mittee? he wished to see what reason could | high authority, would be the worst blow that could be inflicted on this country. He would be the last man to proceed harshly against lord Melville or Mr. Trotter, but they did not ask to be heard by counsel, or pray for any delay. Their friends allowed they could not ask for an acquittal upon the tenth report: and, therefore, why go out of the way and delay the business for 3 or 6 months? The house of commons would only incur odium by such a step: Shew him the law was not violated, or he would not consent to a moment's delay. This was an odd way of treating the parliamentary commissioners. The right hon. gent. had said there was no regular trial, and had described all the forms of a trial. In this case the witnesses were the accounts of the persons accused, and the parties were called upon, and had every opportunity given them. "Can you make out the answer in June?" "No."-" Can you do it in July ?" "No."

your favour?" Nothing." The trial was as fair as the nature of the transaction admitted. What more trial could they have before the committee of the house? Was this sort of language used respecting the report of the commissioners of accounts? As to the errors the right hon. gent. had endeavoured to shew in the report, they furnished no argument of weight against the com

be urged for it. The right hon. gent. appeared anxious to know the extent of the deficiencies, not for the purposes of criminating, but for the purposes of refunding, as appeared from his enumeration of the several sums paid and received. The money was not kept in the bank; no, says the right hon. gent., it was lodged at Messrs. Coutts, to save trouble: a clerk of the navy office takes a cheque for a large amount, receives the value at the bank of England, passes Somerset-house, and carries it down to Messrs. Coutts. This was the convenience. He did not want any further illustration of the fallacy of the pretence.-One point more he begged leave to advert to. While he had the honour of holding the office of treasurer of the navy, no inconvenience whatever arose from a strict adherence to the act of parliament, which was one of the most saÎutary and useful ever framed, nor could he see how it was possible Mr. Trotter could" Have you any thing to say or to shew in see any thing in the act which could leave the least doubt upon his mind of the true spirit and meaning of it.-With respect to the participation of the emoluments by lord Melville, with Mr. Trotter, there did not remain a doubt upon his mind on that part of the case. Was it possible for lord Melville to go on as he did, for 12 years, merely for the advantage of Mr. Trotter? he could not be blind to the rising prosperity of Mr. Trot-missioners, since the very documents on ter; he knew he originally had nothing; and this alone should have been sufficient to rouse his jealousy. The accommodation of 10,000l. of 20,000l., and various other considerable sums, left not a shadow of doubt upon the subject; and it fully appeared his lordship had gone on systematically for 12 years together. He hoped it could not be said he was actuated by any peevish motive to lord Melville in giving his vote in support of the resolutions that night. Nothing would satisfy the country but meeting the question fairly, broadly, distinctly, and without delay. The public understood the question as well as those who made speeches for his lordship; but what defence could the house make to the public,, if they delayed or passed by the consideration of such transactions? As to impeding sailors' wages by these speculations, he wished to state it pub-considering that the present question related licly, from having been in the office himself, that such a report, which he hoped had not been made, was groundless, as the thing was impossible. But he must add, that in such a war as this, the loss of public confidence, and of the respect the people pay to

which the right hon. gent. reasoned were furnished by the commissioners themselves. It was his pride that he had been a member of the last administration, to which that commission of inquiry was owing; and he called on all those gentlemen who supported that administration, particularly in that measure, to come forward now and support the commissioners in the hour of their need. When the right hon. gent had concluded, the Master of the Rolls and Mr. Canning rose at the same time, but Mr. Canning first caught the eye of the speaker.

Mr. Canning said, that on any other occasion he should undoubtedly have given way to his hon. and learned friend, but after the speech he had just heard from the high authority of the hon gent. whom he had succeeded in the office he now held, and

peculiarly to that department of administration which he was most intimately connected with, he felt particularly anxious to deliver his sentiments on this occasion. He observed that the house, in its usual love of justice, would give an opportunity to

party had not been heard, and all that was now asked was a full hearing. And here he would put it to the house, and, indeed, to the gentlemen opposite to him, whether it was fair to call on the house to convict the party without a hearing, which had not yet been had? and what would bring the point more distinctly before the minds of those whom he had now the honour of addressing was this, that no part of the case now before the house on this report was matter originally intended by the course of examination taken by the committee, but it came out incidentally, and it was no part of the object of the committee to try the noble lord who was the object of the present motion for any thing, and therefore it was, from the nature of things, absolutely impos

inquire, whether the whole of the charge now exhibited against the noble lord might not be done away, or was capable of being done away and if they thought so they could not possibly vote for the motion proposed by the hon. gent. But what was the alternative? That the house should come to a final determination on the subject, by which all possibility of explanation would be excluded. Now, upon that subject he could not help saying, that the mode proposed by his right hon. friend was the true way to answer the purposes of justice, by instituting an inquiry, with all the circumstances of the case on both sides, which hitherto had not been done. But the right hon. gent. who spoke last had stated to the house, that the mode proposed by the original motion was recommended by a late pre-sible that he should have had a fair trial, cedent in the proceedings of the house on since he had indeed hitherto had no trial. the subject of the Middlesex election; in But the right hon. gent. who spoke last had that case the house had decided that it would observed, that in former times a commitnot proceed in the examination of evidence tee, on the model of which this was formed, at the bar, but took up the case on the re- had made many wise regulations, and that port of a committee, and adopted its state- the act which was now the subject of the ment upon the ground that the evidence consideration of the house of commons which was adduced before the committee passed without further investigation than was upon oath, and that which was to be that of a perusal of the report of the comheard at the bar must be without oath-that mittee on which it was founded. This the case was the same here, for that the evi- might be, but he believed the right hon. dence before the committee of naval inquiry gent. could not shew him any regulation of was upon oath, but if the house heard any parliament by which any individual had been further evidence upon that subject, they condemned, without having had an oppormust take it without that sanction. Now, tunity of defending himself. And here the begging pardon of that right hon. gent., the case was most singularly hard, for it was the two cases had no common nature, or indeed case of an individual knowing for the first any resemblance to each other. The deci- time from the report, now said to be consion on the late case of the Middlesex elec- clusive, what was the nature of the charge tion, in which the house had adopted the which was exhibited against him. He was report of the committee, and concluded upon speaking now of lord Melville, for he it without hearing further evidence, did not understood that noble lord was the only perturn on the point of difference between evi- son against whom gentlemen on the other dence upon oath and that which was taken side of the house were pressing. From without that sanction; but upon the princi- these complicated accounts, thus brought ple, that the parties charged with miscon- without notice to his lordship, before the duct had been fully heard, had been allowed committee, the guilt of that noble lord was all the forms, and what was much better to be inferred; and he was said to have had than all forms, the substance of a fair trial; a fair trial! and the house was called upon they were called upon to answer; they knew to confirm that assertion, without its having the charge, had heard all the evidence in at all investigated the case! This applicasupport of it, had actually cross-examined tion to the house was repugnant to the printhat evidence, and were heard by counsel as ciples of justice.-But then the right hon. to the effect of that evidence, and it ap- gent. stated, that an act of parliament had in peared, upon full investigation of the case, this case been violated by the application of that the party had nothing to say in answer public money to other uses than those specito the charge; they were found guilty, be-fied by the act. Now he ventured to say, cause their guilt was fully substantiated, the violation of the act of parliament was a after they had been fully heard. But the pre-point by no means so clear as some gentlesent was the reverse of that case, for here the men affected to state it; but on the contrary

ask, whether it was to be contended b
gent. in that house, with any regard to
ticability in the dispatch of business,
every one of these items should be pa
a distinct specific draft upon the Bank
to the claimant? If not, then there w
end of the argument upon the dry po
the illegality of drawing money out o
Bank for any but a specified purpos
the use of the navy! Thus the argu
upon the illegality of the practice fell t
ground. Then the question of strictn
law being at an end, the rest was a que
of degree, or extent to which the pra
had been carried, and that, like every o
must be governed by that which was
sonable; for he did not say that it n
with impunity be carried to a blameable
tent, or be endlessly followed up. It v
be always just to mark it with censure w
ever it was done unnecessarily. But he
it was not a question of mere law, as
tlemen on the other side of the house to
but a question of degree. That was t
determined upon the circumstances, and
house should judge, or rather a comm
should judge, how far it was necessar
unnecessary, and which the house poss
the power of deciding after a proper in
had been had into all the circumstance
the case, but no such proceeding had hith
taken place. The diversion of the p
money, which was another topic bro
forward, was very fit for inquiry.
the charge, or rather an imputation, for
ed upon an inference, against the noble
that he had some participation of the be
arising from the use of the public m
while employed for the advantage of pri
individuals, that was a subject fit for
quiry, but to decide which, the house
present, had no materials; and upon

he believed that doubts might be very reasonably entertained upon that subject. Here he wished to guard against being misunderstood. When he said that the act was not so clear upon this point as it seemed to be conceived by some gentlemen, he was not thereby to be regarded as the champion of illegal defiance to the rules of law, or an imitator of such a practice. He knew that laws even if unwise, must be obeyed, while they were in full force. But the question was, whether the party here said to be guilty of a breach of the law, knew that he was really causing to be applied the public money to the private use of individuals? Now, considering the law as attentively as he was able, he denied that either the letter, or the spirit of it, prohibited the drawing of money out of the Bank in the manner contended for by gentlemen on the other side of the house. He was confident that the spirit of the act could not be so, because it could never have been the intention of any law to throw insurmountable obstacles in the way of public business; and he contended that the strict letter of the act could not be so construed; for, in many cases, a compliance with an act, so construed, would be physically impossible. In the course of 26 days the amount of the sums to be paid to claimants on the navy was 6,4001.; 3,5001. of which was made up of sums under 201. A great multitude of the items were from 8s. 6d. to 11. 8s. He wished gentlemen to turn this in their minds -whether all these sums could be paid by drafts immediately given to the claimants to receive the money at the Bank? And if this were so, he wished gentlemen, who maintained the affirmative of that proposition, to shew him the clause in the act by which it was supported; and when they had done so, they would have proved that every person who held the office of pay-question of the extent to which the pu master of the navy since the passing of the act had been guilty of an infraction of it. After all, if the law was so, the breach of it was of course not to be justified; but then came the question of the degree of impropriety of the conduct of the individual, and much of that depended upon the question of whether he did it knowingly and unnecessarily? To pursue the idea of convenience in transacting public business of this kind a little further, he would observe, there were now 6,800 ships books for payment, and in the course of the last three weeks payment had been made upon 40 ships books, and they abounded with items of 14s., 12s., and 15s. 9d. Now he would

66

A

money had been drawn out from the Ba and here he must advert to a part of report of the committee of 1782, which escaped the notice of the hon. gent. brought forward the motion, which wa the following effect: we consider this excess is not money for which the t surer is accountable to the public, but longing to the proprietors of these bills, remaining in his hands at their risk, u they apply to him for payment." Now, said, if this doctrine be correct, the wi money in the hands of the treasurer was that for which he was responsible to public, but to the individual to which th sums belonged, and if they had recei

ceeded to observe on that part of the report of the commissioners, in which they disapprove of the manner in which the accountants' branch, consisting of a principal and eight clerks having been es

for the express purpose of bringing up the old, and keeping up the new accounts; and they were surprised this had not been done, but that the clerks had been employed in the current business of the pay-office; and on which the committee said, this was a false economy. He admitted that no economy was more pitiful than that of starving the public service by a paucity of clerks in public offices; but there was an erroneous conceptlon on this subject. It was generally considered, that the power of the treasurer of the navy was much greater than it was, he was considered as a kind of despot in the office, when in truth he could neither add to the number of the clerks nor to their salary. This economy, pitiful as it might be, was not the economy of lord Melville, for he had applied to the admiralty for additional clerks for the accountant's branch, and they were not allowed. Since lord Melville became first lord of the admiralty, he had applied, and these clerks were allowed long before the commissioners suggested the necessity of them. There was another detached point, upon which great stress was laid, and which seemed to be considered a material feature in the case.

their money upon application, there had been no breach of the act of parliament, and the house would find, upon inquiry, that what he had stated hypothetically was the fact. He maintained that the deficiency stated in page 128 of the Report was incor-tablished by order of council in Aug. 1786, rectly stated as to the amount of it. He did not say that the mode stated on the other side was the proper mode of keeping the money of the public; but what he contended was, that the case was not that case of aggravation which was contended for on the other side. It was, however, a matter which he did not ask gentlemen to take on his statement, but leave it for inquiry; for that he believed it would turn out that the violation of the act of parliament in this respect, so much insisted upon, was in a great measure imaginary. He now came to the great point, which was, the imputation to the noble lord that he had participated in the use of the public money. This was not made as a distinct charge, only it was thrown out, or insinuated as a matter of inference. Now, he would put it to the conscience of the hon. gent., who brought forward this motion, and to use language already uttered in the course of this debate, to lay his hand upon his heart, and ask himself, whether he could believe that out of the monies which had been drawn out of the Bank, the noble lord had really any participation in the profits of using for private purposes? And whether He meant the circumhe believed that a vote, carried to the extent stance of Mr. Trotter having drawn 1 million of that now proposed, in deference, as that in one day from the bank, and lodged it in hon. gent. might think, to the public opi- the house of Messrs. Coutts. His right hon. nion, would not be to confirm such opinion friend (Mr. Pitt) had said, that much doubt to its full extent? He would ask whether lay upon this transaction, and that it might that was fair? Whether the carrying the admit of explanation. Now he should go motion now before the house, would not farther. He would undertake to explain it be to impress upon the minds of the public satisfactorily. The fact then was, that this an idea that lord Melville had been found million was not the whole sum drawn that guilty by the house of commons of foul day. He begged the house not to be startled and corrupt malversation? (A cry of when he stated how the case was. The fact hear! hear! from the opposite side.) If was, it was part of a sum of 2 millions gentlemen really thought so, they were drawn upon the same day, viz. the 10th of right in pressing the motion; but he April. Of this due intimation was given in was at a loss to find out upon what foun- the Gazette by the commissioners of the nadation such a conclusion could be drawn vy and victualling office, stating, that the from the premises before the house; for the treasurer of the navy had that day received case could not, even on the face of the re- money for the services of these departments port, before the other side was heard, for 6 months, and giving the creditors an amount to any thing more than a case of option of money or bills, as they should suspicion. He would then ask the hon. think proper. The next day, the 11th, these gent. what he would think of the hardship 2 millions were offered to the persons having of that case, if hereafter it should appear as any demands against these several departhe believed it would, that the suspicion ments, and therefore there was nothing sewas without foundation ?-He then pro-cret or clandestine in the transaction. The

next detached charge particularly concerned | accused person from justice. But, while I himself. It had been insinuated out of give the right hon. gent. credit for all this doors, in consequence of something contained candour and regard for truth, there is one in the report, that he, as treasurer of the circumstance which strikes me as somewhat navy, had thrown obstructions in the way extraordinary. The right hon. gent., through of inquiry. The right hon. gent. here en- the whole of his speech, uses the phrase, tered into a justification of his own conduct. 'this charge,' as if it were limited to one. He said, he had been called upon by the Now, this is an error; for there are several commissioners to furnish four several lists, distinct and separate charges comprised in but, on consideration, he found he could not the offence. For example, one of the heads furnish more than three, and even these not of accusation is, that lord Melville, the very in the precise form required. These three, man who proposed the law in question, and however, he did furnish in the most com- afterwards treasurer of the navy, did violate plete form in his power, from the documents the provisions of that law, by conniving at which his office afforded; and for any fur- the conduct of his paymaster taking the ther information upon the subject he referred public money from the bank, and applying the commissioners to the books of his de-it to his own private profit and emolument. partment. The report, however, in noticing this transaction, and his first answer, goes on to say, "his accounts were afterwards made out," implying, as he conceived, that they were at first refused. Having said thus much, however, he hoped he should not be suspected of having thrown any impediment in the way of the commissioners, to whose object, fairly and liberally pursued, no man was a greater friend than he. He added, that he wished to stand well in the opinion of the house and of the public. He concluded by observing, that if he thought this motion well founded, that a case was made out against the noble lord, he should not lift up his voice against such a motion; but he thought he did not ask too much, when he asked the house not to suffer itself by pre-house, will they, after 10 years of considejudice within, or by intimidation from clamour without, to take upon itself to decide without full and competent information upon the question now before them.

Is not this a single, distinct, and substantive charge? Has this any thing to do, in the remotest degree, with accommodation afforded to another office? or with the charge of a participation of gain with lord Melville? Is not this, then, a distinct and separate accusation? and, if so, how does it become necessary to its ascertainment, to inquire what office received the loan; or whether Mr. Trotter divided the profits with lord Melville? The right hon. gent. pursuing this error, says, as a reason for farther time and inquiry, it is difficult to decide upon complex and intricate accounts, meaning thereby the accounts of Mr. Trotter. Sir, these accounts have nothing to do with the charge which I have stated. I ask the

ration and examination, enable you to say, that lord Melville did not connive at Mr. Trotter, his paymaster, taking money out of the bank, and applying it to the purposes of Mr. George Ponsonby rose, and spoke to private emolument? You know they will the following effect :-Sir, I am satisfied not; and, therefore, as to this charge, no that the right hon. gent. who spoke last, delay is necessary. But it has been said, thinks, as he speaks, that there is matter in that the accounts are not correct; as it will this business, highly deserving of the most appear that the sums transferred to the bank serious consideration of this house. I am of Messrs. Coutts were only 7 or 8 millions, sure he thinks it a question highly deserving and not 15, as therein stated. But how of a committee, for the purpose of proving will this, admitting the fact to be so, acquit the innocence and purity of Mr. Trotter; that noble personage of corrupt connivance for, from all I have heard of his character, I at the breach of the law? Is he innocent, am certain if he did not think Mr. Trotter because he only connived at the misapplicapure and innocent, he would not continue tion of 7 millions of the public money? him in office. I think it right, sir, to quote The next objection urged is, that the charge the right hon. gent.'s conduct, in proof of against the noble lord and Mr. Trotter is his sincerity; for, I am sure he would not supported only by ex parte evidence. Why, vote for farther delay, if not from a con- this is indeed a curious objection. The gentlesciousness that it was necessary to the ex-men chuse favourite terms for themselves, and culpation of Mr. Trotter. He surely would not continue him in office, or act in any way, merely for the purpose of screening an

then they quarrel with their own phrase. It is indeed ex parte evidence, but of what party? Is it of the accuser? no. It is the evidence of the