Proceedings in Parliament, 1774. 396 draw down upon the Houfe. It is first affirmed, that we have brought a charge against Mr. Horne, which we are not able to prove, and that now we want to keep him arbitraily in cuftody, till new evidence is found to convict him. I deny this polition wholly, Sir; the House has brought no charge whatever against Mr. Horne. The charge against him proceeds from Mr. Woodfall., Mr. Horne, indeed, refused to attend an order of the Houfe, and was apprehended by the Serjeant at Arms for his contempt; ftill, however, the House has made no charge, and is now folely debating whether the evidence of Mr. Woodfall's men, through whofe hands the libel paffed, fhall be called for, to give what force it may poffefs to the teftimony of their master. The Right Honourable Member who fpoke laft fays, that, if the conviction of Mr. Horne was fo grand an object to government, we should have had our evidence ready to convict him before he came to our bar. Sir, government has Mr.D-wd fw-ll.] There is fcarcely a measure which has the fanction of the miniftry in this houfe, Mr. Speaker, which is not neceffary to be opposed--I have long oppofed- and if the gentlemen on the oppofite bench (the treasury bench) continue in office, I am afraid I must oppofe much longer. Here are we wrangling about the maintenance of our privileges, Sir, yet lofing fight of our honour, and endeavouring to render ourselves, if poffible, more hateful than ever. If it was fo grand an object of government to convict Mr. Horne of the present libel, why did not the gentlemen who manage this profecution collect the neceffary proofs of his guilt, before they brought him here? That would have been the proper mode of proceeding, and there was time enough to have done it. But no-they bring the man to his trial---they confront him with his accufer, and when the proof grows defective.no wifi. to convict any man of a crime why then they crave time to call in fieh evidence. As far as we have hitherto gone, Sir, our difappointment has been sufficiently difgraceful; but if we go on, and can in the end prove no more against Mr. Horne than what we have already proved, we must be defpifed, ridiculed, laughed at, by the whole kingdom. Mr. Horne is now triumphing over us, and will have a new triumph in that cafe. If, therefore, our honour is really dear to us, let us drop this conteft. If we have any fhame left, let us fhrink from the contempt which awaits us, and, out of a regard for ourselves, make no more attempts upon the freedom of the nation. L-rd N-rth. Mr. Speaker, I have hitherto attended moft profoundly to the arguments which have been urged against the motion now under the confideration of the Houle, and the more I have weighed their force, the more I am convinced of its perfect propriety. I fhall not enter into any defence of it upon principles of law, as it has been already fupported in fo unanswerable a manner by two of my learned friends (the Attorney and Solicitor General); but I fhall beg your patience, Sir, for a few oblervations on what has been faid againit it, as well with respect to the indignation which it may excite among the people at large, as with respect 10 the eventual difgrace which it may who is really innocent; 'tis a fufficiently diftreffing part of its duty, to punih the really guilty. It would be highly for the advantage of govern-ment, if there were neither offences nor offenders; government, therefore, having brought no charge against Mr. Horne, was not required to bring any evidence in his disfavour; that ferl wholly to the fhare of his accufer, and the accufer having mentioned the names of fome who may materially tend to elucidate the truth, juftice makes it indifpenfibly proper to see what lights they can throw upon the accufation. : - Great ftrefs is laid, Mr. Speaker, upen the difguft which the question, if carried, will excite without doors. But this part of the argument is addressed rather to our paffions, than to our reafon, and fhrinks before the teft of examination for, give me leave to ask, whose battle are we fighting upon this occafion? Is it not, Sir, the battle of the people? We have no privileges but what we derive from them: we have no authority but that with which they have invested us! Can it be fuppofed, then, that the people will be angry with us for maintaining their rights? for defending their political omnipotence, and preferving that reverence for their authority, which gives them fo happy an equipoife in the great fcale of the conftitution? We are only the meteors of a moment, Mr. Speaker, and when we Proceedings in Parliament, 1774 397 conftitution. Does this become either the real gravity of our feats in this Houfe, or the affected fanctity of our character beyond thefe walls of corruption Pardon me, Mr. Speaker,if I am too warm. My animation may be a reproach to my prudence, but I truft it will be no reflection on the inte we are in the duft, it will little fignify to us, whether there is a fingle privilege of this Houfe exifting; but the people will continue to the latest hour of time I trust, and if we fuffer an invafion of their powers, the precedent may wound them to the last line of pofterity. The Right Honourable gentleman has often accufed us of deftroy-grity of my heart. I never rife in this ing the peoples liberties, and now he is angry with us for flanding forth in their defence: fault, however, must be found, and fo the wicked Minifter is blamed, no matter what is the ground of accufation. Various gentlemen in the course of the debate have introduced a very whimsical doctrine, and infifted, that the Houfe must be overwhelmed with difgrace, if Mr. Horne is not convicted. And why fo, Mr. Speaker? Is a court of law ever difgraced, because a prifoner may be acquitted on his trial? If the pofition of the e gentlemen holds good, the Judges, in defence of their own honour, muft labour to condemn every culprit. The more they hang upon this principle, the more they will raife themselves into eftimation. But I am weary of refuting fuch puerilities. While we do juftic, we need never be apprehensive of difgrace; and it will be a greater glory to let a man escape with impunity, whom we all believe in our confciences to be guilty, because there is not a fufficiency of lega¦ evidence against him, than to decline any enquiry which may have an eventual tendency to maintain the legislative authority of the people. 1 Mr. B-rke. I have seen too many inftances of abfurdity in this House, Mr. Speaker, to be furprized that a motion, like the prefent, begot by folly, and nursed by defpotifm, should find fo many powerful advocates. But, Sir, if gentlemen retain the fmalleft fenfe, either of honour or remorse, let me adjure them to renounce their facrilegious defign against the happiness of their country. The motion before you, Sir, is without a precedent in the annals of infamy. If there is a precedent for it, Jet its bo'deft advocate ftand and produce it---or fay why it has not yet been produced, to give oppreffion at leaft fomething like a familiar complexion ? We are here, Sir, in a material part of the feffion, throwing away our time, which God knows is highly requifite for the national fervice, and fwelling up the Jittle Wart of a private libel into a political Atlas, as if the object of this night's debate was to fupport our tottering Houfe with indifference, and I never rofe with more indignation than at this moment, to fee the malignant rod of perfecution till held up in our hands, when we ought to be feriously labouring for the good of the people. You, Mr. Speaker, have a kind of perfonal concern in the bufinefs of this moment. Let me befeech you to exert your influence. Let me entreat you to heal, if poffible, thefe guilty diffentions which tear us from the publie fervice, and degrade us into the legislative executioners of the community. The noble Lord who spoke latt, affects to feel greatly for the honour of the House; and fo he ought, for never was House fo obfequious to a Minifter. If, however, he would really fhew his regard, let him now remove this monster of a motion from our fight, and no more engage us in war with individuals, where victory can only be bought with the tears, and defeat be attended with the fcorn, of the whole kingdom. The question was then put, Whether the three perfons named by Mr. Woodfall fhould be ordered to attend, which passed in the affirmative. Ayes 140; Noes 44. Friday, Feb. 18. A quarter after three, the order of the day was called for, and the Serjeant was defired to bring the Rev. Mr. Horne to the Bar. Woodfall's three compofitors were then fucceffively ordered in, and examined. The reftimony of the first witnefs went no further, than that he compofed the letter alluded to from the original copy; that he did not know the hand-writing of Mr. Horne, nor ever faw him write; and that there were five other perfons employed in the fame branch of business. Another fa.d, that he had a tranfient view of the copy, but knew not whose hand-writing it was: and the last difclaimed the leaft knowledge of the matier in any stage of it. After the examination of the firft witness, the Speaker defired Mr. Horne to put any question to him he thought proper; on which Mr. Horne replied, that the only 398 Proceedings in Parliament, 1774only thing he should defire to know from him or the other two witneffes was, if they ever heard him even speak before the prefent time; to which the witnefs answered, he believed he had once before-at Brentford; which produced a laugh. The interrogation of the evidences being firithed, the Speaker addreffed the prifoner for his defence, reminding him, at the fame time, that he had no occafion to fay any thing tending to convict himfeif Mr. Hoint, in an addrefs to the Chair, delivered himself thus: Sir, I have only my thanks to return for the indulgence and perfonal favours which have been fhewn me. There is, Sir, a maxim laid down by a very wife man, a maxim that hitherto I have had no reafon to difpute, it is, that truth Hatổ not friends enough to carry the point by vote; I trust, however, that from the event of this day, Ihall be convinced my friend's maxim With in one inftance failed.' Queftion from the Chair. "Is that all you have to fay, Sir?" Anfwer, Yes." He was ordered to withdraw. Mr. H-rb-rt then apologized for the trouble he had given the Houfe, and added, that, as the evidences had not proved Mr. Horne the author of the Libel, to evince his impartiality, he mould move, ' that Mr. Horne be now difcharged from the custody of the Serjeant atArms. Mr. Sawbridge moved this amendment, without paying his fees. Mr. Phipps feconded the motion thus amended, upon a principle that he ought not to pay for the neglect of his accufers, in not having witneffes fufficient to prove the charge on the firft day; and that, if fuch a procedure was once eftablished as a precedent, it would be in the power of a malicious perfon to ruin any man, by producing Treth witneffes day after day, and thus keeping him a prisoner during the whole fions. But we have been led into thefe abfurtlities, continued Mr. Phipps, by giving ear to falfe prophecies. A noble Lord prophefied that Mr. Horne would not attend; he had therefole led the Houfe on a wrong fcent; abd, his prophecy failing, no wonder the neceffury preparations were not made for the event which happened." Mr. Chris F-x faid, it was impoflible to fit Roll and hear gentlemen give a falle statement of the proceedings of the Houfes he therefore mentioned the detail of occurrences in the order they happened. Though he was not against the motion for the difcharge of the prifoner, he hoped the failure of evidence would be a caution to the House in their future proceedings, and particularly that the Houfe might not think the printer deferved any lenity for obeying the fummons, or giving up the author; he had done no more than his duty. The author, Mr. Fox faid, was no object to him; the printer, who had inferted fuch an infamous libel, he was the greatest culprit, and should have been committed to prifon, as was at firft moved. But Mr. Fox faid, he fhould referve his fentiments until the printer thought proper to present a petition. Colonel B-rre then arraigned in the molt pointed and farcaftic terms the whole of the proceedings. He said, that but a very few days ago a bill had been brought in, prohibiting any gaoler from accepting fees of perfons acquit-ted of the crimes laid to their charge. Were common gaolers to be excluded, and was the gaoler of that House to be permitted to receive fees, in fimilar cafes? "Not (argued the Colonel) that I am for depriving the officers of this Houle of their proper perquifites; but fuppofe we compliment them in a more handfome way; fuppofe we petition the Crown to pay this gentleman's fees; or what if the noble Lord iffues a Treasury order for the purposes Treafury orders are pretty things, and the noble Lord will not be difpleafed if I think him tolerably expert at that bufinefs. It is urged, Sir, that the fees fhould be paid because Mr. Horne was in contempt; but if you discharge, you acquit him both of the contempt and of being the author of the letter. If he is not acquitted of both, you ought not to discharge him. At the firft commencement of this bufinefs 1 augured that it would end ill, and I laft night felt inconceivable pain for the noble Lord; his troops were no more prepared to defend than to fight for him. I know fome little matter about the arrangement of troops, but in my life I never faw a body of regulars cut fo wretched a figure! The noble Lord has been charged with, what I never fufpected him guilty of, a precipitancy, I hope he will take his fpirited friend's advice [Mr. C. Fox], and learn a little caution. Advice, whether coming from a grey or a green head, if good, hould be followed. Sir, much has been Vindex's Anfwer to Pifcator's Remarks. been faid about the honour of this House; but where was its honour when Mr. Wilkes, in answer to the Sheriffs fummons, called the majority of the Houfe [I don't fay it because I am feldom with the majority] "cor. rupt, profligate, and venial?". Did he not fign that letter to the Sheriffs with his name? You had the author and printer in your power, where was your honour? Where that wonderful anxie ty for the privileges of this Houfe? Yet you dare not attack Mr. Wilkes, but pitifully attack a man against whom there is no proof, and bewilder yourfelves in fishing out evidence from compofitors and printers devils! We have had a great deal of found law, I wish we had had a little more found fenfe, from the other fide of the House. I have every thing to hope from the noble Lord; he is at prefent most happily fituated; for if he wants law, he has but to look to the left [to Mr. Wedderburne]; if he ftands in need of common-fenfe, his fpirited friend on the right [Mr. C. Fox] can abundantly fupply him! 1 Mr. De Gr-y oppofed the difcharge of Mr. Horne, and was deviating into an abufe of Mr. Tooke, but Mr. Al derman Townsend called him to order.-Mr. Herbert's first motion was then put, that Mr. Horne be dif charged from the cuftody of the Serjeant at Arms. It paffed.-Mr. Sawbridge's amendment was over-ruled; fo that he was difcharged, paying his fees." 1 1 (To be continued.) Mr. URBAN, IN anfwer to Pifcator, in p. 356, 357, of your laft Magazine, be pleated to infert the following lines in your next. Your impartiality is called upon fo to do. It was probably Dr. Horbery's candour (a diftinguifhed part of his character), that led him to think, with many others formerly, that the Free and Candid Difquifitions could not be the work of any foltered in the bofom of the church. Pifcator, howe ver, feems willing to have his own reprefentation of the authors of that work be efteemed indifputable. But Dr. Glocefter Ridley, in his Second Letter to the Author of the Confeffional, at p. 173, will inform him, that 8 the candid difquifitors would have paffed on the world for numerous and confiderable, and were neither." There are fome further remarks at p. 154 of his third letter, worthy of obfervation, 399 relative to these gentlemen. As to the other parts of Pifcator's letter, I'will readily leave him to the enjoyment of his own opinions, howfcever expreffed, not having the leaft inclination to trouble myself or you with a repetition of old anfwers to old objections. But he muft excufe me for deliring him to be minutely attentive to Dr. Horbery's own expreffions, and not to mifquote a word in any of his ftrictures upon the fubjects which, though long fince exhaufted, he is to treat on hereafter. The first part of his laft paragraph, when compared with the Doctor's own words, will fufficiently juftify this precaution of, VINDEX. P. S. Give me leave to embrace this opportunity of recommending to "A bumble Enquirer after Gofpel Truths," at p. 211, 212, of your May Magazine, Mr. Bingham's admirable Vincication of the Doctrine and Liturgy of the Church of England, juft publifhed at the Clarendon prefs. If he will, particularly, read from p. 10 to p. 18, and from p. 69 to the end of the pamphlet, he will find all his objections unanswerably difcuffed, by a found divine, and a good fcholar. But, if he fhould rather chufe to attend to the arguments of one not bred up to the church, he may have recourle to A Scriptural Confutation of Lindsey's Apology, by a Layman, printed for Nicoll, in St. Paul's Church-yard, which carries the fullet conviction with it, and will, I doubt not, afford him amplé inftruction. Oxford, Sept. 17, 1774. " A brief Account of Dr. Irving's new M. Poiffonier, of Paris, having ap: pealed to our impartiality, and claimed a place in our Magazine to affert the right of that gentleman to the invention of fopplying fhips at fea with fresh-water diftilled from falt; it now becomes neceffary for us, from the fame principle of impartiality, to do juttice to Dr. Irving, by fhewing the fuperiority of his inethod over every other that has hitherto been attempted to be introduced into general ufe. This we are enabled to do from a paper written by the Doctor himself, and communicated to Captain Phipps, who, in his Voyage towards the North Pole, has inferted it as an obječt of the bigbe importance to all naviga tors. In this paper, the Doctor, having very candidly fewn the defects of all former 400 Dr. Irving's Method of rendering Salt-water fresh at Sea. former methods (particularly of that of M. Poiffonier, who to his machine employs a ftill-head, worm pipe, and worm tub, with its ufual apparatus, and who directs fix ounces of foffil alcali to be mixed with the fea-water at each diftillation to prevent the acid of the magnesia-falt from rifing with the vapour when falt begins to form on the bottom of the ftill), proceeds to explain the general principles of diftillation, and to examine analytically the component parts of fea-water; and having in this manner cleared his way, he concludes by ftating the advantages of the method invented by himself. 1. By abolishing ftills, and their cumberous apparatufes, which occupy fo great a part of the hip's room; and in their ftead fubftituting the fhip's ordinary kettle, to the top of which may occafionally be applied a tube easily made at fea of tin or iron-plate, or any material fufceptible of the form required; fo that no fituation can prevent a fhip from being speedily fupplied with the means of diftilling fea-water. 2. By enlarging the tube, and placing it in fuch a direction as to prevent the compreffion of the fluid, thereby obtaining the greateft quantity of diftilled freshwater at the leaft expence of fuel. 3. By condenfing the vapour fooner and more effectually (by only having a fufficient quantity of cold water always at hand, and paffing a wet mop constantly along the tube while at work) than by any other method yet known. 4. By carrying on the diffil Jation without any additional ingredients, by which that unpalatable fiery tate infeparable from all former proceffes is avoided. 5. By afcertaining the proper quantity of fresh water to be diftilled from a given quantity of fea-water, by which the noxious impregnation of metallic falts is prevented. 6. By producing a quantity of fweet and wholefome water fufficient for all the purposes of the fhip's use, the greatest part of which from the va pour which afcends in the kettle while the hip's provifions are boiling. Thefe, and other advantages which the Doctor has enumerated, fhew the preference due in a fuper eminent degree to Dr. Irving's invention above all others, and are at the fame time a fufficient refutation of M. Poiffonier's claim, who in fact has done little more than Appleby, Buttler, and Hoffman, had done before him. The, fimplicity of Dr. Living's machine may be feen in the annexed figure. Fig. I. reprefents a fection of two boilers taken out of the frame. D and E are holes for the cocks. On the top is the diftilling tube A B C, five inches diameter at A, and decreafing in fize to three inches at C; the length from B to C five feet. The ring at C is to prevent the cold falt-water, applied to the furface to condenfe the vapour, from mixing with the water distilled from the tube. Fig. II. a b c d represents a vertical fection of a copper-box, 27 inches long, 7 inches wide, and 11 high. f is an aperture at bottom, having a ring fix inches in diameter to fit on the ftill or boiler. e is a pipe from which the dif tilled water or fpirits run, and is bent in such a manner that the liquor acts as a valve to prevent any fleam efcaping that way. h is a fafety valve a-top. g the funnel to receive the cold water, which by means of veffels, represented by the dotted lines, is circulated through the whole machine, and, when fufficiently heated by the action of the steam), is difcharged by the horizontal pipe at a. This machine, the Doctor fays, may be fubftituted in the toom of the other, when only a very finall portion of room can be allotted for diftillation. But the purpofe for which it was invented was chiefly to diftill rum without that empyreuma or fiery tafte by which that Spirit is ufually disflavoured; and to do this, it has been tried with fuccefs. As a farther improvement, the Doctor has in contemplation caft-iron boilers of a new construction, to be used even in the largeft hips in the room of coppers; and a kind of ftove fo contrived, as to answer the purpofe of diftillation with little additional firing to what is kept all day burning for the fhip's ufe. It might be fome gratification to the curious, to fee the comparative difference of the going of the time-keepers and watch, during the whole courfe of the voyage; but as the table for that purpote is calculated only for the few, it may fuffice for us to mark the time of each at fetting out, and returning: Days. Arnold. | Kendall. | Watch. "h 1 "h. July 2. 12 0 3811 59 56|12 Sept. 27. 9 48 812 15 35 12 25 46 h. 1 49 Note, when the time-keepers at the Royal Obfervatory at Greenwich fhewed twelve at noon, the time-keepers and watch fhewed as above, at fetting out, and at their return. The great ditference in Arnold's time-keeper, which chiefly arofe in returning, is attributed to the rufting of the balance-fpring. Cambridge, |