character, because he expected it from a committee who had no power to do it? Another rt. hon. member (Mr. Rose) had also brought forward his charge. Why did not the house hear of it before? Why were his feelings so long silent with respect to his constituent and friend Mr. Taylor, who, it seems, had fallen, by some means, under the censure of the commission? What prevented him from making it the subject of complaint before this night? nothing but his delicacy he supposed. It was really too much, when the noble lord who proposed that commission professed himself ready to meet every charge which could be made against him, that he, as well as the members of that commission, should be assailed from so many quarters. When a member has the indiscretion, to say no worse of it, to rise in his place, and unblushingly proclaim, that earl St. Vincent was the worst lord of the admiralty that had ever appeared at the head of the naval department of the country, it was the duty of the house to mark their reprobation of the sentiment. Was it fitting, he would call upon the house to declare, that the noble lord should be attacked in that vile way? Was it just that his honour, he would say the honour of the country (for the honour of that noble lord was a part, and a proud part, of the glory and the honour of the country) should be thus struck at and wounded in that base and inglorious manner? The blow, which was apparently directed against the commissioners of naval enquiry, was in truth, and in fact, levelled at that noble lord. The commis

the house for their conduct in pursuing the enquiry, for the firmness they had manifested in prosecuting it against all the obstacles which guilt, and fraud, and avarice, had erected to obstruct them; there was no occasion to have read all the reports to estimate the merit in that part of their duty: it was sufficient to know that they met with opposition from every quarter; and that, notwithstanding, they persevered and succeeded, and that the result of their labours was before the house and the country, exciting the admiration and gratitude of both. He had also another motive for wording his motion in the way he did. He wished to compel the right hon. gent. on the opposite bench, to state to the house precisely and positively why he objected to the conduct of the commissioners of naval enquiry? He had done so; he had stated them candidly and temperately, (he was happy to avail himself of the few opportunities the right hon. gent. afforded him of commending him); and after all what did they amount to? one of the most important was, that they charged a jury that it had been tampered with; that was no new charge. He recollected its having been brought forward by an hon. baronet (sir W. Elford) before, who threatened to make it the subject of a motion in that house, but who was finally obliged to give it up, because he could get no one to second his motion. Another hon. member (sir A. Hammond) had complained of reflections which had been thrown out in one of the reports, against that board of which he was the head. It was full twentytwo months since that report was made;sioners had a claim upon the gratitude and and why, he would ask, did the hon. baronet acquiesce, during all that time under those imputations? Was it that he was deterred by the rebuke which he is said to have received from earl St. Vincent, or that he looked forward to another proceeding which was going on (he meant the commission for examining into the civil affairs of the naval department) for satisfaction and justification? He was much misinformed as to the nature of that new commission, if it was to act as a committee of revision, to controul and annul the decisions of a commission appointed by the joint authority of both houses of parliament, and accountable only to them. He could not conceive, that it could even have been intended to degrade a commission so constituted, by subjecting their labours to be criticised and reversed by a committee of placemen. Did the hon. member decline doing early justice to his

protection of the house. While they were hunting down corruption and peculation, and pursuing them through all their foul and secret retreats and lurking places, they were entitled to all the encouragement which the legislature could hold out to them. He should be sorry that the motion he proposed should occasion any diversity of opinion; he wished to meet the feelings of the house. He would be sorry that any division should arise on a motion, which he had hoped would have been almost unanimously acceded to, but he could not consent to abandon the word whole in the manner proposed. He would not be satisfied that the amendment should appear upon the Journals, although he was disposed to meet the ideas of the hon. gent. who proposed it, if he were allowed to amend the motion himself.

Mr. Wilberforce acquiesced in the proposition of Mr. Sheridan, and declared his rea

diness, with the consent of the house, to withdraw his amendment.-The amend ment being accordingly withdrawn,

lities, communicated to them the resolution of the house. The messengers having retired;

Lord Hawkesbury rose to call their lordship's particular attention to the proceeding which had just taken place. He would first move, that the standing order be read by the clerk, which was accordingly done. This order imported that no peer of the realm, a member of that house, should attend the house of commons, or any committee thereof, to answer matters of charge or accusation against themselves, either in person or by their counsel, &c. on pain of being committed to the custody of the black rød, or sent to the Tower during the pleasure of that house. His lordship then observed, that the case which was involved by the recent message from the commons, was one

Mr. Sheridan withdrew his original motion, and immediately proposed the following: resolved, "That it appears that the commissioners appointed by an act of the 43d year of his majesty's reign, to enquire and examine into any irregularities, frauds, or abuses, which are and have been practised by persons employed in the several naval departments therein mentioned, have, as far as appears from the reports which they have hitherto made, exerted themselves with great diligence, ability, and fortitude; and that their conduct in the execution of the arduous duties entrusted to them, entitles them to the warmest approbation and encouragement of this house." He disclaimed, at the same time, any admission, of very considerable and peculiar importupon his part, that any thing had been proved against the conduct of the commissioners, and declared, that the reason why he assented to any modification in the form of his motion was, that gentlemen had not time to examine the reports.-The question was then put on the motion, as altered by Mr. Sheridan, when the speaker declared the ayes had it.-Mr. Sheridan next moved the following resolution :-resolved, "That this resolution be communicated by Mr. Speaker to the said commissioners."Agreed to.-Adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Friday, May 3. [LORD MELVILLE.]-Mr. Leycester, attended by several members, brought up a message from the commons, in substance, desiring their lordships permission to a member of that house, lord viscount Melville, to attend a committee of the house of commons to whom was referred the consideration of so much of the tenth report of the commissioners of naval inquiry as related to the application of monies imprest to the treasurer of the navy to purposes other than the service of his majesty's navy; and also what communications were made to the lords commissioners of the treasury, or chancellor of the exchequer, respecting the same, &c.-The messengers having withdrawn,

Lord Hawkesbury moved" that their lordships do send an answer to the message just delivered from the commons by mes sengers of their own." Which being ordered accordingly, the messengers from the commons were ordered to be called in, and the lord chancellor, with the usual forma

ance; though no consideration of the kind was expressly referred to in the message, yet, from the votes of the house of commons, which had come to his knowledge upon the subject, there was no doubt but matters of charge and accusation against lord viscount Melville were connected with the proceeding. He had therefore, with reference to what he had reason to think would take place, enquired respecting such precedents as existed of such cases; and though he met with several, yet he did not feel himself fully informed, or adequately prepared to recommend at present any distinct line, or course of proceeding. He then adverted to the circumstances which gave rise to the standing order which had been just read, and stated a few cases in the way of precedent, which, he conceived, bore a resemblance to the present. Among these, the case of the duke of Buckingham, who, in March 1626, was required to attend the house of commons, on matters of charge and accusation against himself. Some farther proceedings took place on that case on the 14th of the following month; the result was, that their lordships resolved the duke should not attend the house of commons. A case nearly similar occurred in the year 1673, in that of the earl of Arlington, who was also required to attend the house of commons to answer on matters of accusation against him. In this case, their lordships, after duly considering the case, and though the earl of Arlington himself desired to be examined, refused their consent, and subsequently resolved upon the standing order now upon the book. In the present instance, he repeated, though the message did.

Lord Hawkesbury, in explanation, begged leave to express his astonishment at what had fallen from the noble earl. He was at a loss to conceive how it could possibly be inferred from what he said, that he entertained the least idea of throwing any difficulties in the way of public justice.

The Duke of Norfolk urged that several peers had at different times attended committees of the house of commons for the purpose of giving them information with respect to subjects under their consideration. He admitted, however, in answer to a question of lord Hawkesbury across the table, that there was no matter of accusation against any of the peers he had alluded to. He was perfectly aware that their lordships could not compel lord Melville to attend a committee of the house of commons; but he conceived there could be no difficulty, if that noble lord was willing to attend, in giving him permission to do so. He wishedto know if there was any precedent subsequent to 1673 applicable to this case?

not directly mention matter of accusation | against lord viscount Melville, yet he could not avoid observing (not meaning however to give any decided opinion upon the subject) that it expressly referred to the tenth report of the commissioners of naval inquiry, a copy of which was on their lordship's table, and which contained matters of grave and serious accusation against that noble lord. This report, he could collect from the votes of the commons, was referred to a select committee, who were desired to examine into several points contained therein; and, among others, into the application of public monies entrusted to the treasurer of the navy to other services than those of the navy. A proceeding of this kind, so set forth, although it may prove, upon due enquiry and explanation, to be even a meritorious line of conduct; yet, prima facie, it was to be regarded in the light of matter of accusation; therefore, from what evidence they had before them, derived from the report upon the table, and the votes of the house of commons, it might in the first instance be inferred that the intention was to examine the noble viscount upon points which may form matter of accusation against The Lord Chancellor contended for the himself. Under these circumstances, parti- propriety, in every point of view, of upholdcularly referring to the standing order, it ing and maintaining the privileges of their was incumbent upon the house seriously to lordship's house. It was the bounden duty take the case into consideration before an of every member of that house to maintain answer should be sent to the commons. He them. What had been advanced by the already stated he had not his mind fully noble duke was nothing at all to the present made up as to the most proper course to be question. It signified nothing, with refeadopted. He thought that some time, avoid-rence to the standing order, whether a peer ing all unnecessary delay, should be given to noble lords to consider and to enquire as to the precedents in such cases. He hoped, however, under the circumstances of the case, and its peculiar importance, there would be no objection, no difficulty in referring it to the consideration of a committee of privileges, and that the clerk be ordered to furnish them with such precedents of similar cases as may have occurred.

Lord Hawkesbury observed, that his motive in moving a reference to the committee was to search for precedents.

be willing or not to attend. The order was peremptory and explicit, and prohibited such attendance, under severe penalties. He believed there was no instance of a peer's being permitted to attend, where matters of accusation against him were under consideration. The noble and learned lord referred to some precedents before the order was made, in illustration of what he had advanced. In a case, in the year 1628, a permission had been granted in respect to an act of parliament then recently passsed, and a correspondent entry was made upon the Journals. In one or two other instances, leave had been given; but, by the resolu tion solemnly taken in 1673, no member of that house was suffered to attend in such a case, even were he inclined, or even to ap

Earl Darnley thought the noble secretary of state should be sure of proceeding upon strong grounds before he did what might appear at least as throwing difficulties in the way of public justice; and it appeared to him rather extraordinary that a member of his majesty's government should be the first to come forward with such a proposition, in a case of such a delicate and peculiar na-pear by his counsel. These were prohibited ture as the present. At any rate, he hoped their lordships would avoid all unnecessary delay, and come, as soon as possible, to a resolution upon the point.

under the penalties of the custody of the black rod, or commitment to the Tower. For his own part, in such a case, did every subject in his majesty's dominions think he

was acting wrong, he should perform his duty to himself, to all their lordships, and to the house in general, and, therefore, to the country, in strenuously recommending, nay, even in insisting, with reference to the standing order, upon such a proceeding as that recommended by his noble friend, it should be referred to the committee of privileges, to enquire what had been the former practice of the house upon such occasions. He agreed with the noble lords, that no delay should take place.

throw any obstacles in the way of any investigation instituted with regard to the conduct of lord viscount Melville. His only wish in this case was, that the privileges of their lordships should be maintained, and their standing orders adhered to, and it was with this view, and this alone, he had brought forward his proposition.-The motion was then agreed to, and the committee of privileges was ordered to sit on Monday for the purpose of taking the subject into consideration.-Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS,

Friday, May 3.

[MINUTES.] The sheriffs of London

The Duke of Norfolk explained, that, in his opinion, where the will of the peer required, and the permission of the house combined, the case was materially altered. In many cases it was highly desirable that presented at the bar the petition of the lord every possible information should be afford-mayor, aldermen, and common council of ed, with a view to the ends of public justice. the city of London, in council assembled, He repeated his hope that no unnecessary delay would be suffered to take place. Earl Darnley, in further explanation, observed, that he did not object to the matters being referred to a committee of privileges. He had only expressed his doubts of the propriety of a member of his majesty's government coming forward, as the noble secretary of state did in the present instance.

against the prayer of the Catholic petition, now on the table of the house.-Ordered to lie on the table till the day for taking said petition into consideration.—Mr. Leycester informed the house from the bar, that pursuant to their order he had waited on the lords with their request to their lordships, that they would permit lord viscount Melville to attend the committee appointed to The Duke of Montrose contended, that consider further of the matter of the tenth in a case like the present, it was more pecu- report referred to them, in order to his beliarly the duty of a member of his majesty's ing examined; and that their lordships had government to come forward, and endea- signified their intention to send their answer vour to point out the most correct and un- by a messenger of their own.—Mr. Jeffery exceptionable line of proceeding; and he gave notice, that he should on Monday make must say, that he thought an expression a motion relative to the number of vessels which had fallen from a noble earl, charging that had been fitted out and stored in his his noble friend with endeavouring to throw majesty's yards during the administration of obstacles in the way of an investigation in-lord St. Vincent.-Mr. Tierney submitted stituted in the house of commons, had been somewhat hastily used.

Earl Darnley, in explanation, repeated his regret, that this motion had been brought forward by a member of his majesty's government, for the reason he had before stated; at the same time he should not object to referring the matter to the committee of privileges.

Lord Hawkesbury felt himself called upon, in consequence of what had been said and repeated by the noble lord, to say a few words in vindication of his own conduct. It was very true that he was a member of his majesty's government; but he did not forget, at the same time, that he was also a member of their lordship's house, and as such he should have been wanting to his duty if he had not called their attention to their privileges and their standing orders. He was conscious of no wish or intention to

whether the hon. gent. ought not in candour to state the nature of the papers for which he intended to move; and whether, if he intended to make them the ground of charge upon the noble earl, it would not be more fair at once to move for an inquiry into his conduct, than to bring forward a charge upon an ex parte statement.-Mr. Jeffery stated his object to be, to procure a document whereby the comparative state of the navy then and at present might be ascertained, and whether the former administra tion of the admiralty was entitled to the approbation of the house.-The chancellor of the exchequer brought up the bill for continuing, for a time to be limited, the act for appointing the commissioners of naval inquiry, which was read a first time; also the bill for appointing commissioners to inquire into the different departments of the public expenditure therein mentioned, and

to report thereon to the house.-Read a first time.

same equal, impartial, and inflexible sternness, with which it falls upon the poorest [PETITION FROM MIDDLESEX RE- and most unprotected criminal.-Your hon. SPECTING THE 10th NAVAL REPORT.] house, by the said votes of the 8th and 10th A petition of the freeholders of Middlesex of April, has extorted the admiration of was presented to the house by Mr. Byng, those most hostile to the character and consetting forth," that the votes of your hon. struction of the lower house of parliament. house on the 8th and 10th days of April last, By following up the spirit of those votes, founded on the tenth report of the commis- your hon. house will secure the confidence sioners of naval enquiry, has interested the and the affection of the nation, and the triwhole nation, and no part of the nation umph of the English constitution will be more deeply than your petitioners. We complete.-We entreat you to proceed and humbly crave the liberty of stating, that no finish your labours upon these points in a measures ever yet issued from the commons manner that may be worthy of your hoof England which had diffused more glad-noured and applauded commencement of ness or raised more expectations than the the same. We beg of you not to cease till said votes of April the 8th and 10th, decla- you bring viscount Melville to condign puring lord viscount Melville to be guilty of nishment; to expose delinquencies wherea gross violation of the law and a high ever traced, and to make an example of guilt breach of duty;' thereby supporting the up-in whatever quarter it may be proved."right and virtuous discharge of the salutary Ordered to lie upon the table. duties of the said commissioners, whose con- [PETITION FROM WESTMINSTER REduct has excited the gratitude and the con- SPECTING THE 10th NAVAL REPORT. fidence of the whole country.-That the re- A petition of the electors of the city and newal of the said commission is a subject of liberty of Westminster, convened by the unfeigned joy to your petitioners; and that high bailiff in Palace-yard, on Friday the 3d we entreat your hon. house to be careful to of May, was presented by Mr. Fox and make the new law effectual, and adequate read; setting forth, "That your petitioners to its end. We pray your hon. house to share the national gratitude to your hon. attend particularly to those parts of the house, for your memorable and virtuous tenth report which have detailed the obsta- votes of the 8th and 10th days of April last, cles thrown by persons in office in the way founded upon the tenth report of the com of the investigation of the said commission- missioners of naval enquiry, declaring the ers, and to guard against their repetition.-lord viscount Melville to be guilty of a gross We submit to your hon. house whether the subaltern agents of corruption will not be eager to shelter their contumacy under the example of their superiors, unless the explicitness and enlarged authority of the law defeat their artifices. Nothing, we are persuaded, could be more revolting to the public sentiment, or could more thoroughly disappoint the hopes of the country, than that, instead of inquiries real, honest, and efficient, a fallacious and illusory system should be allowed to be adopted, under which real guilt might elude detection, and the substance of earnest investigation be sacrificed to mere pretence and shew.-Your petitioners humbly beg leave to state to your hon. house, that a civil action against viscount Melville and Mr. Trotter would not, of itself, be satisfactory to the public expectation. That a criminal prosecution against these delinquents is the real wish of the country; because the recovery of millions of money would not be of such real benefit to the people, as to see the justice of the law vindicated upon a great malefactor, with the VOL. IV.

violation of the law and a high breach of public duty.-Never were parliamentary measures received with more exultation by the country than the said votes'; and nothing, your petitioners are persuaded, could cause more disappointment to the nation than your hon. house's stopping short of these great ends of justice, which the public interest demands, and the honour you have acquired by the said votes, exacts and enforces at your hands.-The pure, the moderate, the faithful, the independent and the dignified discharge of the functions with which the law has invested the said commissioners of naval enquiry has filled the country with the most unqualified admiration of their conduct. The renewal of their aulthority is a source of the most unfeigned pleasure to the people at large; and we do most earnestly supplicate your hon. house, that in the construction of the new statute, your attention will be fixed upon the contumacious obstruction to full enquiry, which is so clearly pointed out in the said tenth report; and that you will carefully guard 2Q