Commons Sitting of 25 April 1805

MINUTES.
The Speaker reported to the house, that the house attended His Majesty on the 11th instant, with the resolutions of the house of the 8th instant, relative to lord viscount Melville, whereupon His Majesty was pleased to give the following most gracious answer: "Gentlemen; I shall on all occasions receive with the greatest attention any representation of my commons; and I am fully sensible of the importance of the matter which is the subject of your resolutions."—On the motion of Mr. W. Smith, it was ordered that a new writ should be issued for the election of a representative for Hereford, in the room of J. Scudamore, esq. deceased.—Mr. Johnstone, from the office of the chief secretary of Ireland, presented at the bar the various statements relative to the prisoners in Kilmainmam gaol, which had been ordered upon a former day, on the motion of lord Henry Petty. Ordered to be laid on the table.—Sir Thomas Metcalfe moved, that the second reading of the Pancras Poor bill be fixed for Monday next, which, after a few observations from Mr. P. Moore, was agreed to and ordered the house.—Sir .J. W. Anderson obtained leave to bring in a bill for the formation of the Tunnel under
376
the Thames.—Lord John Townsend and Mr. Garrow took the oaths and their seats in the house.—The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave notice, that on Monday next he should move for leave to bring in a bill to continue the commission of naval inquiry; and also that he should submit a motion for the purpose of appointing commissioners to inquire into the conduct of the principal departments connected with the great military expenditure of the country, with powers to examine witnesses on oath, and to report to both houses of parliament, in order that if no abuse existed that required correction, the public may be satisfied with the assurance of the fact; or if, after investigation, new measures should seem necessary, parliament should adopt such as in its wisdom it may think fit.—Mr. Kinnaird presented a petition from B. Tucker, esq. late a commissioner of the navy board, stating that a letter of the navy board to the admiralty, on the subject of the report of the navy board relative to sir Home Popham, prepared by Mr. Tucker, contained many gross, false, and scandalous charges against him, which were not communicated to him by the admiralty or the navy board, and from which he prayed an opportunity of clearing himself.—On the motion of Mr. Kinnaird, it was ordered that there be laid before the house, a copy of Mr. Tucker's letter to the admiralty on this subject.—Sir A. S. Hammond gave notice that he would to-morrow move for certain papers connected with the 11th report of the commissioners of naval enquiry.

PETITION OF THE ELECTORS OF SOUTHWARK AGAINST LORD MELVILLE.
Mr. Henry Thorntonpresented the following petition agreed to by the electors of Southwark, in common hall assembled: "To the honourable the Commons of Gt. Britain and Ireland, in parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, electors of the borough of Southwark, in the county of Surry, beg leave to congratulate your honourable house, upon the result, so glorious to the character of parliament, of the discussions which have taken place in your honourable house on the 8th and 10th days of this inst. April, respecting the gross malversations in certain branches of the executive government, which have been disclosed in the Tenth Report of the commissioners of naval enquiry. We pray your honourable house to follow up that virtuous line of conduct, which, upon the two days before

377
named, have diffused such signal satisfaction through the whole country. We entreat you to sift to the bottom the mass of abuses which the aforesaid commissioners have traced and exposed. We beseech you to renew, without loss of time, and to extend, if necessary, the powers so faithfully executed, of those commissioners. We implore your honourable house to pull down guilt, however protected; to save from rapacity, from peculation, and fraud, a people who contribute cheerfully to the real wants of the state, and who never complain but when their generous temper is abused and imposed upon: so shall the commons of England take the most efficient course possible to vindicate the sullied honour of the government; to confirm the public confidence, and to plant in all good hearts the most unfeigned admiration of the British constitution."

PETITION OF THE CITY OF LONDON AGAINST LORD MELVILLE.
Mr. Ald. Curtispresented a petition from the lord mayor, aldermen, and livery of the city of London in common hall assembled, setting forth, "That the petitioners have uniformly concurred in and supported such measures as have appeared conducive to the safety and welfare of his majesty's dominions, and have cheerfully submitted to the most unexampled burthens, under a confidence that the resources of the country were faithfully and honestly administered; and that they learn, with the utmost concern and astonishment, from the reports of the commissioners for naval enquiry, now before the house, that the right hon. Henry Dundas viscount Melville, late treasurer of his majesty's navy, has been guilty of a gross violation of the law and a high breach of duty, whereby immense sums of the public money have been perverted to private emolument; and that they conceive it to be a high aggravation of such offence, that these disgraceful transactions were carried on during a period of unprecedented difficulty, when the very existence of the country was said to be at stake; and that the person so abusing his trust, so violating the law, was in the enjoyment of several high and lucrative offices, and ever among the foremost in laying additional burthens upon the people, and calling upon them to submit to the most painful privations; and that they are duly impressed with a high sense of the virtue, integrity, and firmness of the house, and strongly participate in the sentiment which so generally pervades all ranks of
378
his majesty's faithful subjects, of the wisdom and fidelity with which it has discharged its most sacred trust, by the progress it has made towards protecting the people against such gross violations of the law and breaches of public duty; and that the petitioners approach the house, as the guardians of the liberty and property of the people, under a full conviction that such shameful abuses will induce the house to do ample justice to the outraged feelings of the country, by bringing to condign punishment convicted criminality; and that they beg to submit to the house, that it would be highly derogatory to his majesty's government, prejudicial to the public service, and insulting to the house, and the nation at large, for lord Melville any longer to continue in his majesty's councils, or to hold any place of trust, profit, or honour, in or under the government; and that they conceive all other persons who may be implicated in, or who have connived at, such abuses, to be incapable any longer of serving the country with honour or advantage, and ought equally to be brought to a severe account; and therefore praying, that the house, taking these matters into their most serious consideration, will vigorously promote and prosecute those inquiries, and cause the powers of the said commissioners to be prolonged and extended, and other measures to be adopted, in order that such further enquiry may be made into the receipt, management, and expenditure of the public money, and the conduct of the public offices, as may lead to the detection of all abuses and the punishment of all offences, and that such a system of vigilance and economy may be established, as may effectually guard against the recurrence of such flagrant abuses."

PETITION OF THE CITY OF SALISBURY AGAINST LORD MELVILLE.
Lord Viscount Folkestonepresented a petition from the mayor and coproration of the city of Salisbury, setting forth, "That the petitioners have perused, with much concern and interest, the resolutions of the house of the 8th and 10th days of this instant April; with concern, that any charges of the nature therein implied should attach upon any individual in a high official situation, and with interest, that the representatives of the nation have, under the circumstance of such charges, marked such individual with their censure and reprobation; and that the petitioners beg leave to state, that, in common with the nation at large, they

379
have to lament the weight of the heavy burthens to which the legislature has found it necessary to submit them, but they claim to themselves, in common with the nation at large, the merit of having borne them with patience, readiness, and equanimity, trusting that what had been granted liberally would be applied faithfully; but when a suspicion is gone forth, under the authority of parliamentary commissioners, and that suspicion apparently adopted by the house, that peculation has been hard at work, the petitioners take leave to call upon the national representatives for redress, reminding them that it is of little consequence as a public grievance, of little consequence in point of official morality whether the actual peculation be by men of great authority and power, or by their deputies and subalterns under their permission and connivance; and therefore praying the house to continue such commission of enquiry as has already discovered such abuses, and to institute any new commission which may be necessary to ascertain whether in any other department of the state the national finances have been misapplied, and also to devise such legal proceedings upon those instances of misapplication already before the public as may satisfy the general cry for justice, by bringing all persons concerned to a strict responsibility."

MIDDLESEX ELECTION.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, he held in his hand a declaration, signed by sir Francis Burdett, which the house, he had no doubt, would receive, agreeably to the act of the 28th of the king, for the regulation of controverted elections. The act being read pro formâ by the clerk, the hon. gent. observed, that, according to its provisions, any member, in case of a contested election, might withdraw himself from the contest, by signing a written declaration to that effect, which the house was bound to receive.
The Speakercalled the attention of the house to the present proceeding. He observed, it was certainly competent for a member to withdraw himself by signing a written declaration, but he must relinquish prosecuting the business totally, but not partially. The question was, whether the declaration was so defined, that the hon. member withdrew himself out of one or several parts of the charges contained hi the petition.
Mr. Calcraftwas of opinion that the declaration Which he held in his hand
380
came within the act. It declared, that it was not the intention of the hon. baronet to defend the petition, as far as related to the majority, or the right of voting, but he wished to defend himself against the charge of bribery and corruption. He thought the latter words superfluous, but did not imagine they vitiated the declaration.
The Secretary at Warargued, on the contrary, that, unless the declaration was final, it could not be received.
Sir John Newportwas of opinion that the declaration came within the spirit and the letter of the act, as it was impossible for the hon. baronet to proceed further; and as the charge of perjury goes to civil penalties, the declaration, if not worded as it was at present, may be brought against him.
Mr. Calcraftobserved, that with the indulgence of the house, he would withdraw the declaration, for the purpose of amending it; and as the hon. baronet was indisposed in the country, he would present another, signed by him, to-morrow or next day.—After a few words from Mr. Rose and Mr. Grey, the declaration was accordingly withdrawn.

IRISH SMALL NOTES REGULATION BILL.
Mr. Leeadverted to the present rules prescribed by law, for the issue of small bank notes in Ireland, by which it was enjoined, that no private banks should be allowed to issue notes under three guineas value in that country. The effect of such a measure must obviously be highly detrimental to trade in general. The farmer could not, on account of the scarcity of specie, sell a small quantity of corn there, to the amount of 20s. or 30s. unless he could, which was very rarely the case, give change for a 3-guinea note, and the same difficulty was felt in every other branch of dealing. This was not felt in England, or Scotland, where the private bankers can get small notes from the Bank of England; but the national Bank of Ireland was restrained, so as not to extend its issues. He saw no reason for this distinction in the case of Irish private banks, as they must always have in their possession national notes, in proportion to their own issues, and were therefore perfectly secure. He would leave it to any gent., conversant with business, to reflect on the extreme inconveniencies that must ensue ever here, if, while the restriction on the bank continues, there

381
should be no smaller than 3 guinea notes in circulation. In Ireland, the measure had a most desireable tendency, as the tradesman there had seldom any other way of getting his note exchanged, but of repairing to the public house, and spending a great part of the money. He then moved for leave "to bring in a bill to regulate the issue of small promissory notes and bills in Ireland, which was agreed to." The hon. gent. next observed upon the great difficulties existing in the recovery of small debts in Ireland, where creditors were often obliged to travel from 30 or 40 miles, to the quarter sessions, at an expence perhaps superior to the amount of their respective debts. The principal object of the bill he should propose, would be to give magistrates the summary power of debts under 5l. He then moved for leave "to bring in a bill for the more expeditious recovering of small debts in Ireland;" which was granted.

PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE PRINTER OF "THE ORACLE" FOR A LIBEL ON THE HOUSE.
Mr. Greyrose, and, after stating his reluctance to take any step at all inconsistent with the most perfect liberty of the press, called the attention of the house to one of the most indecent libels on the procedings of that house, which it had ever been his province to notice. It was, indeed, a libel of so gross a nature, that the house, in consistency with its own dignity, could not suffer it to pass over, without at strong expression of indignation against such an attack on a solemn decision of the legislature. The hon. member then read the following paragraph from "the Oracle" of yesterday. The article is prefaced by a statement that sir Charles Middleton was appointed first lord of the admiralty While we announce this arrangement as the proper reward of public and private virtue, we cannot help sincerely regretting, that party rancour and popular clamour have at this time deprived our king and country of the great and powerful abilities of lord Melville. In no period of our political history can we find such an instance of the strong effects of prejudice. With all our profound respect for the motives which influenced the majority of the house of commons—with all our admiration of that spirit which arouses and animates the people in their expressions of indignation at the supposed malver-
382
sations of an Individual—with all our regard for town and country meetings when properly directed in supporting the cause of independence, freedom, and public virtue—we cannot help again and again declaring, that lord Melville has fallen a victim to confidence misplaced; to prejudice misjudged, and to indignation misapplied. He has been condemned without a trial. When an appeal has been offered to his intemperate judges—when a request has been made to put him on his defence—when it has been earnestly solicited to give him a fair and a candid hearing, and then to come to a decision on the merits of the case—a strong and presumtuous negative has been given, directed and enforced by the violence of the times."—The hon. gent. proceeded to move "that the printer and publisher" should be called to the bar of the house." The clerk taking up the paper in question, ascertained that the printer and publisher was Mr. Peter Stuart, of Fleet-street; and on the suggestion of the speaker, the passage complained of was again read at the table.—As soon as Mr. Grey's motion was put from the chair,
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose, and spoke as follows: I certainly do allow, sir, that the passage now read is libellous and indecent; but, if we are now to begin to turn our attention to every thing of a libellous and indecent tendency, which appears in the public newspapers, I hope at least we shall observe the strictest impartiality. It is not the first time that we have heard of libellous, licentious, and unwarrantable observations in newspapers, even on the proceedings of this house, and we have seen them altogether overlooked. If gentlemen have now, however, made up their minds that such licentiousness of the press is not to be tolerated; if they are resolved that malignant remarks, whenever they appear derogatory to the dignity of this house, shall meet with marks of our indignation, I am satisfied. All that I ask is, that we shall not select one instance for punishment, while we allow many others to pass with impunity. I certainly do not oppose the motion.
Mr. Grey.—The right hon. gent. has allowed that the passage which I have thought it my duty to bring before the house, is both libellous and indecent, and he has no objection to the Motion which

383
I have proposed. He says, however, that he wishes this not to be a particular instance selected for party motives, but a part of a general system of inquiry. To this I can have no sort of objection, for I have selected this case merely because it struck me as one which it was the imperious duty of this House to take under their special cognizance. The present instance was one which appeared to me right and proper to be selected, and on that account only have I brought it under the consideration of the house.—The right hon. gent. has alluded to cases of libels on this house which were overlooked. If he did know of such cases it was his duty to have specified them, and if they did not meet with adequate punishment, he has no one to blame but himself. Those who did see such libels and who did not specify them in this house, were certainly deficient in respect to that dignity in all its proceedings, without which the honour and the importance of this house could not be maintained. If any man has seen and felt that our proceedings have been calumniated, and has not moved for the punishment of the libeller, he has not done his duty. We must see that our decisions are treated with proper respect, or else our character is destroyed. It is therefore on a principle of regard for our public utility that I think the present motion necessary, and I trust the house will act on the same principles.
Mr. Fox.—I certainly do agree with the right hon. gent. opposite, that in a business of this nature, the strictest impartiality is our duty. I differ with him, however, as to the particular period when my hon. friend near me has brought forward his motion. When we talk of the propriety of such motions, I hope we shall not lose sight of the particular circumstances and the particular time under which they are produced. It is the duty of this house at all times to be jealous of its honour, but this is a period when this jealousy ought to be the most active. A late decision of this house has diffused universal gratitude throughout the country, and it is our duty to see that this decision shall not be wantonly attacked and insulted. It is the more necessary, sir, for us to see that our resolution is properly respected, when we find men in high official situations endeavouring to act as the protectors of those condemned of the grossest malversations. When we see evident signs of reluctance to
384
have delinquents brought to punishment, is it not our province to teach those who libel our proceedings, that they shall not do so with impunity? We have voted certain resolutions on which his majesty's servants have not hitherto thought it their duty to take the least proceedings.—The right hon. gent. opposite, the treasurer of the navy, even continues in office, a man whom the commissioners of naval enquiry have declared unworthy of acting in any pecuniary situation, since, he refused to answer questions essentially connected with the object of their investigations. If ever then, sir, it was fit for the house of commons to be jealous of its honour and dignity, surely this is the period when our calls to jealousy are greatly increased. The very strength and efficacy of our late resolutions must depend on the measures which we now form, not as against an individual, but for the support of the character of the house of commons. I therefore entirely coincide in the motion of my honourable friend who introduced this business, while it is impossible to disagree with the right hon. gent. opposite, that in all cases of a similar kind, we ought to proceed with the greatest fairness and impartiality. As a general principle, indeed, I lay it down that, independent of all party considerations, whenever gross or indecent attacks are made on the proceedings of this house, they ought to be punished with suitable severity. I therefore cordially vote for the motion.
Mr. Canning.—The allusions which the hon. gent. has made to my conduct, renders it necessary to say a few words in reply. The hon. gent., sir, has represented it to be an aggravation of this libel, that Mr. Wilson has been continued in my office after the opinion of this house had been formally declared. [A general cry of No, No, from the opposite side of the house.] With all due deference to the hon. gent.'s logic, I think it is, in this instance, altogether erroneous. It is, indeed, a most extraordinary position, that, because other persons had been guilty of improper acts, the author of the libel, who knows nothing of the matter, is to have a severer punishment. I wish, sir, the honourable gentleman had considered the matter a little better, and then, I am confident, he could not easily reconcile such ideas, either with logic or humanity. With regard to this Mr. Wilson, it is necessary for me to declare that I entertain for him no individual

385
concern or regard. In retaining him in the situation which he now holds, I looked only to the equity of the business. I could not reconcile it to my ideas of justice to dismiss one against whom no decision of this house had taken place; against whom no proof of criminality, so far as the use of the public money is concerned, has been even attempted to be established. He indeed refused to answer certain questions from the commissioners of naval enquiry, but on what grounds did his refusal rest? It was expressly under the idea that his answers would subject him to certain pains and penalties; not that he participated of any money improperly applied, but that he acted as the deputy of a person whom a vote of the house had declared guilty of a misapplication of the public money. In all these transactions Wilson was merely the deputy, merely the instrument to carry forward the designs of another. True it is, he filled up drafts in the absence of his principal, but it was impossible for him, while he continued in the office, to refuse such an employment. He might indeed have resigned, but nothing short of this could have superseded the necessity of the conduct to which so much blame is now attached. Having then officiated as a deputy, Wilson very naturally refused to answer questions to which he knew that punishment might be applicable, and to which, under a clause of an express act, he was entitled to refuse any reply. Surely, sir, it will not be contended by the gentlemen on the other side, that the clause, under which Wilson refused to answer the commissioners, was intended to be an absolute nullity. It was certainly intended for some purpose, or it never have been adopted. It was designed for the protection of those who, though conscious of no moral delinquency, might, under particular circumstances, have been guilty of a legal crime. Such was exactly the situation in which Wilson stood in the whole of this business. Looking to the transaction a moral view, looking to him as not deriving the slightest advantage from misapplication of the public money, he had no more to do with it than the pen which he used, than the very ink which he used for those drafts by which the transfer was effected. Let me remind the house too, that the clause was not introduced into the bill on light authority. I contended for it strenuously here, but my exertions were not crowned
386
with success. In the other house of parliament, however, it was introduced on the suggestion of the lord chancellor, and when I have said this, I have surely said enough to shew that the clause was not meant to be an idle, unmeaning provision; but an active, positive regulation, on which every individual appearing before the commissioners had a fair right to act. Wilson did take advantage of the clause, and in so doing, only did what almost any man would have done under such circumstances. Though only himself an instrument, he was sensible that his answers might bring him into an unpleasant situation, which therefore he prudently avoided. In such conduct there was no criminality, since, while the individual exercised a right which the law allowed him, the public sustained no loss. This, sir, is the view which the best consideration of the subject has suggested, and, acting on these principles, I have not thought it my duty to dismiss Mr. Wilson from the situation which he holds in my office. This house has hitherto decided nothing on the case of Wilson, and, therefore, I have not felt it my duty to dismiss him from his present employment. When the house does express such a determination, it will undoubtedly be my duty to bow to it with all suitable respect; but, till that opinion is expressed, I shall continue to follow that line of conduct which appears to me alike consistent with justice and humanity. I am sensible, that in following this course, I subject myself to a great deal of odium and abuse. My conduct is ascribed to the most dishonourable motives; my refusal to dismiss Wilson is branded with the opprobrious epithet of protection of convicted guilt. Seeing the matter, however, as I now see it, I shall endure all this odium and reproach. When this house shall declare their opinion fairly, it will be my duty to submit to it; till that period arrives, Wilson shall not, in the absence of any proof of his guilt, be dismissed from his situation. I shall never, either by my voice or by my conduct, patronize the tyrannical, despotic principle of punishment previous to conviction. Having said so much in answer to the hon. member opposite, I have only to say, that I shall not oppose the motion.
Mr. Fox,in explanation, maintained that the right hon. gent. had totally misrepresented his argument. He had not asserted that the conduct of the right hon. gent. as treasurer of the navy, was any

387
aggravation of the particular libel in question, but he insisted that the particular circumstances in which the house were placed, rendered it highly necessary to watch over the dignity and honour of their proceedings, and not permit them wantonly either to be opposed or insulted. In alluding to the case of Wilson, he had meant clearly to explain to the house his opinion, that when men in high offices in the state, acted as the protectors of those against whom strong accusations existed, it became a matter of necessity that every attack on the character of the house, should be carefully looked to and signally punished. As he was up, he could not help remarking, that there was a very great distinction betwixt the right of a person to refuse answering certain questions before parliamentary commissioners, and the propriety of continuing those persons in office after such a refusal had taken place. It was surely a strong proof that all was not right when an individual was afraid of the consequences arising from a plain question, and yet it was to such a plain question that Wilson refused to give a direct answer.
The Attorney Generalrose, not, as he declared, to trouble the house with many observations. There were, however, a few remarks which he thought it his duty to throw out, in consequence of what had fallen from the gentlemen on the other side of the house. He confessed he was not surprised that the hon. mover thought this the most favourable moment for bringing forward the libel in question to the attention of the house. The opportunity was favourable, when the hon. gent. found himself in a majority on a great question, but he hoped, as his right hon. friend near him had said, that when such motions were brought forward they would be conducted with impartiality. Though he certainly did not mean directly to oppose the motion, he did not wish the house to be taken by surprise, and therefore he suggested to the hon. gent. that he should only in the mean time give it in the form of a notice, that thus all the members might have an opportunity of fully considering the nature of the passage in question. He thought it would be more consistent with the dignity of the proceedings of the horse to act with this degree of temper ward moderation. It was of importance to ascertain whether the libel was of that magnitude and importance as to
388
make it a fair subject of prosecution, and if it really was of that magnitude it was surely expedient that any proceedings consequent on it should not be carried by acclamation. As the affair now stood, to agree immediately to the hon. gent.'s motion, would carry with it an air of precipitation which he wished to mark no part of the proceedings of the house. These observations he applied to the motion immediately before the house, but it was necessary for him to advert to other topics, which had been introduced into the debate. He thought his right hon. friend, the treasurer of the navy, had been very unjustly attacked for retaining Wilson in his situation. Doubtless, Wilson was legally guilty; but he was morally innocent, and therefore in refusing to discharge Wilson, his right hon. friend drew the proper distinction. Wilson refused to answer certain questions, but in this no criminality was established. He acted under an express clause of an act of parliament, and he was besides protected by that general benevolent provision of our common law, that no man is bound to give evidence against himself, and that no judge has a right to enforce questions from winch punishment of a very severe nature may arise. The house would recollect the circumstances under which this clause was introduced. He had himself thought it unnecessary on the precise principle which he had now stated, that the humane spirit of our laws rendered it superfluous. Being introduced, however, it was surely no matter of guilt that it was acted on, and yet for the very act of Wilson, in availing himself of it; gentlemen blamed his right hon. friend for not dismissing him. With what justice this was done, he left it to the fair judgment of the house to decide; the legislature meant the clause as a clause of protection, and now the house were to be told, that the use of it was a proof of criminality. The legislature never could have such an object in view and, therefore, Wilson was not, from his silence, to be presumed guilty.
Mr. Rose,without opposing the motion, rose principally with the view of vindicating the conduct of his right hon. friend the treasurer of the navy, from the aspersions which had been thrown out against him in the course of the evening. He thought his conduct respecting Wilson was, in the highest degree, commendable, and afforded a striking contrast to the conduct pursued by a

389
pay-master of the forces at a distance of time of rather more than thirty years. He himself at that time did belong to the treasury, and therefore what he was about to state was the more to be relied on. He recollected that two officers in the paymaster's office were found guilty of gross fraud on the office with which they were connected. This appeared on a solemn examination by the lords of the treasury, who accordingly ordered them to be dismissed, and actions were instituted against them to recover their illegal gains in a court of law. One of them died before this process could be accomplished, but the survivor was actually cast in an action, and was confined in the King's Bench prison. A change of administration took place, and those defaulters were actually re-placed. He recollected that an hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Fox), who was now so clamorous against the continuance of Wilson in his situation, was violent against a proposition for condemning them, declaring, as far as he could remember, "Gracious God, will you condemn people without hearing them? Will you suppose them guilty without even listening to any proofs of their innocence?" He wished to know, then, on what principles the hon. gent. could reconcile his present conduct with his former appeals in favour of justice and humanity.
Mr. Fox,in explanation, professed that he had not at that time a perfect recollection of the transaction to which time hon member alluded. If he recollected right, however, the two persons were, at the time the vote passed in the house, actually sub judice. If, however, the hon. member had any wish to push the matter farther, he, for his part, was ready to discuss it on another occasion in all its features and relations.
Sir Charles Pole.—The right hon. gent. the present treasurer of the navy, thought proper to assert on a former occasion, that certain explanations were given by Wilson to the commissioners, which satisfied them of the manner in which he had conducted himself during the examination. Now, sir, it is proper for me to state, that no such explanations ever took place, and so much the reverse of being satisfied were the commissioners, that they almost take shame to themselves for not ordering him to prison for the manner in which he gave his evidence. I think it necessary for me to make this declaration, standing as I do
390
in the character of a servant of the public; and certainly such conduct as Wilson's on his examination before us is much to be condemned. If questions are put, and answers are thus to be refused—if inquiries respecting the application or mismanagement of the public money are to be trifled with, there is no utility in appointing commissioners of naval or military enquiry. We have the head of a board who refuses us all information—we come to the deputy, and he is equally silent—and thus may we go through the whole range, and still no satisfaction is obtained. Wishing, then, that these difficulties should be removed, the commissioners certainly never can express themselves satisfied with the manner in which Wilson eluded their investigations. Thus much have I felt it my duty to say respecting this part of the subject; and before I sit down, I shall add an observation or two respecting the conduct of the right hon. treasurer of the navy. I do say then, and say it with confidence, that the right hon, gent. did not give our inquiries all those facilities which might have been expected. We did encounter difficulties of a pretty formidable kind, to which the dilatory proceedings of that right hon. gent. did not a little contribute.
Mr. Canning.—I feel myself, sir, so personally alluded to by the hon. baronet, that I trust I shall be excused in rising again. I never stated that the commissioners of naval enquiry were, by means of subsequent information, satisfied with respect to the conduct of Wilson; what I said was, that the explanation given to me upon the subject would, I was confident, have satisfied the commissioners with respect to the person alluded to. I wish, however, to know whether the commissioners have reported the whole of the statement given in evidence by Mr. Wilson, aye or no? (Sir Charles Pole answered yes.) Mr. Canning was proceeding, when he was interrupted by
Mr. Plumer,who begged leave to remind the right hon. gent. that the regular way of conducting business, was to address the chair, instead of that sort of imperious catechising in which the right hon. gent. seemed so desirous to indulge.
Mr. Canningagain proceeded: I ask, sir, of the hon. baronet, whether the commissioners of naval enquiry have reported the whole of the correspondence which took place between them and the treasurer of the navy, aye or no? (Sir Charles Pole said, no.) I know, sir, they have not, and

391
I shall to-morrow move for the whole of that correspondence, or at least such parts of it as are not contained in the report of the commissioners.
Sir Charles PoleThe commissioners of naval enquiry reported, sir, all the answers made by Wilson. With respect to the correspondence with the treasurer of the navy there is no objection to produce it; the only reason why the commissioners did not state the whole of it was their desire not to overload the report.
Dr. Laurence defended Mr. Burke'sconduct, in re-instating Messrs. Bembridge and Powell. He complimented the speaker, whom he considered as the abstract essence of public virtue, on the truly patriotic and constitutional vote which he gave on a former evening. He could by no means approve of the mode proposed by the Attorney-General, to defer the motion until the house should have regained its proper tone of moderation; it was nothing more than a project of the first law officer of the crown, to get rid of the question entirely. He had serious objections to the conduct of the right hon. gent. (Mr. Canning,) who had taken the word of Mr. Wilson against the report of the commissioners of naval enquiry, and who, instead of facilitating, as he should have done, the enquiry, had thrown obstacles, altogether unexpected, in the way of the commissioners.
Mr. Canningmaintained his right to put the question with respect to Mr. Wilson, by the information he had: he defended the questions he had put, with respect to himself, by what he knew of his own knowledge. He begged his hon. and learned friend to suspend his judgment till he should have seen the whole correspondence, which he would not have wished to bring forward, if he did not think it would clear his conduct.
The Solicitor-Generalobserved, that some topics, certainly not in an immediate manner connected with the question before the house, had been alluded to in the course of the debate. The learned doctor had reproached his right hon. friend near him, with catechising and putting questions to the hon. admiral who was at the head of the commission; but it could not be out of the recollection of the house, that his right hon. friend had been pretty smartly attacked, and was therefore in some measure called upon to make a reply. He had been severely attacked, or at least severe allusions had been made to the subject of his
392
correspondence with the commissioners. He felt that he was bound to stand forward in his own defence, and he did ask whether the whole of his correspondence had been stated in the report? The answer was, "No," and the house would judge whether, in such case, his right hon. friend had not some claim to their indulgence. It had been said that his right hon. friend had withheld from the commissioners papers which it was necessary for them to possess, in order to prosecute their inquiry with success. If he (Mr. Gibbs) recollected the report as far as it touched upon this affair, it went merely to shew that his right hon. friend had objected to certain forms of proceeding, and had taken the advice of counsel whether he was bound to comply wtih the demands of the commissioners in this respect. He did not question the propriety of the demand of the commissioners, but had merely had a view to the practicability of complying with it in consistency with a proper regard to the conveniency of the public service. All the accounts, however, had been made out but one, and the papers had been presented to the commission. But from the manner in which gentlemen spoke of the act of parliament, and from the circumstance of one of the commissioners having stated that they took shame to themselves for not having imprisoned Mr. Wilson, one would think that persons were speaking of different acts. A clause had been introduced into this act, by which no person was bound to criminate himself. Yet it was contended, that those ought to be imprisoned who refused to answer questions that had this very tendency [gestures of dissent from the other side]. He was always very happy to be corrected if he was wrong, and from the gestures which he observed, he was inclined to think that he was mistaken. But he had certainly understood, that this was the meaning of what had been stated. But what was the use of this clause, if it were not intended that persons should avail themselves of it? Upon their construction, it would be entirely nugatory, for the moment an answer was refused upon its authority, guilt was to be presumed. He could by no means take upon himself to say that under no circumstance could a person incur any legal guilt without having derived any private advantage from the circumstance he meant to conceal. Undoubtedly it might be possible to incur guilt by endeavouring to shelter others, and in vari-

393
ous other ways; but he would be glad to know, how it was possible to take advantage of, this clause, and shelter himself under it, except by refusing to answer such questions as might involve him in pains and penalties? What explanation could he give? He could not enter upon explanations, because that, in effect, would be exposing himself to the very charge which he wished to avoid. But there was another thing to which he wished to advert: his right hon. friend had been accused of braving the house of commons; but surely, Mr. Wilson was not to be confounded with those on whom the house of commons had already passed a vote of censure. If these resolutions did not touch upon Mr. Wilson, how could his right. hon. friend be said to brave the house of commons? From the gestures on the other side, it appeared that he might be mistaken.
Mr. Foxhere interrupted the hon. and learned gent. and said that he could not be explaining every moment; but that, in the present instance, he had not said that the right hon. gentleman had braved the house of commons. He had only said that he had braved the opinion of the house of commons, and he would now go farther, and say, that he had braved the legislature.
The Solicitor Generalin continuation, expressed his surprize how that conduct could be called braving the legislature which had been expressly sanctioned by an act of the legislature. Who had braved the legislature? Not his right hon. friend, for he had only refused to remove from his office a person who had taken advantage of a clause in an act which the legislature had passed. Was it he who availed himself of the provision in the act that had braved the legislature? could understand any thing but that.
Sir Charles Polesubmitted it to the house whether the commission would not have attempted, in vain, to accomplish the ends for which they were instituted, while the person who was at the head of the office into the abuses of which they were enquiring, refused to them the means of information they called for. He denied that he had employed any unnecessary warmth. This was the first time that he had in the house given his opinion of the Tenth Report, and what he had said was from conviction, and not from any motives of personal hostility to the right hon. treasurer of the navy.
Mr. Serjeant Best thought the conduct of the treasurer of the navy, in not discharging Wilson, highly reprehensible. It had been argued that Wilson merely acted according to the instructions of Trotter, as if this were any excuse for his conduct. If he had acted properly, he ought to have disclosed the nefarious proceedings which were going forward, and by such a disclosure much of the evil which was now brought to light would never have been accomplished. It was also contended that Wilson, in availing himself of the clause in the act, not to answer questions to criminate himself, did only what was naturally to be expected. This, however, had nothing to do with the question, since nobody doubted his right to avail himself of the clause, if he thought his conduct required it. What was complained of, however, and with justice, was, that the treasurer of the navy retained in his office a person who had refused to answer some questions which an innocent man could have answered with the greatest safety. If a person had a servant, or a steward, and wished to ask some questions respecting the state of his, affairs, and could obtain no satisfactory answer, what would be his conduct? He might think it very right for the servant not to answer questions to criminate himself, but he would also think it highly necessary to dismiss one from his employment who had such extraordinary secrets. The learned serjeant also condemned severely the conduct of the Treasurer of the navy for the difficulties which he had thrown in the way of the enquiries of the commissioners. It was as far back as the tenth of. last July that the commissioners issued a precept to the treasurer of the navy, calling on him to produce certain papers, and it was not a little singular that two months elapsed before any answer was returned. What, in the mean time, was the conduct of the treasurer of the navy? Why truly, he could make no return to the commissioners till he had taken the advice of majesty's attorney did solicitor general. This the learned gent. maintained, was to the commissioners as acting under the express sanction parliament, extremely indecent and disrespectful. The treasurer of the navy, if he laboured under any difficulty how to act, ought to have applied to the commissioners for advice and instruction. It was not unknown to the house, that one of the commissioners was a member of the

395
profession to which he had the honour to belong, and certainly, with all due deference to the attorney and solicitor general, his opinion was as greatly to be respected on all constitutional points as theirs possibly could be. The treasurer of the navy was culpable then for not applying to those whom parliament had invested with vast powers for the correction of enormous abuses. He put the case of a court of justice where certain important documents were to be procured. Here it would surely be strange if on an application for their production, a reference should be had, not to the court itself but to the crown lawyers. Not less extraordinary was the conduct of the treasurer of the navy. From July till October had elapsed to give time for the right hon. gent. to consult the attorney and solicitor general, and in the mean time no pains appeared to have been taken to procure the commissioners the information they required. Indeed, it appeared from the examination of Fennel, that though he was nominally employed to prepare the accounts, he was positively engaged in making out the accounts of lord Bayning, who had been out of office for 20 years. He was decidedly for the motion.
Mr. Robert Warddenied that the treasurer of the navy had been backward to furnish information. He had, on the contrary, given every possible facility to the enquiries of the commissioners. He went over the same grounds which had been traced by those who spoke on the same side of the question. He wished particularly to know whether the hon. admiral was serious in his assertion that the commissioners took shame to themselves for not putting Wilson in prison in consequence of his evidence? If they were serious in this assertion, they were fit only to be Inquisitors, and not legal temperate commissioners. [Here there were loud and violent marks of disapprobation.] Returning to the question before the House, he conjured gentlemen to look at the question with moderation and temper. With this view, he thought the delay of a day would be highly expedient, and in the mean time he was desirous that the whole paragraph should be read by the clerk at the table. This was the more necessary, as the paragraph as read by the hon. mover did not form a whole.—The whole was read accordingly, and the following makes up the whole paragraph complained of: Those who were so very impatient to de-
396
prive Mr. Pitt of so able a coadjutor, were equally zealous in their endeavours to restore to the public the unaccounted millions of which that public has been so disgracefully robbed, there would perhaps be some excuse for all that affectation of public virtue which has lately distinguished certain bawling patriots of the day. Lord Melville has not deprived the public of a single farthing. His most implacable enemies have not dared to charge him with such an act. Can as much be said of the fathers of some men? If the public were paid its pecuniary claims, long since indisputably proved, certain furious patriots, instead of living in splendour, would be put on the parish. In the future resolutions of the house of commons, in the future resolutions of all public meetings, we hope that an immediate attention to the enormous debts still due to the public by certain noisy individuals will be strongly recommended."—As soon as the clerk had read this last paragraph,
Mr. Foxrose up, and emphatically asked,—is this any palliation?
Mr. Wardreplied, that though it was no palliation, it afforded a good and sufficient reason for having the whole enquiry prosecuted with temper, particularly by persons whose families might appear to have been defaulters to a considerable amount.
Mr. Sheridanrose only to make a few observations. It was the less necessary for him to enlarge, as the house seemed agreed on the general question. He had no wish to discover any improper degree of heat on this or any other occasion, though certainly the honourable member who had so earnestly recommended moderation, had little of it indeed in his practice. He was not in the house when the right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Pitt) gave notice of his intention to move on Monday for leave to bring in a bill to extend the powers of the commissioners of naval enquiry. He was happy to hear of this notice, and more so from the quarter whence it proceeded. If, however, the powers of the commissioners were to be renewed, it was necessary that their characters should stand high with the house and the public, and that such insinuations as those which the honourable member had thrown out should be loudly refuted. If they deserved the character that had been given of them by the

397
learned gent. (Mr. Ward); if the hon. baronet at the head of the commission merited the observation of the learned gent., that he was not fit to be at the head of the commission, unquestionably if the commission was to be renewed, they ought not to be appointed on it. But, in order to vindicate the character of the commissioners from the effect of such insinuations, he felt it his duty to give notice, that on Wednesday next he should move the thanks of the house to the commissioners of naval enquiry.
Mr. PeterMoore contended that the commissioners had not reported of Mr. Wilson his having refused to answer any questions that might criminate himself, because it appeared by the report, that when asked whether he had derived any profit from the use of the public money, he had positively declared that he had not. The report of the commissioners only charged him with having declined answering questions which, in being answered, would expose the guilt of others. He should ask the learned gent. opposite, whether, if a witness were to decline answering questions of that description in a cause before the King's Bench, he would not be committed to prison? As to the conduct of the right hon. the treasurer of the navy, it appeared that the first application had been made to him on the 10th of July, a second on the 17th, and no answer having been returned, a third application had been made on the 2d of Oct., and it was not till the 3d of Oct. that an answer had been returned, after he had taken the opinion of his majesty's attorney and solicitor general, whether he was bound by the act to obey the precept of the commissioners. He put it therefore to the good sense of the house, whether the right hon. gent. had accurately acquitted himself of his duty? When the right hon. gent. had been asked, on a former occasion, whether he had dismissed Mr. Wilson? it was his opinion, that the question ought to have been carried further, whether he had dismissed himself. For when a public officer opposed himself to an enquiry relating to the public money, for the purpose of sheltering the delinquents, his guilt was nearly equal to that of the man who declined answering lest he should criminate them. He was happy that his hon. friend had given notice of a motion of thanks to the commissioners; for of no other member
398
should bring the matter forward, it had been his intention to have given a similar notice previous to the adjournment.—The original motion was then put, and Mr. Peter Stuart was ordered to attend the house to-morrow.

PROCEEDINGS RESPECTING THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE TENTH NAVAL REPORT.
Mr. Whitbreadhaving enquired if the answer which his majesty had been pleased to return to the resolutions of the house which had been laid before him on Thursday the 11th instant, had been reported to the house;
The Speakersaid that he had thought it a proper mark of respect to his majesty and to the house, to make the communication of the answer of his majesty the first business of the day.—On the motion of Mr. Whitbread, his majesty's answer was again read.
Mr. Whitbreadthen said, that he could not forbear expressing his astonishment that after such an interval, no step had been taken to evince his majesty's sense of the importance of the resolutions of that house. Several gazettes had appeared since the resolutions were carried up, and none of them had announced that the name of lord Melville had been expunged from the list of his majesty's privy council. Neither had the house been informed that night that his majesty had given orders for the books being laid before him that purpose. Unquestionably there had been proceedings for the few last days which might have contributed to occupy his majesty's attention from this subject. He was therefore anxious to know from the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, before he gave notice of any motion on the subject, whether it was that right hon. gentleman's intention to recommend to his majesty to expunge the name of lord Meville from the list of the privy council?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he did not feel himself bound in consequence of any thing that had occurred in that house, on the day when the resolutions of parliament had been ordered to be laid before his majesty, to give any such advice to his majesty as that which the hon. gent. supposed. On the evening of Wednesday a motion to address his majesty on that subject had been made and had afterwards been withdrawn, as it did not seem to be the sense of a great many members who had supported the

399
original resolutions, that the house was in a condition at the moment to proceed to such an extremity. It was then argued that a removal from any place of trust and confidence would be sufficient, till farther light was thrown on the subject, by its having been ascertained by a select committee how far the noble lord was implicated in the business. A suggestion, however, was thrown out, that the noble lord, though he had then retired from office, might be again restored, and hold other places of trust and confidence, and it had been proposed, as a step which would be sufficient to guard against this circumstance, that the resolutions of the former night should be laid before his majesty. In this proposition he had concurred. But he certainly did understand it to have been the opinion and sense of the house, that that step would of itself be satisfactory. And under that impression he had not thought himself called on, nor did he now feel himself called on, till he was otherwise instructed by the house, to make any recommendation on the subject to his majesty.
Mr. Whitbreadthought that a sense of duty should have dictated to the right hon. gent. to have formed a different conclusion from that which he had now professed. Indeed it had seemed to him absolutely impossible, after the solemn manner in which it had been determined that the resolutions of that night should be laid before his majesty, that the right hon. gent. could have abstained from recommending to his majesty a measure which seemed so naturally to follow from the knowledge of those resolutions. He could not figure how it was possible in more pointed terms to have expressed the sentiments of the house. The step winch they had adopted was, to his conception, equally marked and pointed, as if the motion which he had that night submitted had been agreed to. If, however, the right hon. gent. thought that he had sufficiently satisfied his duty by allowing things to remain as they were, he (Mr. Whitbread) felt that he would not discharge his without giving notice of a motion, similar to the one which he had formerly withdrawn, for the first open day. He then fixed Tuesday next for that purpose.
Mr. Whitbreadthen proceeded to call the attention of the house to the subject of the motions of which he had given notice previous to the recess, Hee could
400
not forbear from congratulating the house on the sense which seemed so universally to be entertained out of doors, of the conduct of the house in the votes which they had already passed on the subject of national abuses. The right hon. gent. opposite to him seemed also sensible of the general spirit which had been awakened through the country. He had that night, prematurely in one sense, and tardily in another, given notice of a motion which he unquestionably meant in some shape to meet the wishes of the people. In doing so, however, was not the right hon. gent. taking the business out of the hands of other hon. gentlemen, who had already given notice of similar intentions? That was not a novel practice, now for the first time adopted by the right hon. gent. It happened some years ago to him (Mr. Whitbread), on which occasion the right hon. gent. took a business out of his hands, but never did any thing under it. The right hon. gent. had indeed given notice of a much more extensive motion than had yet been proposed; but whether he had done so in consequence of hearing that such an intention had been declared in another quarter, and wished to take it out of their hands for the purpose of doing it away, he should not at present pretend to judge. If a new committee was appointed, he hoped it would be characterised by equal fidelity with that which had distinguished the commissioners for naval enquiry. The right hon. gent. had expressed a doubt if there existed any lavish or improper expenditure in the military department. On that subject he (Mr. Whitbread) entertained no doubts. He was convinced that in the military department as gross a system of peculation and plunder existed as had already in part been discovered in the naval expenditure. An hon. gent., a friend of the noble lord, had, in vindicating him from the present charge, asserted that he possessed opportunities in another department of making an immense and rapid fortune, without any chance of detection. That hon. gent. was well acquainted with the truth of what he stated: and was it to be supposed after what we had seen, that such opportunities did exist, and that too, without the possibility of detection, and that no advantage was taken of them. The thing was hardly to be looked for. The first motion which he should now submit to the consideration of the house, was for a

401
select committee, for taking into farther consideration the tenth report of the commissioners of naval enquiry. There were still some dark parts in that report, on which he wished that farther enquiry should take place. It was not his intention to enter at any length into what passed on the last debate on the subject, farther than to say, that he thought the right hon. gent. opposite had not paid that proper respect to that house, and to the commissioners acting under their authority, which might have been expected, in not dismissing a person who had refused to answer the questions put to him, when called on under an act of parliament to give evidence. Would it be maintained that every witness was to be entitled to decline answering any question which might be put to him, on the pretence that it might criminate himself; and that the judge was not entitled to ask, in what respect, and to ascertain whether the allegation was real or feigned? The right hon. gent. himself actually condemned Wilson, and condemned his own conduct by the apology he now made for both. He now confesses that the clause of the act of parliament, does not apply to Wilson. According to his own account, Wilson tells him, and he now tells the house, that Wilson was the instrument and tool of Trotter. Would his being so involve him in legal, or even moral guilt, so as to excuse him from answering questions? The pretence was ridiculous, it was to screen his principal, not himself; for, as being merely tool, any answer he might have made, might have gone to exculpate, but could not criminate himself. Equally well might the printer of the stamp on which the order was written, have refused answering any question which might have been put to him, lest he should criminate himself. Another hon. gent. (Mr. Ward) had been much offended at an expression which had fallen from the hon. president of the board of Enquiry—that he took blame to himself for not having committed Wilson to prison. He hoped that hon. gent. would attend on the night when the vote of thanks was to be moved to the commissioners of Naval Enquiry, and would then state what he had alleged that night, that in consequence of the declaration, the hon. president ought to be dismissed from his situation. He (Mr. Whitbread) declared, that had he been in the place of the hon. bart. he would have committed not only Wilson, but Sprott
402
also; and so, he hoped, would every commissioner of Enquiry feel himself inclined to act. It was not his wish to trespass on the time of the house, and he should, therefore, conclude by moving his first motion, "That a select committee be appointed to make further enquiry into the matters contained in the report of the commissioners, and to report the same, with their opinions and observations thereon, to the house."
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose, not to oppose the appointment of a select committee, but from a wish to clear himself from the charge of having prematurely given notice of a motion on any particular subject, and thereby taken it out of the hands of another gentleman. He spoke now in the presence of the hon. gent. alluded to, and he appealed to him, if the notice which he gave was not expressly conditional, that if he (Mr. Pitt) did not, on an early day after the recess, bring forward such a motion, he (Mr. Giles) would. When, at an earlier period of the session, the hon. gent. (Mr. Giles) moved for leave to bring in a bill for continuing the powers of that board; what was his (Mr. Pitt's) ground of objection? Was it that the period should not be extended? Quite the contrary. He allowed that full time ought to be given them for finishing their investigations, and his only objection was, that it would be premature to enlarge the period of their continuing in office at so early as period of the session till once it was ascertained whether the present session might not afford them sufficient time to complete their enquiries. If they were not likely, at a more advanced period of the session, to be able to complete their business before the end of it, he pledged himself then to move for the enlargement of their powers. Now as only one additional report had since been made, while it was stated that other objects of enquiry still remained, he felt it both his duty and his inclination to move for extending the period of their continuance. And, however much he confessed himself to be one of those who did declare that there were parts of their conduct of which he could not approve, he still felt it his duty to say, that they ought to continue. In this situation, he submitted to the candour of the house that there was no ground whatever for charging him with having taken the business out of the hands of any other hon. gent. There was another part of the hon.

403
gent.'s speech in which his sentiments had been misrepresented. He thought, as in the department into the management of which investigation had been made, they had discovered practices and malversations, of which they could not approve, it would be proper to make such inquiries into every branch of the revenue, as should go to shew, either that in other departments they did not exist, or, if they did, that it was the determination of parliament to take such measures as should detect and prevent them, in future. He did not say that none such existed. He only said that it must prove satisfactory to the public that the fact should be ascertained. In so great and expensive an establishment as that of Great Britain, in the midst of the perilous times too, which we had of late years to encounter, it was hardly to be expected that some acts of improper management would not present themselves. He was anxious, however, that the investigation should be gone into with temperance, moderation, and a regard for the public good.—The same motives which made him think the general subject one peculiarly deserving of attention and investigation, to be conducted on the immutable principles of justice, induced him heartily to concur in the appointment of a select committee, to consider farther the subject of the tenth report. He was particularly anxious for a most minute investigation into that part of it, in which, acccording to the statements of the hon. gent. he himself (Mr. Pitt) was implicated. On that subject, he was eager that the hon. gent. would bring forward every thing in his power. He hoped that in the many years of his life which had been devoted to the public service, he might presume, without flattery to himself, to think that he had so conducted himself, as to evince that he was beyond any corrupt or sordid motive.—He did Suppose, that any one who knew him, would not imagine it possible that he could be a party to any transaction from corrupt views. But he did not wish to rest his justification on the partiality of his friends, or on that favourable opinion, which he was flattered, knowing a considerable portion of the house to entertain; he wished the facts to speak for themselves. As to the other part of the motion, he did not think it would be proper to refer the whole of the report to the committee, as he understood that the second motion of the hon. gent. was to direct a prosecution by
404
the attorney general. If the enquiry was to be prosecuted by bill of discovery, as to the question of participation, it would be improper to refer that part of the report to the committee, or to establish two concurrent and collateral investigations. He did not think therefore, that any part of the report, which was to be the object of the bill of discovery, should be subjected to the enquiry of the committee. He was indifferent whether his object was to be attained by amendment, or by an understanding that such parts only of the report were to be submitted to the committee, as should not be the subject of investigation in the other course of proceeding. He had prepared some words, which he should move by way of amendment, as most consistent with form. The right hon. gent. then moved, "That a select committee be appointed, to consider further of the matter contained in the tenth report of the commissioners of Naval Enquiry, so far as the same relates to the application of sums granted for navy services to other branches of the public service, as also to the irregularities committed in the mode of drawing the money granted for the service of the navy from the Bank, and to any communications that might have been made to the chancellor of the exchequer, or the lords of the treasury, relative to such irregularities; and to the proceedings that might have been taken for recovery of the arrears due of the late Mr. Jellicoe."
Mr. Foxasked, if the house were to instruct the attorney general to commence a prosecution against lord Melville on any particular point, it would not be proper that that would also form a part of the enquiry of the committee? There was another point which he thought would not go with propriety to the committee; but would be better discussed in that house, and that was not a crimination, but an admonition to the right hon. gent. (Mr. Canning) on his continuing Mr. Wilson in office. This naturally led him to remark, that it was not by the house going into an enquiry on the tenth report alone; on the abuses in the military department, or in all the departments, that they could perform their duty. They could do their duty only by going into those enquiries seriously, and with an intent to persevere. If they were to go into enquiries, let them shew their sincerity by the persons whom they chose of the committee. Persons like the commission-

405
ers of naval enquiry, of fidelity, ability, and above all, courage; who had not shrunk from their duty, even when it called on them to expose one of the most powerful men in this country.—If they were for enquiry, let them endeavour, if possible, to get men equal to these commissioners. If they had to employ the attorney general to prosecute, they could not doubt, from what they had seen of him, he would not be a very willing advocate. He had no doubt the very persons who had expressed an opinion against the commissioners of Naval Enquiry would still be of opinion that they ought to be continued; yet this they would do not willingly. He did not blame the right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt) for being the friend of lord Melville, yet he could not but think it unfortunate, that he should be the person to move for a committee on the other subjects of enquiry. If the committee had been to be moved for by some gentleman near him—by any person (he spoke in an abstract sense) not on the treasury bench, he thought it would have been better, more creditable, and more effectual. When a minister, under whose administration all the mismanagement and peculation have taken place, has the mortification to find that the delinquent is not a person remote, but his own nearest and dearest colleague, he cannot be the most proper person to move a committee to take cognizance of the malversations. He trusted the house would take care to have proper persons appointed in the committee. If that right hon. gent. had had the appointing of the five commissioners of naval enquiry, would they have the tenth report? He hoped the gentlemen that should be appointed would discharge their duty. It was natural that in appointing them, the favourable opinion of the gentleman who names them of those who concurred with him in opinion, would lead him to appoint only such. They could not prevent such partiality, but they could promote the effect of the enquiry, by encouraging those who assisted, and reprobating those who thwarted or obstructed it,—He did not think that the enquiry should be restricted by the words of the amendment, but he submitted to his hon. friend, whether the motion for the prosecution might not be better postponed till after the committee shall have reported, and ascertained by their enquiry what persons have been connected with the delinquents. The right hon. the
406
Chancellor of the Exchequer had this day more openly than on any other occasion avowed his disapprobation of the conduct of the noble viscount, bnt he had also declared, that he did not look upon it as his duty to advise his majesty to any other step, unless the house, by a fresh decision, should make it necessary for him. This had raised his suspicion, and he thought it his duty to put the house on its guard. It had been, at different periods, customary to institute enquiries in that house; which were never afterwards thought of. He alluded to the commitee that was appointed to enquire into the state of the finances, just after the first stoppage of the bank to pay in cash, which had never proceeded to any researches, though it was now well known what they might have discovered. He thought the subject of the highest importance, and hoped the house would look to it with that jealousy it deserved.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerexplained. He said, that he wished to exclude no part of the enquiry, but that which might be made the subject of legal examination. If the order of the motions were inverted, and the second put first, it would answer all he wished.
Mr. Whitbread explained,that he had no wish to do any thing inconsistent with justice. As, however, the principal object to the public in the appointing the committee, was the exposure of lord Melville's participation in the peculation, he would rather allow the other motion, for an instruction to the Attorney-General, to lay over, and confine himself to the first motion.
Mr. Sheridanwas of opinion that they could not with any propriety proceed at the time with a legal prosecution, and with farther enquiries, by a committee, and that, therefore, all legal proceedings ought to be delayed till the committee, now proposed to be appointed, should have made its report. He could certainly have no objection to the measure proposed by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer for continuing the commission of naval enquiry, and for appointing others to investigate the other departments of the public expenditure. But, however willing he was to see any measure of this kind promoted, he could not see, without alarm, any disposition on the part of that right hon. gent. to appoint such commissioners. He wished the motion to

407
have originated in some other quarter, and it was not his fault if that notice had not been long ago given for that purpose, and which he now thought there was reason to regret. Indeed, this notice, he understood, was to have been given to-day, had it not been thus anticipated. The right hon. gent. might have as a reason, perhaps, for his acceding to the appointment of a select committee, according to the motion of his hon. friend, that he himself (Mr. Pitt) had been implicated in the charges of the tenth report, and was anxious, therefore, that every fair enquiry should be made. The motive, it must be allowed, was extremely honourable; but till that enquiry was made, he was, in some measure, on his trial, and, therefore, by no means the fittest person to propose the motion for another commission.—But he urged another argument, of still greater weight, against that right hon. gent.'s nominating the committee proposed by his motion, which evidently must arise from the nature of the objects of enquiry. The conduct of the right hon gent. himself, it was evident, would be involved in that enquiry, whether it regarded the various departments of the army, or the management of the exchequer. It was, therefore, a very grave question with him, how far it was admissible for any appointment of that nature to originate in that quarter. The right hon. gent. might think it a popular measure. It was making the most, perhaps, of a case of necessity, and taking the merit of proposing what he could not prevent, but must certainly, at best, be considered as a very forward step.
Mr. Canningreminded the hon gent. (Mr. Whitbread) of a former profession he had made, namely, that of being ready to co-operate with his right hon. friend in any measure that had a tendency to promote the object he had in view. His right hon. friend had no design of delaying the enquiry; he was only of opinion that, if it was the intention of the hon. gent. to move for a legal prosecution, it would be proper to give that motion precedence of the other. The propriety of this arrangement was obvious. For those persons who were to be subjected to legal enquiry, were not to be expected to give any answer before the committee, that might tend to criminate them before a court of justice. Such an arrangement, therefore, would defeat the very end of
408
any legal proceeding, and cramp at the same time the enquiries of the committee, as those persons were the only evidence from whom they were to derive their information. In regard to the amendment proposed by his right hon. friend, he entirely concurred in thinking that the committee ought to be confined to their proper object, and not to interfere in such points as should be judged necessary to be referred to a court of justice. If, therefore, the motion for a legal enquiry were first fixed, and the object or objects of that legal investigation determined, the committee would have the advantage of knowing to what objects they were to confine their exertions, and would be relieved from that part of the subject which would come under the cognizance of a court of justice. From the disposition the hon. gent. seemed to be in the last night this subject was before the house, he did not think he could have any objection to such an arrangement.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerclaimed every idea of being implicated in any charges adduced by the tenth report, and challenged any gentleman to point out a single passage in the report that implicated him in any respect.
Mr. Foxadmitted that there was no passage, to be sure, that directly implicated right hon. gent.; but the article relative to the money for secret service, though it did not mention him by name, would certainly lead to a decision how far that right hon. gent. was involved.
Mr. Greywas of opinion that it would be impossible to carry on the two enquiries together; and to give up the question entirely to the attorney-general, was giving up too much. There was presumptive evidence, he thought, for concluding that lord Melville had participated in the emoluments diverted from the public service, and had therefore been of opinion at one time that it would be better to refer this part of the business to the attorney-general, and to appoint a committee to go on with the other objects of enquiry. Should the house, however, be of opinion that the whole business should be referred to the committee previously to any legal enquiry, he would willingly accede to it.
The Master of the Rollsdeclared it to be the practice of the house of commons, that Whenever any point was determined by them to be referred to a court of law, all further enquiry and investigation ceased

409
in the house. In that case a partial enquiry might take place, to ascertain whether or not it was proper to prosecute, but no further. Should the house choose the other alternative, they must abandon a civil process. The prosecution could not then be carried on to recover the public money, but the enquiry might be pursued for the purpose of inflicting punishment on those who had embezzled it.
Mr. Foxsaw nothing improper in uniting the enquiry by a committee with the prosecution by law, and cited several precedents in support of his opinion.
The Master of the Rollsobserved, that in those precedents the matter investigated had always gone in the first instance before the committee, and had never been primarily discussed in the house.
Mr. Kinnairdsaid, that the object of the present investigation was two-fold. In the first place, to ascertain from an examination of various parts of the report, the practicability of recovering the public money, and then to discover whether there were not grounds sufficiently strong to authorise an impeachment. If the house were under the necessity of relinquishing one of these points, he should certainly prefer abandoning the former. He entreated the house to consider whether the public would be satisfied with a civil suit if there were grounds sufficient for an impeachment. He saw no objection to appointing a committee with extensive powers, which powers might be diminished by the house, should they afterwards deem a prosecution necessary.
Mr. George Ponsonbywas against submitting the business to the attorney general, as he did not think that was the most likely way of obtaining the object which the house had in view. Suppose the house should order the attorney general to file an information against those persons for money which had come into their hands, they might again refuse to give any answer, on the ground that they might possibly criminate themselves, and expose themselves to pains and penalties. The attorney general, who had exprest his opinion to-night that it was legal to refuse answering those questions, might possibly think it his duty not to resist such a defence. Besides that, it was not so clear that the courts of law could give any remedy in some cases which might occur. Supposing, for example, lord Melville, who had appointed Mr. Trotter his private
410
agent, as well as paymaster to the navy, and who had drawn on him for sums of ten and twenty thousand pounds at a time, should have repaid those sums, but not with interest, this would be a corrupt participation, and a participation to a great extent in the profits of the abuse of the public money; and yet he did not know that a court of law could order any interest to be paid. Besides, if lord Melville and Mr. Trotter could demur to the information, that would put an end to the whole of the business. If a committee was appointed, he thought it would be fettering too much the power of the house to allow witnesses to decline answering on the mere pretext of not criminating themselves. The suppression of truth was almost as strong evidence as the admission of fact. He therefore wished the business should not be left entirely with the attorney general. He declared, that as to the persons concerned in these offences, his feelings were rather those of commiseration; but it was necessary that justice should be done on this great case; for the public would never be satisfied that they were sincere in their desire of detecting and punishing offenders, if this business was now left to a tribunal which would not have the power of doing effectual justice.
Lord Henry Pettycould not allow the debate to proceed farther without expressing the strongest doubts of the sufficiency of proceeding at law, by leaving the whole business now with the attorney general. As the sense of the House had been strongly expressed on one point, he thought it the duty of the house to pursue that examination by which they had already ascertained a most important fact. From the tenth report of the commissioners, the house had already drawn a great and evident conclusion, "that lord Melville had been guilty of a violation of the law, and a high breach of duty." Did it follow, however, from that, that no other conclusions or determinations were to follow, but that they were immediately to divest themselves of all power of investigating further, and delegate all their powers to the attorney general? He thought the house ought not to delegate its power in that manner, but that it was their duty and a duty that the country expected from them, to pursue the examination, and sift those transactions to time bottom. When the house had discharged this duty, and done all that was in its power to do, then

411
it would be time to call in the assistance of the attorney general and the courts of law, if it should be found necessary, for the great objects that parliament had in view.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid, he had listened to all the observations that had been made by the different gentlemen who had spoken on this subject, and had heard nothing that altered his opinion: he, therefore, must persevere in the resolution he originally moved.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, in that case, he should persevere also in the amendment which he had moved; being firmly convinced that the mode he had suggested was the most likely to obtain the ends of justice.
Mr. Whitbreadobserved, that the right hon. gent. had changed the grounds on which he rested his amendment. He had proposed it on the grounds of the unreasonableness of expecting witnesses to give evidence before the committee which might expose themselves to prosecution.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied that the change proceeded entirely from the hon. gent. himself. He had on a former night given notice that he should move to-night that the attorney general should be ordered to prosecute. Upon the supposition that he meant to make this motion, he had moved the amendment. It now appeared that the hon. gent. himself had discovered that the motion of which he had so given notice, was not sufficiently matured, and he wished another report of a committee to precede it. The change was, therefore, most evidently on the part of the hon. gentleman.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid, that when he came down to the house it was his intention to postpone that notice.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhad no objection to other gentlemen changing their opinions, if they thought proper; but he did not wish them to state that it was he who had changed his.
Mr. Greydid not apprehend that there was any great probability of the second committee being able to extract much more than the commissioners of naval enquiry had done. If there was to be a committee appointed for the purpose of investigating this business farther, he should, however, prefer a committee with general powers to one whose powers would be limited.
Mr. Thomas Grenvillestated the ques-
412
tion, which was, whether the house should reserve to themselves the entire power of investigating the whole of the report, or refer a portion of it to the prosecution of the law officers. If the house adopted the former proposition, he could not easily be persuaded that to that a reference to a court of law might be united. He confessed he was inclined to prefer the latter; and a great reason for this preference was his not being able to discover what superior means of arriving at the truth a select committee could possess over those belonging to a court of law. Why was it expected that a select committee should do more than the commissioners of naval enquiry, or all their extensive powers were enabled to do? On the contrary, in his opinion, all that was wanting in the board of commissioners could be supplied by a court of law, and by that alone. He sincerely wished his hon. friend had been induced to move, in the first place, that the attorney general be directed to prosecute, and in the second that a select committee be appointed to examine those parts of the Tenth Report which were not included in the matter for prosecution. Both his hon. friends' original motion, and the amendment by the right hon. gent. opposite, being however adhered to, and the question now being, whether a committee should be appointed with extensive powers, or a committee with limited powers, he was certainly disposed to vote for a committee with extensive powers, repeating at the same time, that he should have preferred the mode which he before alluded to.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he had proposed the committee to be invested with specific and limited powers, under the idea of a legal prosecution, at the same time as originally proposed by the framer of the motion.
Mr. Windhamobserved that his sentiments were so completely in unison with those of the learned gentleman on the second bench (Mr. Ponsonby), and with those of the noble lord who followed him. (H. Petty), that he should not feel it necessary to trouble the house at any great length on the subject. He certainly wished, that the committee should be vested with extensive authority. As to the amendment proposed by the right hon. gent even if it were necessary, it by no means included what it was intended to include. The true and accurate way of

413
describing it would be to give to the committee what was not given to the law; but in his opinion the house should first fully discharge their own duty before they delegated their power to any other hands. A doubt had arisen in his mind on one of the points which had been introduced into the discussion. It seemed to be taken for granted by some gentlemen, that the house must make an option: that they were not at liberty to pursue the enquiry generally themselves and then refer the examination of parts of the subject to another tribunal. In this opinion he certainly could not concur, although he was not prepared to contradict it. For his part, he saw no reason why these two measures were incompatible. He could not see why such an union was inconsistent with our jurisprudence. If, however, the house must either give up the prosecution by the law officers, or the institution of a select committee, he certainly would not hesitate in recommending the former: compelling the delinquents to refund the public property which they had amassed, was an object of infinitely less consequence than that a full declaration of the judgment of the house of commons on them should be made. That which was the instant and immediate duty of the house should first be performed. He deprecated the possibility of their power slipping into hands which, as had been stated by a learned gentleman, might not be able to effect any beneficial purpose; and there was then no return; the house could not resume what it had rashly abandoned. Under these impressions, he should give his decided vote for the motion of his hon. friend.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, there were two questions before the house, and they involved two modes of enquiry. The one was, whether the committee should be invested with extensive powers? the other, whether it would be eligible to limit those powers, and to assign a certain portion of the public duty to a court of law? The latter appeared, to his mind, by far the most eligible; for the natural answer of lord Melville and Mr. Trotter to the interrogatories of a committee, would be, that they could not reply, when their conduct was designed to undergo a future juridical examination. This evasion could not be resorted to in a court of law. His right hon. friend near him (Mr. Pitt), did not intend, by the amendment he proposed, that the investigation should be avoided; on the
414
contrary, he suggested the most successful means of promoting it, and if any gentleman would intimate any additional authority with which the commissioners might be clothed, not interfering with the legal branch of the subject, he had no doubt his right hon. friend would gladly join in conferring such farther power.
Mr. Bankesargued the expediency of appointing a committee of enquiry, and on their report instituting any legal proceedings. He had no doubt that he differed from all parties in the house, when he expressed his wish, that the matter should be referred back to the commissioners of naval enquiry, arming them with fresh powers, that they might be enabled to prosecute their researches to the desired point. The hon. gent, expressed great doubt, whether the individuals accused could be compelled to refund the public money, asserting that considerable difference of opinion existed on the subject among several sages of the law, and observed, that in 1782 and 1783, a similar circumstance had been debated in the house, the result of which was by no means favourable to the hopes of those who thought that such repayment could be compelled.
Mr. Serjeant Best preferred proceeding, in the business exclusively in the committee. The noble lord objected to that mode, because evasive answers would be given to the commissioners. Was the noble lord uninformed, that in a court of law the same expedient might be resorted to by the parties implicated? There were many advantages in such an enquiry, possessed by a committee, from which a court of justice must be precluded: the latter must confine its attention to the immediate matter charged; the former might extend its examination according to the new lights received, and the unexpected circumstances disclosed in the progress of the affair. What was to be attained by the proposed juridical proceeding? Restitution. True. But restitution was a very inferior object. The leading design was to exhibit a terrible example of the consequences of public delinquency. The table of the house was already crowded with petitions, indicative of the public sentiments. Would the commons of England disregard the opinions, and disappoint the expectations of the people? Would they yet do more, and abandon the sacred duty with which they were entrusted? Was the house afraid to confide in its own committee,

415
and should the members of it be fettered by needless restrictions? He sincerely hoped the right hon. gent. would not persist in his amendment, but if he did, that the house would assert its own dignity and independence, and justify the hopes of the nation.
Sir John Cox Hippisleysaid, that although he had taken no part in the proceedings hitherto, (being withheld from considerations which were perfectly justifiable in his own mind,) he could not refrain from making a few observations on some parts of the evidence contained in the report of the commissioners, as it had given place to much misapprehension, It was a great misfortune in itself, for any individual to fall under the censure of that house, and it needed not to be aggravated by representations which, by implication, went even to a charge of constructive perjury against one of the persons who was an object of the resolutions. Mr. Trotter had stated before the commissioners, upon oath, that all the drafts made on the bank, were strictly conformable to the provisions of the act. The evidence of Mr. Abraham Newland, who must be considered as a host of credit and presumed accuracy, was directly opposed to that of Mr. Trotter, and it needed not to be insisted upon, on which side the public, and possibly the house, might lean in respect to these contrasted facts. It occurred however, that after the resolutions had been voted, an honourable member who was himself a bank director had expressly stated in his place, on the second night of the debate, that upon an accurate examination of the books of the Bank, it appeared that all the drafts of the treasurer and his deputy had been drawn in strict conformity to the act, and consequently that. Mr. Newland was mistaken in the evidence he gave before the commissioners. This important fact was adduced by the honourable member in justification of the bank, of which he was director; but it is fair also to refer to it in exculpation so far of Mr. Trotter, who otherwise must labour under a suspicion of having sworn what was untrue. It appeared that Mr. Newland was not charged with the department in which the drafts were presented. A right honourable friend below him had disclaimed all vindictive measures, and observed that the proposed proceedings in the exchequer might possibly go to the ruin the individual, in the present in-
416
stance, without answering completely the ends of public justice, which might possibly be better effected by the appointment of a committee with full powers, at least in the first instance. Another hon. gent. had expressed feelings highly creditable to himself in declaring that his commiseration for those who fell under the weight of the recorded displeasure of this house, went hand in hand with his desire to pursue all that justice required! The hon. baronet therefore trusted that no prejudice would operate on the minds of any gentleman within that house, but that those who had fallen under its censure would be enabled to meet whatever proceedings might be instituted against them without any prejudgement from unsubstantiated charges or misrepresentation. Another circumstance also had been much insisted upon to the prejudice of the late paymaster, viz. the advice he gave Mr. Tierney on quitting his office, which that gentleman had followed, and which had been considered as resulting less from a desire to be serviceable to the public than to bar the advantages (as the commissioners had reported) of his successor. To this fact the hon. baronet appealed to Mr. Tierney himself, who did not appear, as far as he had understood him, to have considered it in that view, but merely as growing out of a conversation on the means to avoid accidental loss on the transit of money from the bank to the office. The hon. baronet avowed a remote family connexion with the late paymaster, but he trusted that he might be allowed to indulge his feelings to a certain extent in consequence of that affinity, without being suspected for a moment to entertain a wish to check the course of public justice, as applying to Mr. Trotter or to any other person who stood under the censure of that house. He trusted also that whatever proceedings might be adopted by the house, their justice would be tempered with mercy. He then adverted to the prevalent prejudices in the public mind with respect to Mr. Trotter's great accumulations, but he could venture to assure the house that the "immense palace" so often adverted to was nearly as visionary as the "palace of Aladdin;" being a house of very moderate extent or accommodation, and upon which had been expended less than 8000l.; and further that the total of Mr. Trotter's income derived from all his real and personal property, without any reser-

417
vation or subterfuge, did not exceed 1200l. a year. To these facts he could pledge himself; they had been ascertained to the satisfaction of a great number of persons, and he was assured that in whatever future proceedings the house might institute to obtain the full disclosure of Mr. Trotter's affairs, they would appear to the conviction of the house and the public.
Mr. Tierneyasserted, that the drafts on the bank might be drawn in the way prescribed by the act, and yet the law might be most grossly violated. The object of the statute was to keep the public money, under the orders of the treasurer of the navy, in the bank, and for this purpose it was enacted, that no draft should be issued but for some special navy service. It would probably be found, that a special service was stated when no such service existed. The act directed, that the property in the bank should vest in the sucessor to the office; but when the money was transferred to Messrs. Coutts and Co. this purpose of the legislature was disappointed. Supposing the event of the death of Mr. Trotter had taken place, and the million of money had been with Messrs. Coutts and Co. on the change in the treasurer of the navy: until administration was taken out, the property could not be removed, and who would have administered to the effects of Mr. Trotter? It was true that he (Mr. Tierney) had held some conversation with Mr. Trotter, and the latter gentleman communicated, as an important secret, that he had devised the means by which all hazard by the loss of drafts on the bank by messengers would be avoided, and that was, by what be called a write off. He well remembered, on the occasion of this grand disclosure, the word legacy was used: a person who was present in the office observed, "Here is a legacy of Mr. Trotter's, he is determined we should not obtain the same emoluments he has enjoyed." Having said thus much on official matters, in answer to the hon. gentleman who spoke last, he would now say a few words to the question before the house. He could have no view on the present occasion, but to follow up the general design intimated by the resolutions on a preceding night. The house had determined there had been a violation of law; and farther, that advantages had been derived, which ought not to have been conceded. With re-
418
spect to the last, he could not avoid considering that the restitution of public money would be best obtained by a legal process; but on such a subject he must speak with diffidence, as the law officers attending in that house had not thought fit to hazard any opinion. He was anxious to learn, if they also judged this to be the best mode of proceeding, what would they undertake? would they compel Mr. Trotter to account for the misapplication of the public money? Could they ascertain the quantum of the deficit? He feared the law officers would have no means of ascertaining how far lord Melville participated in the profits; he supposed the utmost of which they could acquire information, would be the aggregate of such profits. Although he thought the courts of law could conduct best the part of the business to which he had just alluded, yet he thought at present that full powers should be given to the committee; the strong inquisitorial authority of the house was the most effectual and solemn in the existing circumstances, and would be most satisfactory to the public.
The Attorney Generalwould not enter into a comparison of the greater or less power which might be exerted by a committee of the house or a court of law. That of the committee might no doubt be the greater. But should it be the opinion of the house, that he, in his capacity of his majesty's attorney-general, should proceed against lord Melville and Mr. Trotter for the recovery of the profits they may have derived from the use of the public money, he was ready to confess, that however he might proceed, they would still have the power to demur. So far, then, as an ample source of information might be expected to be derived from such a prosecution, that expectation might be frustrated. As to his own particular opinion, he was ready to say, that the law officers of the crown could undertake for nothing respecting the result, whether a civil or a criminal proceeding was to be instituted. He at least should only say, that whatever he undertook, he should endeavour fairly and faithfully to discharge as his duty directed. Should the matter be brought before a committee, they might not hesitate to infer the guilt of the accused, should they take refuge under the protection of the law. In so doing, the committee would, no doubt, go farther than a legal proceeding could attempt to

419
go; yet as far as evidence would justify him, he should equally proceed to discover to what extent lord Melville might have participated in the profits of Mr. Trotter, and how far, consequently, lord Melville stood responsible to refund to the public. It was the inclination of his opinion, that if profits appeared to have been made by Mr. Trotter, which could not be traced to lord Melville, then he could not proceed on the principle to recover equally from lord Melville. It would therefore be incumbent on him to examine to what degree lord Melville might be responsible, and that extent must be measured by the nature of the evidence. The only and great difficulty was to ascertain that point before there was any regulation to ascertain it. But these profits had since been regulated, and if they could now be traceable to lord Melville, they would no doubt be recoverable. The question would still remain, whether the profits were made by the public money, or by sums drawn in favour of individuals. This could as easily be ascertained in a court of law as by a committee, nay better. The committee might be excluded from most of the intelligence which might be procured by a legal proceeding. Even were the committee agreed to, lord Melville and Mr. Trotter might still remain with mouths closed, and neither be convicted by themselves or any other means the committee could resort to. He should therefore vote against the committee, unless it were intended to follow up the report by sonic criminal proceeding.
Mr. Tierneyin explanation said, that he wished it to be distinctly stated whether, if Mr. Trotter should state what was the amount of the profit which had been gained by the use of the public money, it would be consistent with the forms of law in that case, to ask, whether lord Melville had participated to any, and to what amount, in such profits?
The Attorney Generalstated that he believed, if it should be said that the public monies which had been so improperly applied had been fully restored to their use, it would not be in their power to press the question farther.
Mr. Alexanderobserved, that he had always had the greatest deference for public opinion, but he hoped that the day mould never come when the house of commons would, contrary to their own good sense, be induced to adopt a particular
420
line of conduct in consequence of any public clamour which might then be raised. He had attended minutely to the different arguments which had been used on both sides, and upon a serious consideration of the whole, it appeared to him, that the mode of proceeding by law was the most temperate and dispassionate that could be adopted in the present instance.
Mr. Sheridanwished to make an observation or two upon what had fallen from the right hon. mover of the amendment. The amendment of the right hon. gent. seemed to assume that the house had already determined the matter should be sent before a court of equity. A motion to that effect might have been intended; but reasons had been adduced to caution the house to pause before it was adopted. Perhaps the right hon. gent. himself might make that motion, but he should not assume it to be already made and decided. He could not but commend the delicacy of the learned gentleman (the attorney general). The learned gentleman cautiously abstained from deciding whether a legal proceeding should be instituted or not. At least, he had given no reason to expect that any good could be expected to result from it; and all the other great law officers were equally silent upon that point. But what says the learned gentleman, "whatever may be the mode of proceeding may they not demur, and refuse to answer? and if they demur, where is the compulsion?' Before a committee, they could demur only under the protection of the fifth clause of the act. Still he would have lord Melville and Mr. Trotter brought before the committee. Who could pronounce what might be in the contemplation of the committee to adopt? and if no suggestion had been thrown out of a prosecution by the attorney general, why should it be supposed that the committee would be found to institute one? The learned gent. gives the preference to a court of justice; and for what reason? No doubt, only because it is proposed to limit and cripple the powers of the committee. There you might examine the books, the clerks of Messrs. Drummond, or Coutts: there you might take vivâ voce evidence. What was the language held upon a former night? Was not the house told—"do not be rash, do not come to a vote before a select committee furnish you with evidence?" Those therefore who then accused you of rashness, are now themselves ready to vote for a prose-

421
cution in a court of equity, though no evidence is produced by the committee. In whatever light it was viewed, there was every reason to lament the proposed amendment of the right honourable gentleman. It would have the worst possible effect out of the house. Let it not be said, that the house was already tired of the first appearance of the good that had been done. He was not one of those who exulted in the applause bestowed on the house for its first decision. That applause savoured somewhat of applause at seeing the house do its duty; it had done no more; was there room for surprise that such a resolution, after such evidence, should have been carried by a majority of one? For his part he hoped the public eye would remain steadily upon the business, and attend to see how it would be followed up; as anxiously did he hope, that the right honourable gentleman would not shackle the inquiry by any unnecessary restrictions.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer,in explanation, said, the hon. gent. had described the amendment proposed, as if he had not listened to its terms. His object was to give the committee full power to examine every matter, but that which was committed to the attorney general. The proposition which had been supposed to be designed to get rid of all enquiry, was acknowledged to coincide with the first intentions of the hon. mover of the question.
Mr. Fullerreminded the house, that an hon. member under the gallery (sir J. C. Hippesley) had said, that he could prove that the most magnificent edifices, and the most superb palaces, had been raised out of twelve hundred pounds a year! In such a case he should be ashamed to belong to any party, but he thought it his duty to recommend further inquiry into the business. A great deal had been said about the propriety of persons answering to questions which might tend to criminate themselves. He knew, without possessing at the same time any knowledge of the regular forms of law, that it had been the uniform practice of every villain at the Old Bailey, for these hundred years past, to say, "O Lord, I must not answer that question, because it may lead to convict myself!" But in honourable society, what would be said of a gentleman who would answer in this manner? On the other hand, if a person in office did honestly confess that he had misapplied the public money, but would prove, that he had not done so
422
to enrich himself, the generosity of that house, and of Englishmen in general was such, that he might be certain of being free from any further prosecution.
Mr. Foxstated the grounds on which he should give his vote to-night, and with which he hoped the majority of the house would concur. He agreed with the right hon. gent. that a committee considering this subject, must be either limited by instructions of the house, or by their own discretion, to certain specific points. He never listened to a debate with more attention than he had done to the present, and never had he more complete conviction than from this. From every gentleman who spoke, but more particularly from an hon. and learned gentleman, who had most influence with him, on this occasion, the attorney general, who in a clear, able, and honourable speech, had told the house the result of a prosecution by a person in his official situation; by which it was manifest, that the prosecution would come to nothing; for whatever might be the law on the question, whether the party would be obliged to refund the money, which had been unfairly gained, if it was money belonging to the public, (and the learned gent. inclined to the affirmative of that proposition), yet as the prosecution by the attorney general calling on the party to refund, was in the nature of a civil action, it was clearly the opinion of the learned gent. that if the money so unfairly made use of for private emolument, should be held not to be in strictness the money of the public, but the money of the individuals who claimed, its restitution to the public could not be ordered by a court of justice, because the money was not deemed to be the money of the public. The prosecution therefore for restitution to the public, would in this event fail; and he could not help connecting this idea with what he heard on the 8th of this month in the house, from whom he could not recollect, although there was an impression on his mind that it came from the most respectable authority in the house, which was, that the money in question did not belong to the public, but must be considered as the property of individuals; and if so, the prosecution by the attorney general must fail, as far as regarded the recovery of the money. Besides, if the case were not so, and the prosecution was instituted, it would be so easy for Mr. Trotter to transfer to my Lord Melville, or my Lord Melville to transfer to Mr.

423
Trotter, as the case might suit them, so as to elude all justice. But although this part of the case appeared very important in the views of some person, it was comparatively trivial in the view he took of it altogether. His great anxiety was for the honour and character of the house. It had been said that the house ought never to come to any decision against its judgment, on account of any supposed impression made on the public, that their constituents had no right to bind the house to vote against what appeared just to the house. It was true the public had no right to insist on the judgment of the house being in any particular way on any given case, and that such was his opinion he had given proof in the earlier part of his life; but although the public had no right to tell the house what should be the result of its enquiry, it had a right to say that the house should enquire; that was a duty the house owed to the public; and not only to enquire into any public abuse, but to enquire in the most efficient manner. Now, he had no hesitation in saying, that the most efficient manner appeared to him to be by a committee of the house, and if so, the public would have a right to say, if the house did not adopt that mode, it was guilty of a dereliction of its duty. It was true that neither Mr. Trotter nor my lord Melville, nor any of their agents, would be obliged to answer any thing before a committee of the house to criminate themselves, any more than they would be obliged to do before court of law; but then it must be remembered, that if they refused to answer the committee any fair questions put to them, it would be in the power of the committee to report them as persons misconducting themselves; and as they were person holding offices under government, the might very fairly be cashiered. But as to the examination of Mr. Trotter or lord Melville, he did not think them so important as some others might do. Had he been on the committee of naval enquiry, he doubted whether he should have propose to have examined either; for the great object with him would have been to have looked into the accounts, public and private, for they afforded better evidence than any thing that could be expected to come out of the mouth of any delinquent whatever. Not that he would not have hear them, if they desired it, but he should not think of sending for them as witnesses to explain any matters in which they appeared to
424
be delinquents, because very little useful information could be expected from them. The question was, what was the power the house was called upon to give out of its hands? That power was no less than that of enquiring into all the minute details of the whole case. Then followed another question, whether if the house gave that power out of its hands, it was reasonable to expect that the hands in which they trusted it, would have the same power of examining the matter as the house had? A question which it was impossible to answer in the affirmative, by adopting the mode proposed by the amendment, therefore, the house would change the best security for a bad one, for preventing future depredations on the public, and that its constituents might call a dereliction of its duty, and were likely to do so, when they found the mode proposed to be adopted by the amendment was the mode which the most particular friends of my lord Melville were the most partial to, which they hardly would do, if they thought it would press hard upon him. He was apprehensive that the public would be justly dissatisfied with the house if it did not do its duty in this case, which it could not do without adopting the mode best calculated to investigate this matter fully, which, in his opinion, would alone be well done by a committee, such as was proposed by his hon. friend's motion.
Mr. Canningwas surprised how any man could accuse his right hon. friend of any intention to cripple the enquiry; it was only limited to the essential points it should have in view. Besides, his right hon. friend left gentlemen on the other side the option of which mode they should pursue. He could not but advert to the topic, concerning which so much clamour had been raised out of doors. Nothing was so much insisted on as the loss which the public had sustained by these transactions. If there was a loss, let it be ascertained; if not, let the mistake be corrected; and how could that be better done, than by the mode recommended? How could the money be better secured than by a legal proceeding? It was rather wonderful that gentlemen, who in every other respect were so anxious to abide by what was prescribed by the commissioners, should in this instance refuse to adopt that authority. The commissioners pointed out the proceeding of a court of law, yet gentlemen now wished to shrink from that mode of proceeding. Indeed they seemed solicitous only to follow

425
what made an impression out of doors, and to change their ground, and shape their conduct in the manner the most likely to catch a few stray votes.
The Solicitor Generalsupported the amendment, in a speech of considerable length, in which he maintained that all the evidence which could be examined before a committee of the house, could also be examined before a court of justice; with this advantage, that before the latter it would all be given with the solemnity of an oath, and before a select committee, it would be without that solemnity.
Mr. Fonblanquestated the inconveniences which would arise in the discussion of this matter in a court of equity, as reasons why the house should consider a great deal before it gave up its own control over the case in order to send it before that tribunal.
Mr. Whitbreadreplied to the different observations which had been made against his motion, but chiefly those which had been urged by Mr. Canning. He did not change his ground for the purpose of taking in any stray votes; he appealed to the good sense of the house as to his having changed his mode of proceeding since the debate commenced. He did not see any reproach attaching to that, for it was the result of the force of arguments from his friends, and he saw no disrespect to the house for a man to change his opinion in the course of a debate: He thought the use of a good argument was to convince those who heard it, and he hoped he should never be so arrogant, as to think that his mind was so perfect as to be incapable of receiving instructions from the minds of others. He had once thought of a prosecution against my lord Melville by the attorney general, but he was convinced, from what he had heard to-night, there was but little prospect of any restitution of property to the public by that mode of proceeding; he had therefore for the present abandoned it, and he adhered only to the motion for a committee. As his motion stated, the great object with him was not to pursue lord Melville as a public debtor, but to prosecute him as a public delinquent. Not that he gave any other proceeding up, for he held himself at liberty to take any of the modes proposed to be adopted on this occasion, but he abandoned them all for the present, except that of the committee proposed by his motion, and as he gave up the other measures, he
426
expected the support of the right hon. gent. (Mr. Canning), who had spoken so vehemently against him to-night. He had great hopes the house would continue to deserve the approbation of the public by its determination this night.—The house then divided—For the amendment 229; for Mr. Whitbread's motion 151; majority for the amendment 78.
Mr. Whitbreadthen said, that he held in his hand a list of members whom he meant to propose to the consideration of the house, as fit persons to compose a committee to whom the subject should be referred. It was of the utmost importance that this committee should consist of persons whose character for talents, independence and integrity, should give confidence to the country, and he was sure that no objection would be made to any one of the names that he held in his hand. They were selected, without consideration to party, from both sides of the house. He read over the names, as follows:—Mr. Baker, Mr. Bankes, Mr. Blackburn, Mr. N. Calvert, Hon. Spencer Cowper, Mr. Creevey, Hon. Mr. Pierrepoint, Hon. John Fane, Sir John Newport, Lord Folkstone, F. Gregor, Esq. Lord Archibald Hamilton, Mr. Madocks, Lord Marsham, Hon H. Lascelles, Sir John Wrottesley, Sir Robert Peele, Lord Henry Petty, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Whitbread, Lord Robert Spencer, and concluded with moving the first name, William Baker, Esq. member for the county of Hertford.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobjected to this mode of naming the committee, and moved as an amendment, that the committee should be chosen by ballot.
Mr. Foxexpressed his astonishment, that on a subject of such moment the right hon. gent. should resort to this mode. Nothing but the most perfect publicity could satisfy the ends of justice, or convince the public that they were in earnest. He said, that it was perfectly understood that a select committee of 21, if chosen by ballot, was a committee of persons who, somehow or another, spoke the sentiments of the minister, and if this were chosen in that way, jealousy and distrust would be the consequence; that this was a committee to try the ministers themselves, and that it was a monstrous thing that it should be nominated in a way that would countenance the supposition of influence.
The Chancellor of the Exchequeranswered, that the mode of ballot was the ancient usage of parliament in such cases. To

427
the proceedings of committees chosen by ballot, the country owed the highest obligations, and he trusted his friends would not be diverted from following the ancient practice of the house in the best times by any insinuations of sinister motives. After a few words from Mr. Grey, the house divided on the motion for a ballot. Ayes 251; noes; 120 majority 131.—Adjourned.