No; it shall not be done for the future, says Mr. Trotter, and he bequeaths that to his successors which he never thought proper to enjoy himself. The act can never be violated again; I hope not; I hope the decision of the house this night, will render it impossible for the gent. who at present holds the situation of treasurer of the navy, or for any future treasurer, ever to violate it. But if we do not come to this decision, what security have we, that some future Melvilles and Trotters will not break through any new act we may pass, in the same way in which they have done the resolutions of this house in 1782, and the act of the 25th of his present majesty founded upon them. I hope and trust, sir, that a large and virtuous majority of this house will be found to put the seal and stamp of their reprobation upon such monstrous and unblushing delinquency. But, say some gentlemen, the depositions are not evidence. That I deny. If an impeachment were carried against my lord Melville and his associate, these depositions might be produced against them at the bar of the house of lords. Really, sir, I have a strong repugnance to enter into all the disgusting particulars of the conduct of this person with whom I had once some slight connection; God knows, it was a connection of hostility; but after what appears on the face of this report, I should be ashamed of myself if I belonged to the same class of society with him. What is any honourable man to think of a person, who either refuses to answer a plain question, or who answers it equivocally and under reservation? Did you derive any advantage from the use of the public monies in the hands of your paymaster?' To the best of my recollection I never did.'-Now, the hon. gent.'s objection to this is, that the noble lord should have occasion at all to mention his recollection on the subject. He should have been confident. There are some cases where a man may be allowed to speak as to his recollection, while in others, to mention it is to betray him. If a man were asked whether he was on a a particular night in a particular room with John a Noakes, it might be very well to answer, that to the best of his recollection he was not, but if he were asked whether John a Noakes did not charge him with an attempt to pick his pockets, and kick him out of the room-what would be the inference if he were to answer that John a Noakes did not," to the best of his recollection?" With respect to the noble lord's offer to swear positively that he did not profit from the misappropriation of the public money, it was remarkable that his offer was confined to the period in which Mr. Douglas, who was now dead, was paymaster of the navy, but did not at all extend to the paymastership of Mr. Trotter. What was the conclusion then to be drawn from this? Why, that he was ready to make oath as to the paymastership of Douglas, because he was dead, but did not think proper to swear as to Trotter, because he was alive. As to the letter which has been brought forward, and which, in my opinion, only aggravates and confirms his guilt, we never heard any thing of it, although his examination took place in Nov., until a few days previous to the day appointed for his trial. It is said that lord Melville never saw it till it was in print. Can any one believe it? Is it credible that the noble lord never had the curiosity to dispatch some confidential friend to make an extract of that part of the report which he had good reason to suppose must refer to him? When, indeed, he finds the effect of it on the public mind, when he finds that there is not a man, woman, or child, in every corner of the kingdom, in whose mouth the tenth report is not to be found; then, in order to do away the impression of it, he comes forward with his letter. But what can he now gain by this last shift of his? Nothing at all. But if he was suffered to avail himself of the delay he sought for, would not the country feel that the house of commons favoured public abuses, screened a great and criminal delinquent, and that our navy, the greatness and glory of the nation, was still possessed by that very man? Then in what respect would the government be held in the eyes of the people, and of foreign nations, should this man, in a state of accusation and suspicion, be suffered to hold his present high situation, when the bravest and most honourable commanders in the army and navy are always suspended from duty during an accusation of which the result might be an honourable acquittal. The impression on the public mind would now be, that lord Melville fled for protection to power and not to innocence, I hope and trust that this dreadful and disgusting business, like all other evils, will produce some good: that this day will be an æra for commencing an examination into all public abuses, and be the forerunner of such reforms as shall prevent great mischiefs in the country. I hope the right hon. gent. will himself undertake this great work ; and that the commissioners of naval inquiry, to whom the country is so much indebted, will continue their laudable and salutary pursuits, and bring every great delinquent to condign punishment. Lord Castlereagh opposed the motion, and insisted, that the very severe animadversions which had fallen from the hon. gent. were not fully justified by the nature of the charges against lord Melville. His lordship exhorted the house not to forget what was due to an old and faithful servant of the public, whose honour was dearer to him than his life. He expressed his sincere wish that the affair might be thoroughly sifted to the bottom by parliament; but he also wished, that the house would not be induced by party clamour and vociferation to forget individual justice. His lordship, therefore, deprecated entering fully into the business at present, unless it were intended to move further for the dismissal of lord Melville from his Majesty's service. He considered, he observed, Mr. Trotter in the light of a deputy of lord Melville's; and that, therefore, the manner in which the public money entrusted to his care had been employed, demanded the particular attention of parliament; but his lordship was against treating lord Melville with the severity intended; and deprecated their being hurried by their sensations of strict rectitude into a premature decision upon a subject which involved objects of such magnitude. His lordship also stated, that a strict examination of the accounts was very necessary to know to what length the supposed abuse had been carried. Lord Andover supported the motion, and censured severely the conduct of lord Melville. He enlarged particularly upon the answer the noble lord had made when the plain questions whether he had connived at Mr. Trotter's practices, or received any emolument from them, were put to him by the commissioners. An answer, his lordship observed, very dissimilar to that of the Roman statesman, who, scorning any other justification, appealed boldly to the opinion his country at large entertained of his honour and integrity. Such was not lord Melville's character: his sensibility, his integrity, was not of that nature which" seeks the light, and courts the day." Mr. Wilberforce.-I do not rise, sir, at this late hour, to detain the house for any long time, but I cannot satisfy my mind without saying a few words in support of the original motion; for, notwithstanding I have listened with all the attention I am master of, to the arguments of gentlemen who have opposed it, I must confess that it is impossible for me to leave the house this night without giving my vote in support of the resolutions moved by the hon. gent. It seems to me, that if I were willing to admit all which the advocates of lord Melville argue for, yet I am equally bound to vote for the original motion. If the house were to step out of its way to adjust all the shades of criminality which belong to this case, then, indeed, it might be necessary to take some proceeding or other, similar to that which has been recommended to us by my right hon. friend, the chancellor of the exchequer. But here is a plain, broad fact, which no subsequent elucidation can possibly explain away. Here is my lord Melville publicly declaring on his oath, that he has tolerated his dependant in a gross breach of an act of parliament, for the purposes of private emolument. I really cannot find language sufficiently strong to express my utter detestation of such conduct. In my mind, the friends of lord Melville have not at all affected the plain, simple state of the transaction. What advantage can we derive from going into a committee, for the purpose of contradicting an examination given on oath? I confess, sir, that I cannot make up my mind to believe that lord Melville received any direct gain from the transactions alluded to. But, though I do not believe that lord Melville has been a participator in the profits, yet I think it by no means improbable that he may at times have drawn more freely upon Mr. Trotter than he ought to have done. I will not say that lord Melville has not received accommodation from these profits. The bare fact of his having borrowed 10 or 20,000l. at a time from one of his clerks, is a very suspicious circumstance. It is clear that Mr. Trotter is a man who acted on the great scale, and this fact was of itself calculated to produce strong suspicion. Let me ask any of my hon. friends around me, if there are no suspicious circumstances attending these transactions? If the house was once to suffer a minister to say that he had connived at the breach of a law by a person who had been his confidential servant for a number of years, and that the superior was to pass uncensured because no personal corruption had been proved against him; if that was once to be admitted as a principle by which the house of commons was to be directed, it would open a door to every species of corruption, and there would be no security left for the faithful discharge of any public trust. Ministers may be desirous of waiting till the public feeling shall have subsided, and fancy that the whole business may blow over. But they are mistaken. They appear to me to have placed themselves in this situation. They might have prevented it. Had I been in their places, I would not have risked my reputation by setting up such a justification as they have done for lord Melville.-As to the argument that there has been no actual loss to the public by these transactions; when we reflect upon the consequences that might arise from the detention of money intended for the payment of so great a department as the navy of this country, when we reflect upon the lengths to which men may be induced to go if the mind is once accustomed to abuses, and when we consider the influence such conduct must inevitably have upon all the inferior departments, I do contend that the loss in a pecuniary view, may have been to an extent almost incalculable. It has been elegantly and beautifully said by a noble lord (Petty), that it would be fortunate indeed for this country had these abuses never been discovered, if the result was to be, that these Reports were to lay a dead letter on the table of this house, to prove and to proclaim, that although there might be found in this country persons honest and assiduous in conducting an inquiry into abuses, there was after and behind all this, a power able and willing to step in between the law and the offender against the law, and thereby establish at once the most fatal and the most shameful of all precedents, that of guilt known and acknowledged but not censured, of a breach of the law ascertained but not punished. But have we not sustained a loss which no money can repay? Such is the opinion which I entertain of the consequences of the loss of honour, that I esteem it beyond any thing that can be set in balance against it. Would to God we could be restored to the state we were in before this happened! If abuses such as have been brought to light by the commissioners of naval inquiry are tolerated or in any degree countenanced by this house, melancholy indeed will be the result. As to the "clamour" that has been mentioned, it is not the cry of popular faction, but it is the universal sentiment of persons of every rank, of the rich as well as the poor, of the middling class of the community, who understand the constitution perfectly well. Greatly as the people of England disliked the conduct of Charles the First in levying ship-money, it was not so much the measure itself which created such general discontent, as the circumstance of the judges having given their opinions in favour of it. Lord Clarendon concludes his reflections on this transaction with these remarkable words : " and here," says he, "the damage and mischief cannot be expressed, that the crown and state sustained by the deserved reproach and infamy that attended the judges, by being made use of in this, and like acts of power; there being no possibility to preserve the dignity, reverence, and estimation of the laws themselves, but by the integrity and innocency of the judges." It is not only lord Melville, but we ourselves that are upon our trial, and a fearful trial it is. If we shrink from it we shall hereafter have reason to repent of our conduct. The house is now appealed to as the constitutional guardian of the rights of the people, and I should ill discharge my duty to the public, if I did not give my most cordial and sincere support to the present motion. Sir Charles Price observed, that, as a magistrate and a man, he felt himself most fully justified in declaring that if lord Melville had been entirely free from any criminality, he would have answered more fully and unequivocally than he had done. He therefore supported the original motion. Mr. Wallace rose to express the conviction he felt of the personal integrity of lord Melville. Lord Archibald Hamilton rose, amidst loud cries for the question. He said he would not detain the house a moment. No member for Scotland had yet delivered their sentiments on the question, and he only meant to state, that there was at least one representative of that country who would vote for the original motion. The house then divided :For Mr. Whitbread's votion..........216 For the Previous Question.. The numbers being thus equal the SPEAKER gave his casting vote in favour of Mr. Whitbread's Motion, thereby making a Majority of........ 1 It ap The question was then put on each of the resolutions moved by Mr. Whitbread, and carried in the affirmitive. When strangers were re-admitted to the gallery, the house was debating on the 11th resolution. peared that Mr. Pitt had moved to leave out the concluding words, viz. "has been guilty of a gross violation of the law, and a high breach of duty," with the view of substituting these words" has acted contrary to the intentions of the said act." After a long conversation Mr. Pitt obtained leave to withdraw this amendment, in order that he might have an opportunity of proposing another in a preceding part of the same resolution. He proposed to insert after the words "private interest or emolument," these words, "of Mr. Trotter." This amendinent was warmly opposed. It was contended, on the one side, that the resolution ought to be left in its' original ambiguous form, as it gave no opinion on the question of lord Melville's personal emolument; and that to throw the whole upon Mr. Trotter, would be pronouncing a decision, which the house, from the facts before them, were not competent to make. Sir William Pulteney suggested, that the words, as acknowledged by lord Melville," in addition to those proposed by Mr. Pitt, would meet the ideas of both sides of the house. nived for 16 years, and then to fritter away the conclusion, was a most extraordinary way of acquitting his colleague. Mr. Bastard said, it was impossible for any gentleman to support such an amendment. Mr. T. Grenville spoke to the same effect. Mr. Pitt persisting in his declaration that he would take the sense of the house, the gallery was cleared; but on the question being put on the motion as it originally stood, the speaker declared that the ayes had it, and Mr. Pitt did not push the house to a division. Before strangers were re-admitted, Mr. Whitbread had moved an address to his Majesty for removing lord Melville from his councils; and at the time the gallery was opened Mr. Pitt was proposing to postpone the consideration of this motion until Wednesday. Mr. Whitbread said, he had no particular objection to this amendment. The words in his motion had been left general, because it was confessed that the sums were drawn out for private interest and emolument, but not specified directly whether for lord Melville as well as Mr. Trotter. In this way the motion was read by the chair. It then stood thus: "That the right hon. lord vis"count Melville having been privy to, and "connived at, the withdrawing from the "bank of England, for the purpose, as sta-journ to Wednesday next. "ted by lord Melville, of private emolument to Mr. Trotter, sums issued to lord Mel"ville as treasurer of the navy, and placed to his account in the bank, according to the provisions of the 25 Geo. III. c. 31. "has been guilty of a gross violation of the law, and a high breach of duty." Mr. Windham contended that after the clear elucidation of the case that the treasurer of the navy could answer whether he had not derived advantage from the pubile money, the words in the resolution ought to be left ambiguous. Mr. For said, after the long debate which had already taken place, he should have no objection to the postponement of his hon friend's motion, provided it was understood that the house should not sit in the interval. He could not consent to a proposition which would leave to the house the chance of meeting again without having taken any step to remove a disgraced administration. Mr. Pitt. Certainly, in every view of the case, it is better that the house should ad Mr. Fox said, that the attempt to screen lord Melville from the result of the previous resolutions by so trifling an amendment, would do the noble lord no-good, but would put that house in a very awkward point of view. vio Mr. Wilberforce said, that not to brand the transaction by the epithets of gross lation of the law, and a high breach of duty, after the confession of lord Melville, would be ignominious to the house. To say, Mr. Sheridan said, that the amendment made the motion almost nonsense. in the first instance, that lord Melville conVOL. IV. Adjourned at 5 o'clock on Tuesday morning to Wednesday. List of the Majority. Bouverie, Hon. E. Brooke, Charles Adair, R. Baker, Peter W. Browne, Isaac H. Dennison, John Duncannon, Lord Dickins, F. Douglas, Marquis Dugdale, S. D. Dundas, Hon. L. Dundas, Hon. G. H. L. Erskine, Hon. Thomas Foljambe, F. Ferrand Grenville, R. Hon. T. Holland, Henry Holland, Sir Nathan. Howard, Henry Whitbread, S. (Tel Townshend, Lord J. Willoughby, Hon. Tyrwhitt, Thomas Wilberforce, Wm. Vansittart, George Walpole, Hon. G. Walpole, Hon. H. Ward, Hon. J W. Watson, Hon. George Western, C. Callis' Wharton, John Wright, John Atkins Williams, H. Williams, Owen Walsh, Sir B. Windham, Right H Wrottesley, Sir Joh Wynn, C. W. W. Young, Sir W. List of the Minority. Abercromby, Hon. G. Adams, Wm. Addington, Rt. Hon. Baldwyn, W. Bloxham, Sir M. Bond, N. Brodie, James Buller, John Burrows, Sir W. Burton, N.C. Calvert, J. Brome, Lord Ponsonby, George Brooke, Lord Portman, Ed. Berk. Bruce, Lord Poyntz, William S. Bruce, P. C. Praed, William Campbell, J. A. Campbell, John Canning, Rt. Hon. G. Dundas, Rt. Hon. V Dunlo, Lord Dupre, James Elford, Sir W. Greville, Hon. R. F. Hamilton, Hamilton, H. Hamilton, Sir C. Hamond, Sir A S. Hardman, Edward Harvey, E. Hawkins, Sir C. Hawthorne, C. S. Heathcote, Sir W. Henderson, A. Hill, Sir George Hilliard, E. Hobhouse, B. Hudson, J. Holford, G. P. Hope, Hon. Alez. Hope, Hon. C. Horrocks, J. Huntingfield, Lord Huskisson, W. Juglis, Sir H. Jeffray, J. |