creafing 1a io. Upon examining the feale, he found that upon fifteen windows, the increafe per window amounted to one fhilling; it then went on to one filling and two-pence, and to one fhilling and five-pence; it then funk at twenty-four windows to one fhilling a window; from thence it went on increafing to thirty-two windows, two fhillings a window; and thirty-four and thirty-five windows, more than two fhillings and five-pence. It then fell at forty-five windows to one fhilling and fix-pence; one hundred windows to nine-pence halfpenny; and one hundred and fixty windows, five-pence halfpenny and four-pence halfpenny per window. He was ftating the increase upon each clafs, and Gentlemen would fee from this, that the feale fometimes rofe and fometimes fell; for this reafon he wished to fee the printed Refolutions: one hundred and feventy windows amounted only to three pounds fix fhillings; whereas, after the feale left off at one hundred and eighty, an additional duty of two fhillings and fixpence was to be impofed upon every window; fo that the addition of eighty windows to one hundred and eighty, would make the increase ten pounds. Another reafon why he wifhed for the Refolutions firft was, that an increase of 12,000l. was ftated upon inhabited houses, which was not explained at all in the printed table. If, however, no other, Gentleman defired to fee the printed Refolutions first, he should certainly not take the fenfe of the Houfe. The Chancellor of the Exchequer faid, that he was anxious that the Refolutions fhould be laid before the Houfe before they decided upon the fubject. With refpect to the propofitions to which the Honourable Gentleman had alluded; the Honourable Gentleman had formed his calculation by a comparison of the rates as they fhould ftand in confequence of the new regulation with the old rates; whereas the scale was taken upon the new rates. The increafe, for the reafons he had before stated, was not uniform; it would deftroy the object of the measure, which was to fimplify and confolidate the rates; for to make a uniform increase upon that which was not uniform before, would leave the whole not uniform. With refpect to the articles not explained in the table, that of inhabited houfes, arofe in this manner: There was a duty of fixpence upon houfes of twenty windows; nine-pence under thirty, and one fhilling under forty; there was befides a duty of 20 per cent. it was now propofed to take off 20 per cent. to increafe the duties to nine-pence, one fhilling, and one filling and three-pence, which would make the difference mentioned. That with refpect to dogs, arofe from making fome increase to to prevent fractions; and thofe with refpect to carriages and. horfes, arofe from the fame kind of regulation. Mr. Dent faid, that the tax upon dogs could never be closely collected until the tax was farmed. The report was then ordered to be re-committed next day. Mr. Bryan Edwards rofe to move for copies of the corref pondence between his Majefty's Secretary of State and the Governors of the Weft India Islands. The Houfe would recollec that laft April they voted an Address to his Majefty, defiring his interpofition to his Governors, that the opinion of that House respecting the Slave Trade fhould be laid before their refpective affemblies. He prefumed that answers from them had been now received, and he conceived that the correspondence would be important in the difcuffion of the queftion of the Slave Trade. He therefore moved an Addrefs, requefting the papers, which was ordered. Mr. Secretary Dundas moved for a variety of papers refpecting the treatment of English prifoners of war in France, which were ordered, and immediately presented. Adjourned. HOUSE OF LORDS. LIBEL. Mr. Perry, Editor and Proprietor of the Morning Chronicle, and Mr. Lambert, printer of that paper, were not taken into custody on Wednesday, but they fent a letter to Mr. Quarme, Deputy Uther of the Black Rod, acquainting him they would furrender at any time he would appoint previous to the meeting of the Houfe, and at two o'clock they refigned themselves into his care. When the House had affembled, about five o'clock, Mr. Quarme being afked by the Lord Chancellor if Meffrs. Perry and Lambert were in cuftody, and he having answered that they were, Lord Minto moved that they be brought to the Bar. It was his Lordship who, on the preceding day, moved that the paragraph in the Morning Chronicle of Monday was a libel on the House. Mr. Perry and Mr. Lambert were conducted to the Bar, bowing, between the Ufher and Deputy Uther of the Black Rod. They both kneeled down at the Bar, and, after having remained in that fituation a few feconds, the Lord Chancellor faid "you may rife.” Lord Minto moved, that the proceedings of the former day be read; which being done, the Clerk thewed the Morning Chronicle to the Prifoners, and they acknowledged it: he thewed Mr. Perry's bond at the Stamp Office as proprietor, and Mr. Perry admitted it: the evidence of the purchase of the paper, paper, &c. was then read, and the prifoners were asked if it was neceffary to prove the facts again. The prifoners admitted the whole of the facts refpecting the paragraph and its publication, &c. The Lord Chancellor afked Mr. Lambert what he had to fay in his defence? Mr. Lambert faid he was only the printer of the paper; he fuperintended the mechanical part of the bufinefs, but he knew nothing of the paragraph. Mr. Perry, upon being asked what he had to fay in his defence, profeffed his refpect for that auguft Affembly, and his attachment to the Conflitution. The paragraph complained of had been inferted in the Morning Chronicle in his abfence.He knew nothing of it, and the fault was inadvertently committed. Having expreffed his regret for the infertion of the paragraph, and affured the House that he had always endeavoured to infpire reverence for it, he left the fubject for their Lordfhips' confideration. The Lord Chancellor "You may withdraw." (Mr. Perry and Mr. Lambert retired, in cuftody of Mr. Quarme.) [As all firangers were excluded from the Houfe during the debate and proceedings upon this bufinefs, we cannot pretend to give a full detail of the Speeches of the Noblemen who fpske. We are indebted to a Member for the following communication.] Lord Minto, after Mr. Perry and Mr. Lambert had retired, faid, the fubject on which he rofe was one that must strike all their Lordships with the fame horror which he felt. The paragraph complained of was an attempt to wound the Constitution, by deftroying the dignity of that Houfe. It was an attempt, by fquibs and jefts, to render the Houfe ridiculous, to reprefent it as ufclefs, and to frike at the very exiftence of a House of Lords. He might have been the fubject of many libels and fneers in the newspapers; he was not difpofed to notice any thing refpecting himself perfonally; but from whatever motives their Lordships might pafs over attacks upon them as individuals, they could not allow the paragraph now under confideration to pafs unnoticed. It was not a queftion upon which they fhould permit their humanity or liberality to interfere. They were trustees for the public; as fuch they were called upon to act, and on this occafion their humanity was not at their own difpofal. The offence of the prifoners was not confined to this particular paragraph; upon taking a review of the conduct of the Morning Chronicle, he found it had invariably, for a long time, praised the enemies of the country, with whom we are at war, and endeavoured to render the friends of the Conftitution contemptible. The The Duke of Leeds called the Noble Lord to order. His Grace faid, the House had no right to take a review of the antecedent paragraphs in the paper, and to aggravate the prefent offence by that which had paffed unnoticed. The Houfe should confine itself ftrictly to the paragraph before it, and decide upon the fate of the prifoners by their tendency alone. Lord Mints proceeded to make his motion. He faid, if the Houfe were difpofed to look back to very good times, they would find examples of great feverity, where the Houfe had punished perfons guilty of a breach of privilege. His intention was not to inflict a fevere punishment. He moved, "that Mr. Perry and Mr. Lambert be imprifoned three months, and that they pay a fine of 50l. each." The Earl of Derby expreffed his forrow that any thing fhould have appeared in the newspapers affecting the dignity of the Houfe, or the fafety of the Conftitution, and he more particularly regretted that the paragraph in queftion fhould have appeared in a paper diftinguished for its attachment to the Conftitution, and for avoiding thofe little, dirty, perfonal fcurrilities contained. in the other prints. He was proud to say he had the honour of Mr. Perry's acquaintance; for he knew that no man was better attached to the Conftitution, or with more zeal laboured in its defence. He objected to the punishment as being too fevere, and much beyond what the offence deferved. Ile thought the prifoners thould be difmiffed, upon receiving a reprimand at the Bar. But as perhaps that would not meet the ideas of the majority of their Lordships, he would move, as an amendment, that the imprisonment be only one month, inftead of three. The Duke of Bedford moved that the Clerk fhould read the precedents in the cafes of Woodfall and Almon about thirty years ago. They were read; and by thefe it appeared the Houfe, for a fimilar offence, had imprifoned thofe perfons only one month. His Grace argued, from thofe precedents, that the punishment in the prefent inftance should not be more fevere. Neither did he think that severe examples were calculated to infpire esteem and refpect for the Houfe. He feconded the Amendment. Lord Sydney faid he fearcely could reprefs his feelings on the occafion. He knew little of newfparers; he never allowed any to remain long in his houfe; but he never faw a paragraph of more danger to the Conftitution than the prefent. At this time too it was, particularly mifchievous; fuch paragraphs were published with no other view than to weaken the attachment of the people to the Conftitution by degrading that Houfe. His Lordfhip extolled the recent exertions of a Reve rend rend Prelate in the caufe of morality; against thofe exertions this paragraph was levelled, and he would fupport the original motion. nished. The Marquis of Lanfdowne made fome obfervations upon the neceffity of preferving a due balance in the conduct of their Lordships, and asked whether the dignity of the Houfe would not be better fupported by moderation than by coercion. He well remembered the precedents that had been read. In those times confiderable animofity prevailed, and printers were puBut an increafed heat of parties, rather than quiet, fuccceded; and their Lordfhips finding the error and inefficacy of fuch punishments, at laft allowed greater offences to pafs unnoticed. He called the attention of their Lordships to the prefent times, and afked whether feverity was now more likely to reprefs violence than formerly? In his opinion it would only embitter and increase the ferment. Moderation was the moft prudent conduct to purfuc. He now came to the paragraph itself. He faw no tendency in it to excite notice; it could only derive importance and attract attention by having been made the fubject of confideration with their Lordships. There was a degree or pertnefs in it certainly, and wit, but not calculated to do mifchief. It made an allufion to the efforts of a Reverend Prelate to reprefs immorality. (Laugh.) An alarm had been taken at the dangers to the Conftitution which might be introduced in certain ways; but he begged they might recollect the follies of their young days and drop feverity. Times had been alluded to when fevere precedents had been fet: thofe were bad times, and he hoped they: would never be revived, If precedents were wanted in fuch times, it would be found that perfons had been committed three years for a trefpafs on one of their Lordship's manors. He thought even a reprimand would be too fevere a punishment for the pas ragraph. He objected to taking any other paragraphs that might have appeared in The Morning Chronicle into confide ration. The fingle paragraph complained of fhould be weighed alone in the even fcales of juftice. The Lord Chancellor felt it his duty to addrefs the Houfe on a measure of so much importance to the public welfare. It. depended on that Houfe to justify itself and defend the Con ftitution. The paragraph had been reprefented as a trifle, as a piece of wit. He thought it a very ferious offence; the moft ingenious criticifm would be at a lofs to find any thing in it, but flat, infipid, impudent malignity. The House would do well to confider the importance of the attack made upon it, and not allow its humanity to impede its juftice. He had not the honour of knowing Mr. Perry, but he knew that the general tendency |