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 that the report on the table was a weak and imperfect report, but would not these have the advantage of its weakness and imperfection?  It was strange, when his honourable friend, Mr. Wilberforce, had said, “Weak and imperfect as the report may be thought to be, I think it strong enough to bear me out in all my propositions,” that they, who objected to it, should have no better reason to give than this, “We object, because the ground of evidence on which you rest is too weak to support your cause.”  Unless it were meant to say (and the meaning seemed to be but thinly disguised) that the house ought to abandon the inquiry, he saw no reason whatever for not going immediately into a committee; and he wished gentlemen to consider whether