that no greater sum should remain in the hands of any collector than 3001. notwithstanding which, it was found that there had been left in the charge of one officer upwards of 30,000l. ; and recently, the collector of Cork, Mr. O'Connor, had embezzled 23,000l.

Sir Arthur Wellesly admitted that the collector of Cork had embezzled this sum; but it was the collection of only one week; and he eloped at the moment that a com missioner was sent down to inquire the reason of his delaying his payments.

After a few words from Mr. Wynne, leave was given to' bring in Sir John Newport's bill.

Mr. Whitbread presented a petition from the debtors in Bedford gaol.

Mr. Whitbread moved for a copy of a letter from Mr. Pinkney to Mr. Canning, which accompanied his official note.-Ordered.

The report was brought up from the select Committee, to whom had been referred, for selection, certain papers laid before the Committee of the whole House on the pre ceding night relative to the inquiry into the conduct of the Commander in Chief. The report was to this effect: "Your, Committee having inspected all the said letters, are of opinion, that they all contain matter relevant to the matter how under investigation." The papers were accordingly referred to the Committee of the whole House, [See preceding day.]

Lord Folkestone having moved the order of the day for going into the Committee,

Mr. Beresford rose and said, that as he seldom troubled the house, he hoped for their indulgence while he stated a circumstance which regarded their privileges. If he had asserted any thing in that House respecting any member which he knew to be founded, he should be one of the last to retract his words; and if, on the other hand, any words were imputed to him, which were hurtful to the feelings of any member, and which he had not employed, he should hold it extremely unmanly to omit the first opportunity of satisfying the feelings of such member by a candid explanation. In a paper of this day appeared a statement

of the proceedings of the Committee last night, in which words were imputed to him, reflecting on the conduct of an honourable gentleman, which he certainly never uttered. The words were these:-"Mr. Beresford, addressing himself to Mr. Wardle, said, he could not refrain from animadverting on several parts of the hon. ourable member's conduct in reference to him from the commencement of this inquiry. He considered it unhandsome and ungentlemanly. Upon this, some smart retorts passed between Mr. Wardle and Mr. Beresford." Mr. Beresford thought it quite unnecessary for him to appeal to the recollection of the House whether he had ever addressed any such words to the honourable gentleman. In fact, none such were uttered by him; and he should have felt it extremely unmanly not to take the first opportunity of making this explanation, in order to remove any impression which such a publication might make on that honourable gentleman's feelings. It was a gross misrepresentation, and therefore he should move that the printer of the paper in question should appear at the bar tomorrow, in the custody of the Serjeant at Arms.

C

The Speaker said, that the course usual on such occations was to give in the paper containing the misrepresentation to be read by the clerk; and then to move that the printer do appear at the bar on a future day.

Mr. Beresford accordingly gave in the paper, when the passage was read by the clerk, Mr. Beresford then said it was not his wish, from any personal feeling, to proceed to extremities with the printer in this case: he had merely taken up the matter as a gross mischievous breach of the privileges of the House. He would rather leave it to their discretion; but if they encouraged him he would repeat his motion.

The Speaker said, if the honourable gentleman did not wish to make any formal complaint, it would be best to hold the business over in suspense, in order to see whether the party persisted in statements of the same colour and tendency; and therefore he suggested that the subject should be further considered on that day se'nnight.

Mr. Beresford acquiesced.

Lord Folkestone seconded this latter proposition, and rose to bear his testimony, in the absence of his honourable friend (Mr. Wardle), that the words in question had not been used, and that the feelings of his honourable

friend were in no respect aggrieved. His lordship approved of the course proposed to be adopted, and acknowledged the handsome and honourable manner in which the honourable gentleman had taken up the subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer allowed, with the honourable gentleman, that when a complaint was made of a breach of privilege occasioned by a misrepresentation in the reports, which by the connivance of the House (a connivance which perhaps ought not to be discontinued) were daily published of the sentiments of any honourable member, the house would consider well before they refused or delayed to take the proper steps to assert their privileges, and punish the offender. At the same time it must be evident to the House, that the individuals by whom these reports were given, must, with all their accuracy, be liable, occasionally, to great, though unintentional mistakes. He allowed that a more complete misrepresentation never existed than that brought forward by the honourable gentleman; and he had himself observed to-day, in the description published in the newspapers, of the narrative which he (Mr. Perceval) had last night given to the House several very gross errors. But he was satisfied in his own mind, that however gross, they must all be unintentional; and he should therefore support the motion for an adjournment of any further proceedings.

Mr. N. Calvert thought the 'printer certainly ought to be brought to the bar, and at least reprimanded for his

error.

Mr. IV, Smith, at the same time that he applauded the handsome manner in which Mr. Beresford had acted, nevertheless thought, that although a member from a sense of his own dignity, might not wish to follow up a complaint of this sort with any severity, that the House, in cases of gross mistatement, ought not to pass over the matter so lightly. He thought that the party who had made the misrepresentation should be brought to the bar to tell his own story, and make his apology, or receive the reproof of the Speaker, and think himself well off for being so tenderly dealt with. He (Mr. Smith) was one of the warmest advocates for the liberty of the press, but in this case he thought great leni.y was shewn.

Mr. Yorke thought that the liberty of the press had of late been carried to such lengths and the misrepresenta