he report on the table. It would establish all his
propositions. He should call no witnesses himself: as to permission to
others to call them, that must be determined by the house.

This question and this answer gave birth immediately to great disputes upon
the subject. Aldermen Sawbridge, Newnham, and Watson; Lords Penrhyn and
Maitland; Mr. Gascoyne, Marsham, and others spoke against the admission of
the evidence, which had been laid upon the table. They contended, that it
was insufficient, defective, and contradictory; that it was _ex parte_
evidence; that it had been manufactured by ministers; that it was founded
chiefly on hearsay, and that the greatest part of it was false; that it had
undergone no cross-examination; that it was unconstitutional; and that, if
they admitted it, they would establish a dangerous precedent, and abandon
their rights. It was urged on the other hand by Mr. Courtenay, that it
could not be _ex parte_ evidence, because it contained testimony on both
sides of the question. The circumstance also of its being contradictory,
which had been alleged against it, proved that it was the result of an
impartial examination. Mr. Fox observed, that it was perfectly admissible.
He called upon those, who took the other side of the question, to say why,
if it was really inadmissible, they had not opposed it at first. It had
now been a long time on the table, and no fault had been found with it.
The truth was, it did not suit them, and they were determined by a
side-wind as it were to put an end to the inquiry. Mr. Pitt observed
that, if parliament had previously resolved to receive no evidence
on a given subject but from the privy council, such a resolution
indeed would strike at the root of the privileges of the House of
Commons; but it was absurd to suppose that the house could upon
no occasion receive evidence, taken where it was most convenient
to take it, and subject throughout to new investigation, if any
one doubted its validity. The report of the privy council consisted, first,
of calculations and accounts from the public offices, and, next, of written
documents on the subject; both of which were just as authentic, as if they
had been laid upon the table of that house. The remaining part of it
consisted of the testimony of living witnesses, all of whose names were
published, so that if any one doubted their veracity, it was open to him to
reexamine all or each of them. It had been said by adversaries