Commons Sitting of 29 April 1805

MINUTES.
Mr. Calcraftpresented a petition from upwards of 1000 inhabitants of the parish of St. Pancras against the bill for the erection of a workhouse, and some parochial regulations in that place. Ordered to lie on the table.—Mr. Williams, from the commissioners of naval enquiry, presented at the bar the correspondence with the treasurer of the navy, which was ordered on a preceding day. The papers were ordered to be laid on the table, and on the motion of sir R. Buxton, it was ordered that they should be printed.—Mr. Johnstone, from the office of the chief secretary of Ireland, presented copies of the contracts which had been entered into for the purchase of houses or ground for the scite of the Roman catholic seminary. Ordered to be laid on the table.—Mr. Parnell presented statements of the public expenditure in the Irish chancellor of the exchequer's office, which were also ordered to be laid on the table.—Mr. H. Thornton gave notice that, in consequence of the resignation of sir Francis Burdett, he would, to-morrow, move that the petition against Mr. Mainwaring be discharged.—Mr. Creevy rose for the purpose of putting a question to his majesty's ministers. Three weeks shall have elapsed to-morrow since the resignation of lord Melville, and yet no successor had been appointed. He wished to know who was to succeed to that important office, as under all the circumstances of the country, and considering the forward state of the enemy's fleets, it was extremely desirable that a person should be appointed adequate to the urgency of the times, and arduous duties of that high office.—The chancellor of the exchequer had no difficulty in answering the hon. gentleman's question: the appointment had taken place, and would be men-

457
tioned in the Gazette of to-morrow; and the successor to that noble lord was one who fully answered the description of the hon. gent. and would be satisfactory to the wishes of the nation. (After having sat down, the right hon. gent. mentioned the name of sir Charles Middleton.)

PAPERS RELATING TO THE ELEVENTH NAVAL REPORT.
Sir A. S. Hamondrose to give notice that he should move, to-morrow, for further papers respecting the eleventh Report of the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry.
Mr. Greyrose to take notice, that the hon. comptroller of the navy had, on a day last week, given notice of a motion connected with the Eleventh Report of the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry. He wished to know what object the hon. baronet had in view, in requiring additional papers on the subject of that report. The hon. baronet had given a notice of a similar nature on a former night without stating his object, and on the next day he had come down to the house before the usual hour, and had moved for a letter from himself to the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry, together with certain inclosures. It was impossible to know what the hon. baronet proposed to himself by the production of such documents. What had the house to do with his letter to the commissioners? If he had any observations or comment to make upon it, as a member of parliament, it was open to him to avail himself of an opportunity of doing so. The proceeding was altogether so extraordinary and irregular, that he (Mr. Grey) was of opinion that the former notice and motion should be expunged, and that the hon. baronet should distinctly state what his object was.
Sir A. S. Hamondsaid, that upon the occasion alluded to, he had taken no advantage of the house. It was near five o'clock when he made his motion, and he had given full notice of the purpose for which he made it. He had stated that the documents were respecting the evidence given on the eleventh report before the naval commissioners. The house was then as full as it was at present, and he was not aware of having been informal or out of order.
Mr. Tierneyobserved, that on the day of the hon. baronet's motion, it was understood that a ballot for a select committee was to take place at four o'clock. He came down anxious to know the nature of the motion, as all he understood was, that
458
the notice referred to some papers relative to the eleventh report; in fact, that it was a general notice. He thought the hon. baronet should have stated what his object was.
The Speakerremarked, that there was no question before the house on which it could come to any ultimate decision.
Mr. Tierneysaid, the hon. baronet ought to apprize the house of the object of the motion he intended to bring forward. He supposed the documents he meant to move for, were intended as the medium of attacking a noble lord. If so, it was necessary that every thing connected with the immediate object of the motion should be before the house.
Sir A. S. Hamondappealed to the house, that in their recollection, an hon. member opposite (Mr. Kinnaird) had brought forward a similar motion, under similar circumstances. On that hon. member's motion, papers of a nature parallel to those he had moved for, were ordered, and not a single objection was started.
Mr. Greyprofessed his ignorance of the circumstance to which the hon. baronet alluded. As far as his own recollection extended, the motion of his hon. friend was not brought forward without a specific notice. Every member, indeed, knew to what end it was directed. Here, on the contrary, it was perfectly understood that no business of a public nature was to be done till after the ballot was formed, the hon. baronet introduced his motion in the absence of all those who might be supposed most anxious to defend the character of the noble lord, against any attack which might be brought against his public conduct. He himself had remained to a late hour in expectation of the motion being brought forward, and he was at last astonished to find, that the hon. baronet had brought forward the motion at a time when not one of the noble lord's friends were at all apprized of his intentions. They knew nothing at all of the nature of the papers to be moved for. They were obliged to be satisfied with the simple explanation, that they were papers connected with the Eleventh Report of the Naval Commissioners. In fairness to the character of his noble friend, some opportunity should have been given to move for the production of other papers, by which these allegations might have been disproved. All the information, however, which it was

459
judged necessary by the hon. baronet to convey to the house, was, that it was a collection of documents relative to the eleventh report. This, surely, was nothing short of sporting with the dignity of the house, as well as the character of his noble friend. Fortunate, indeed it was, that his character was far above all suspicion, so that even the partial production of these papers could not injure him in the estimation of the public. To move for papers, and not to explain to what object they were to be applied, was, he would ever contend, equally inexpedient and objectionable. A right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Pitt) had attacked an hon. and learned friend of his for not bringing forward his motion on a former evening, on a sufficiently explicit notice—which on enquiry turned out not to be the fact. It was ascertained that the notice of his hon. and learned friend was sufficiently explicit; but surely no one member could now come forward and say that the motion of the hon. baronet had been intimated in terms at all so specific. The house besides had here to consider what was demanded. It was not a motion for the production of documents to establish the innocence of the hon. baronet, which would without difficulty be acceded to. It was a motion for the production of a letter containing comments on the report of the commissioners. If the hon. baronet thought these comments necessary, he, as a member of the house, had an opportunity of stating them in his place. It was not consistent with the dignity of parliament to receive them in any other form. It was one of the first instances of letters of individuals being thus attempted to be placed before parliament, and he trusted the practice would be effectually checked. The house, it appeared to him, were called on to expunge the motion for the production of the papers in question.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, it was his earnest wish that the hon. gent. (Mr. Grey) would give effect to his threat, and move to expunge the notice, if he thought it was wrong; but surely he ought first to recollect what it was. It was for a copy of the evidence of the comptroller of the navy before the commissioners relative to the eleventh report. Now, when it was known that the eleventh report contained comments on the conduct of the person who had made the motion, was it ust that he should be shut out from mov-
460
ing for such papers as were necessary to his vindication? He believed it would turn out that the document which had been moved for was one which the hon. bart. had had no opportunity to bring forward. The hon. baronet had intimated to the commissioners that their report would convey to the world an erroneous statement. They declined receiving his statement. If then the 11th report reflected on the conduct of the hon. baronet, was his statement in explanation to be rejected, because it might convey an imputation against a noble lord, whom some persons thought fit to consider above all enquiry? He was not desirous of entering into a discussion of the motives by which gentlemen were actuated in their friendship for the noble lord. Whatever he had thought of the noble lord, or now thought of him, he was not disposed to consent that his name should be brought forward to prevent the production of a document necessary to the vindication of a member of the house. The motion was for papers materially affecting the character of the person who called for them. Similar papers had been produced by a vote of the house; he was, therefore, at a loss to conceive why in this instance they should be objected to.
Mr. Greysaid, the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Pitt) had not advanced a word in vindication of the manner and time of the hon. baronet's bringing forward his motion, but simply that to deny it would be inconsistent with the justice due to an individual; and that, as the report reflected materially on the hon. baronet, he ought not to be precluded from moving for that which was necessary to his own defence. By no means. God forbid, that he should be denied any paper necessary to his justification. What he complained of was that the hon. baronet moved for documents comprising letters, without stating for what they were intended. Had he moved for specific documents, the propriety of granting them might have been canvassed; but the hon. baronet had moved for a letter from himself to the admiralty, inclosing other documents, without any information which might enable those concerned to supply the deficiency of such papers, supposing they should be incomplete. He repeated that it was an unfair proceeding. In what situation would the public be, if any person could, by writing a letter to the admiralty, get the inclosures printed and laid before the house of com-

461
mons? Such a practice might lead to the circulation of he knew not what trash. If the letter was a justification of the hon. baronet, let it be produced in a fair and honourable mode. Public rumour had induced him to believe it related to an attack on a noble lord; if so, his friends ought to have an opportunity of supplying any defect in the papers it contained. A right hon. gent. had supposed that he (Mr. Grey) had intimated that the noble lord was above enquiry. He had never said so. He had said, that the noble lord was above attack, and if there was any imputation against him, he challenged it. He was so convinced of the noble lord's integrity, that he had no doubt any enquiry would redound to his honour.
Sir A. S. Hamondmaintained, that he had taken the most regular and orderly way in bringing forward his complaint. In the 11th report, the comptroller of the navy was particularly reflected upon. There was one part of the evidence which reflected on him in a way that no person of feeling could pass over. Either the noble lord or himself must stand in a situation in which no man of honour would wish to be placed. He had written a letter to the commissioners, to desire that he might be re-examined. After a lapse of seventeen days, he was told, that the report having been submitted to the three branches of the legislature, his request could not be complied with. He was at the head of an interior board, and it was material to him to prove that he was not the person alluded to in the eleventh report. He had written a letter to that effect to the commissioners of the admiralty, and had desired them to look over the documents, to convince themselves he had acted right. These were the papers he had moved for. The house was full at the time, and if he had done it five minutes too early, he had no intention to take the house by surprize.
Mr. W. Dickensonpresented at the bar "a copy of the letter of the comptroller of the navy to the commissioners of the admiralty, dated April 22, 1805, relative to the evidence contained in the eleventh report of the commissioners of naval enquiry, together with its inclosures." On the motion that the papers do lie on the table, it appearing that the inclosures had no titles,
Mr. Greydoubted whether this was such a proceeding as ought to satisfy the
462
house. Nobody knew to what these documents referred. Even now he was at a loss to develope them. There were no titles to them. He desired to know whether it was fair that papers so produced should be printed.
Mr. Tierneywished the papers to be laid on the table for two or three days before they were printed. If they were printed in their present state, they might create an impression which supplementary documents might not be able to remove. Both the hon. baronet and the noble lord were in a situation which no man of honour could submit to. The hon. baronet desired that he might not be condemned unheard. He (Mr. Tierney) was equally anxious that his noble friend should not be condemned unheard. He thought the better way would be to move for a committee to consider the eleventh report. All he was desirous of was, that a mutilated case should not be laid before the public.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid: there was an equal desire that justice should be done to both parties. The question was, whether the house would put the hon. baronet in a situation of having hostile evidence adduced against him, lest the documents in his vindication might possibly reflect on another person. No doubt, the comptroller of the navy ought to have the full benefit of these papers; they were calculated to elucidate points relative to the hon. baronet's justification. An hon. gent. had observed, that it was competent to move for a committee. Was it not also competent to any one to move for a vote of censure against the hon. baronet upon the report. It was not unusual in the course of debate for gentlemen to form different views of a subject, and even when notice had been given of a particular motion, it had been discovered in a few hours that the motion winch before was considered the best, would prove the worst that could be adopted. He concluded by moving that the papers should be read.
Mr. Foxobserved, that the case before the house was involved in intricacy. The whole seemed to have arisen from an irregularity the most strange and extraordinary that ever crept into the proceedings of that house of parliament. The hon. baronet thought, that his character being attacked by the eleventh report, it was his business to move for certain documents.

463
Nothing could be more right. But was it right to conceal any thing? Instead of referring to the documents A, B, or C, the hon. baronet referred them all to the inclosures of a certain letter. The house should consider the difference between evidence and comment. If the hon. baronet had not the documents necessary to his defence, certainly it would be unfair; but if his comment on them had been omitted, it would have been competent in him to have made it, as a member of parliament, in his place. If he had stated what the inclosures were, all this difficulty would have been avoided. Had he pointed them out by specific titles, it would have been competent to any gentleman to have this or that by itself, which may mislead the house, and therefore it will be necessary to move for some other papers. It had been stated, that the papers had been moved for at a certain time of the day—a very fit time, he granted, to move for such documents. No man could say that any observation in the hon. baronet's power to make personally, could be more availing in writing. It was important to have the whole of the documents before the public; but to have the comment without the text, was not that state of the business which the house of commons ought to be satisfied with. The right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt) had observed, that the house had seen changes on a former day, with respect to certain motions of an hon. friend of his (Mr. Whitbread). The fact was, that his hon. friend, so far from having abandoned his notice, had been driven out of it by the majority of the house. He wished to know whether there was any thing deserving reproach, or that could reflect on the understanding or sedateness of his hon. friend, by the course he had adopted. Whoever witnessed the debate of that day, and saw the eagerness with which every one of the hon. gent.'s friends wished to screen the delinquents, could not but allow this was a sufficient reason for his hon. friend's abandoning his motion. He was of opinion it would be more dignified and consistent, not to have these papers printed till others connected with them could be also produced. Every one was aware that there was no man in the country above enquiry; but such was the character of lord St. Vincent, that if the letter accused him, the general and just opinion of mankind would be, that the imputation was unme-
464
rited. His character was not above enquiry, but it was above all suspicion that could be thrown upon it without enquiry. Now the inclosures were produced, the house did not know what they were; the clerk could not read them, because they had no titles. He wished to have the titles of these documents. He regretted that the house should have unnecessarily got into so difficult a state of proceeding.
Mr. W. Dickenson,jun. did not conceive there was any impropriety or irregularity in the proceeding. One of the papers was a letter from sir A. S. Hamond; the other, a letter from Mr. Tucker: they were both under similar circumstances.
Mr. George Ponsonbywas of opinion that the papers ought not to be read, as they could not be read in the ordinary way, having no titles. The hon. baronet had not specified what any one of the papers was, but had stated that they would show the house he was at issue with lord St. Vincent, and that one or the other must stand in a situation in which no man of honour would wish to stand. The letter, therefore, did not contain a defence of the hon. baronet, but a new and distinct crimination of lord St. Vincent. He was bound then to state the nature of the documents, that lord St. Vincent's friends might move for other papers, necessary.
The Attorney Generalobserved, that if any other person but lord St. Vincent were the object of the motion, no objection would be made to laying the documents on the table. But was there not a report on the table charging the hon. baronet with having omitted to have informed the first lord of the admiralty of certain important transactions? He had looked into the introductory letter since the commencement of the discussion, by which it appeared that the hon. baronet, when he found that his conduct had been reflected on by the 11th report, had tendered to be re-examined, which the commissioners had, no doubt on sufficient grounds, refused. The hon. bart. had then addressed himself to the admiralty, inclosing the documents. In consequence of which they were no longer in his possession, and that had been the cause of his moving for the letter and its inclosures. As to the observation of the learned gent. that this was a fresh and distinct charge against the noble lord, was not there already upon the table a charge against the hon. baronet? Was there no hardship in that?

465
A learned serjeant (Best) had given notice of a motion on the subject of the eleventh report next week, and in adverting to the charge of notices that had taken place, his right hon. friend had only said, that it was impossible for the house to know whether the motion would be made for a committee or not.
Mr. Greyfelt it impossible to suffer the house to be led away by false impressions. He was sure the statement from the other side was not correct relative to the order of the motions (on Thursday). He had himself suggested to move for the committee first and for the prosecution after. But he observed a uniform endeavour to mislead the house, that they who supported him opposed the production of documents. God forbid! It was to the manner of moving for the documents they objected. He was happy to find that no gentleman attempted to justify the manner in which the hon. bart. had brought forward his motion. The report bad been printed on the 11th of March, and it was not till the 22d of April that the hon. bart. wrote the letter to the admiralty; on the 25th he gave his notice, and on the 26th he moved for its production. What was to be concluded, but that he had written the letter for the purpose of having it produced to parliament?
Sir A. S. Hamondsaid, he had lost no time. It was extremely late in March when the report had been printed, and the next day he wrote to the commissioners of enquiry. As he held a high office, it was no slight matter that he should stand right with his superior board. He had written his letter on the 1st of April, and delivered it with his own hand to the commissioners. On the 17th he received the answer, and on the 22d he wrote to the admiralty. The documents were in the regular form of documents from one board to another, and numbered from 1 to 10, being letters from the secretary of state, and from the earl St. Vincent, and if the secretary of the admiralty did not produce them with the proper titles, it was not his fault. The reading the papers would not take up ten minutes, he should therefore vote for the motion.
Mr. Kinnairdshould not have risen, if it had not been for a personal allusion to himself. Previous to the motion which had teen observed upon, he had presented a petition from Mr, Tucker explaining the natured his grievance and the motion.
466
The papers were then read by the clerk, and are as follows:
"Copy of a letter from the comptroller of the navy to the lords commissioners of the admiralty, dated the 22d of April 1805, on the subject of the evidence printed in the eleventh report of the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry:—together with copies of sundry papers therein referred to. Navy office, 22d April 1805.—My lords, having read the eleventh report of the commissioners of naval enquiry; and thinking the evidence given by the earl of St. Vincent as stated in the appendix to that report, was incorrect, and likely to lead the public into an opinion prejudicial to my official character, that I kept his lordship in ignorance of material transactions in my office. I was desirous of being again examined, and for that purpose I wrote to the commissioners the following letter on the 1st April; "gentlemen, having read your eleventh report to the house of commons, and observing from the concluding part of the appendix to that report, that the earl St. Vincent declared before you, that he had no knowledge of the transaction therein alluded to, in respect to which, the sums of money therein mentioned were severally issued; I beg leave to be again examined before you upon that subject, in order that the testimony I propose to give, may be made a supplementary report. I have in my possession such proofs as will convince that his lordship was acquainted with those transactions; these proofs in justice to myself, I desire that I may be allowed to lay before you."—I attended with the letter myself on the day it bears date, and having delivered it, I retired into the next room to wait their pleasure upon the subject of it; after waiting a short time, I was informed that they would send me an answer, and I received in consequence, the following answer, dated the 17th instant. "Sir, we have received your letter of the 1st instant, respecting the evidence given by the earl of St. Vincent, entered in the appendix to our eleventh report; and proposing to us to re-examine the matters to which that evidence relates. We have very lately had occasion to decline resuming an enquiry after having submitted our report upon the subject of it to the three branches of the legislature; and we do not any thing in the circumstances commu-

467
nicated by you, which requires us to adopt a different line of conduct."—Feeling much disappointed at not having the opportunity of giving the explanation which I wished to the commissioners, and being desirous that your lordships should not remain in ignorance on this subject, I take the liberty of submitting to your lordships the following statement and declaration, which I should at any time be ready to verify upon my oath before the commissioners, or in any other manner in which it might be thought desirable that I should swear to it. I have the honour to be, my lords, &c. &c. (Signed) A. S. Hamond."
"Statement and Declaration.—On reading the eleventh report of the commissioners of naval enquiry, and particularly the evidence given by the earl of St, Vincent, as stated in the appendix to that report, which appears to me not to be correct;I have judged it proper to make the following declaration. I declare, 1st, That I have written documents in my possession (copies of which are hereunto annexed) which appear to me to prove that his lordship had a thorough knowledge of one of the transactions; all knowledge of which he has denied:—And, 2dly, I declare, that although I have no written testimony to prove that his lordship was actually acquainted with the other transaction set north in that report; and also stated in the appendix by his lordship to have been unknown to him; yet that his lordship was not unacquainted with its having taken place; and the fact of his having denied the one, which is capable of distinct proof, may tend to confirm my declaration upon the other, as the same degree of forgetfulness which occasioned his denial of the one might occasion a similar mistake in his denial of the other. I therefore declare, that feeling it to be my duty to take care that the first lord of the admiralty should be informed generally of the transactions of my office, and particularly, of such as were out of the ordinary course of proceeding; I took occasion not long after the earl of St. Vincent came into office as first lord of the admiralty, to ask his lordship if his predecessor lord Spencer had acquainted him with any service going on under the authority of his probation or order, that still remained unexecuted, and to which I might have occasion hereafter to call upon his lordship
468
for his sanction; and his answer was, that lord Spencer had not mentioned any circumstance of the kind to him, or left any memorandum, having emptied his drawers previous to his (lord St. Vincent) taking possession of his office room. I then told his lordship, that it became my duty to inform him of various particulars that I considered absolutely necessary he should he acquainted with. I mentioned to him the circumstances under which the merchant builders were then going on with the 74-gun ships contracted for in 1800; that instead of having complied with their request to increase the price they had engaged for, I had been authorized by lord Spencer to give them assurances, that if they went on and built the ships according to contract, their case should be fully considered, and a compensation made them for their losses, if the same should be made appear to the satisfaction of the navy board; this, lord St. Vincent fully approved of at that time. I also informed his lordship, that Mr. Lindegren was employed as an agent to procure hemp for the navy through the neutral merchants, (the Russian ports being then shut against this country); which his lordship also approved of, and continued.—I stated likewise to his lordship, all the circumstances that had occurred in the change of the mode of paying the navy bill; sheaving what an immense saving it had been to the public; and the difficulties which arose in 1797 in first getting the ninety-day bills into circulation; and informed him of the expedient the treasury had been obliged to resort to for keeping up their credit, when there did not happen to be money in the exchequer to discharge them.—And I do as confidently assert, upon the same principle, and either at the same time, or shortly afterwards, I informed his lordship of all the circumstances of the transaction relative to the issue of the 100,000 l. stated in page 491 of the commissioners report, and which is described by me to he of a nature not fit as yet to be made. the subject of a public report: and I add now, that I not only am ready to give to your lordships the most complete explanation of the transaction; but I subjoin to this statement and declaration a copy of a letter, which, though subsequent to my examination, vet previous to their making their report, I sent to the commissioners of naval enquiry, tender-

469
ing to give them also every information upon that point, provided they would not make it the subject of a public report; and which letter, if they had added to their appendix would have shewn that it was not a transaction which I had any wish to keep secret, except so far as the disclosure of it would be detrimental to the public service; and I do declare, that I believe, if the commissioners had entered into this examination, which I tendered in that letter, that they would have had no difficulty in staring, that the reasons upon which I was desirous to observe this secrecy, were perfectly satisfactory and sufficient. And I do declare, that with respect to the last issue of 30,000 l the order for which is dated from the treasury on the 14th March 1801, it was considered as forming a part of the above transaction, and took place before Mr. Pitt quitted office, although the bills were not actually passed until the 9th April, and therefore this particular issue was not distinguished by me, when I related the circumstance to lord St. Vincent. (Signed) A. S. Hamond. Navy Office, 22d April 1805."
"No. 1. Copy of a letter from Sir A.S. Hamond to Earl St. Vincent, dated Navy Office, 9th March 1804.—My Lord, As I had not the honour of seeing your lordship this morning when I waited upon you at the admiralty, I beg to inclose, for your information, an order I received the 9th of last month from lord Hobart; and to acquaint your lordship, that in consequence thereof I have forwarded the service therein mentioned as far as it was in my power, and that three ships fitted for the purpose have now sailed down the river to join lord Keith.—I beg further to acquaint your lordship, that I have avoided as much as possible taking any people or stores from his majesty's dock yards for this service; but, from the want of exertion of the parties whom I was directed to control, and from the necessity which existed for extraordinary dispatch, I have been obliged to have recourse both to Woolwich and Chatham yards, the particulars of which shall soon he laid before the admiralty. I have the honour to be, my lord, &c.&c. (Signed) A. S. Hamond."
"No. 2. Copy of an Order inclosed in Sir Andrew Snape Hamod's letter of the 9th March 1804, to the earl of St. Vincent. Downing-street, 9th Feb. 1804 (Most secret)— Sir, It being thought ad-
470
visable, under the present circumstances of the war, that an attempt should be made for carrying into execution the project suggested in the inclosed paper for choaking up the entrance into the harbour of Boulogne; and the success of such an enter-prize depending in a great measure upon the secrecy and dispatch with which the preparations may be made; I have king's commands to signify to you his majesty's pleasure that you do take these preparations under your immediate control, and that you do communicate confidentially with Mr.— supplying him with such funds, and giving him such orders for the purchase of vessels, and providing the stone and other materials which you may judge necessary to be embarked, as shall be requisite for accomplishing the object in view. The advances you may have occasion to make for this service will hereafter be replaced by the treasury. As soon as the vessels shall be sufficiently laden, you will give directions that they should proceed with all possible expedition to the Downs, where all further orders will proceed from lord Keith. I am, sir, &c. (Signed) Hobart. Sir A. S. Hzmond, baronet, comptroller of the navy."
"No. 3. Sir, I have received your letter of yesterday, inclosing an instruction which you had received from lord Hobart for the execution of a secret service, and which I have no doubt will be performed; but as the whole expense is to be defrayed by the treasury, I do not see occasion for any part of the detail being submitted to the admiralty board. I return herewith lord Hobart's letter, and have the honour to be, sir, &c. (Signed) St. Vincent. Admiralty, 10 March 1804. Sir A. S. Hamond, baronet, comptroller of the navy."
"No. 4. My dear sir, I hope you can report progress. I have not seen or heard from Mr. — since I saw you; lord St. Vincent approves much of the direction being with you, and will himself write to lord Keith when the preparations are sufficiently forward. Yours faithfully,J. Sullivan. Downing Street, 18 Feb. 1804, Sir A. S. Hamond."
"No. 5. My dear sir, LordHobart begs the to say, that he hopes the vessel's having taking the ground, is not an indication of draught of water being too great for the proposed service. He is going to settle with lord St. Vincent about the protections; and I am going to arrange with

471
the treasury about the instructions to the Custom House. I am, my dear sir, faithfully yours, J. Sullivan. Downing Street, 21 Feb. 1804. Sir A. S. Hamond."
"No. 6. Downing Street, 23d Feb. 1804. My dear sir, Lord Hobart proposes to send a messenger to-night to lord Keith, and hopes you will send your paquet to go by him. Lord St. Vincent's letter will accompany it. Mr. Frewin of the Custom House, assures me that surveyors are not sent on board ships unless notice is given that a drawback will be claimed for any part of the cargo, or unless some suspicion is entertained of fraudulent practice. He will be in the chair of the Custom House all next week, and will see Mr.— and act upon any communication from him, if it should appear absolutely necessary; but until the necessity shall occur, he is decidedly of opinion that it would not be advisable to give an order, because it would inevitably give publicity to the business. Mr. Frewin has been fully informed on the subject. I beg of you to send me the original paper of Mr. —or a copy of it. I am my dear sir, &c. J. Sullivan. Sir A. S. Hamond."
No. 7. Downing Street, 26th March 1804. My dear sir, Though the accompanying are rather rejective, I have had some comfort from the report of — who arrived about an hour ago, He says, positively, that the other pilots agree in opinion with—that the project is practicable, and that if the ships should be placed in the proper births, they will produce all the effect we have been given to expect.—and — will call on you. I have sent them to lord St. Vincent. Yours truly, (Signed) J. Sullivan. Sir A. S. Hamond, baronet."
"No. 8. Downing Street, 12th April 1804. My dear sir, When you have looked over the accompanying papers, have the goodness to return them to me. If you think yourself at liberty to give me a Copy of captain Owen's letter, for the purpose of my sheaving it to the first lord, I will thank you for it; I have sheen him in confidence the papers I now send you. Truly yours, (Signed) J. Sullivan. Sir A. S. Hamond, baronet."
"No. 9. Navy Office, 1st April 1805. My lord, As I find, upon reading the eleventh report of the commissioners of naval enquiry, that lord St. Vincent does not appear to recollect the secret service your lordship placed under my control
472
in February 1804, namely, the project for blocking up the harbour of Boulogne; and as I understood both from your lordship and Mr. Sullivan, that the plan had been first submitted to lord St. Vincent, whose opinion was, that if executed by the smugglers themselves, there was reasonable ground to expect success, but not so, if put into the hands of the officers of the navy; that it was in consequence of this opinion, that your lordship determined to employ Mr. — to carry the project into immediate execution, to direct me to take the preparation under my control, and to provide naval funds for the expence thereof, as the more effectual means of keeping the exdedition secret, and which was to he repaid by the treasury when the amount was ascertained.—As I find a considerable impression is made on the public mind, that a transaction of this nature should be carried on by the comptroller of the navy, without the knowledge of the first lord of the admiralty, I feel myself under the necessity of requesting your lordship will have the goodness to furnish me with some document that will fully shew I was not guilty of that breach of shew duty, which I cannot but think is intended to be imputed to me by lord St. Vincent. I have the honour to be, my lord, &c. &c. (Signed), A. S. Hamond. The earl of Buckinghamshire, &c. &c. &c. late lord Hobart."
"No. 10. Grosvenor Place, 3d April, 1805.—Sir, I avail myself of the earliest opportunity of acknowledging the receipt of your letter of the 1st instant, which did not reach me until yesterday. In order to intimate for your satisfaction, that you had fell authority from me to understand, that previous to any determination being taken, the project for blocking up the harbour of Boulogne had been submitted to the consideration of earl St. Vincent, and that he had approved of my suggestion to place the necessary arrangements for that service under your direction and control. I have further to add, that I signified to you I the king's commands for supplying such funds, and giving such orders as might appear to you requisite, with a view to the ultimate success of the undertaking. Informing you at the same time that the advances which you might have occasion to make for the service in question, would be hereafter replaced by the treasury. I have the honour to be, &c. &c. (Signed) Bucking hamshire. P. S, If it be intended that

473
your communication to me, should be made a public document, I must request, for very obvious reasons, that the name of the individual principally employed in the business may be omitted. B. Sir A. S. Hamond, Bt."
"No. 11. Navy Office, 30th Nov. 18O4. Gentlemen, Since any return to town, your precept to the navy hoard has been put into my hands. I find the hoard has already signified to you, that the navy ninety-day bills, mentioned in your said precept, on the days and for the sums particularized, were issued, by my written directions, to the committee of accounts, in consequence of secret orders I had received from government for specific purposes, and which were kept in my possession.— I have now the honour to acquaint you, that the first sum stated in your precept, was issued by directions from the lords commissioners of the treasury, dated 4th October 1792, and marked most secret. The subsequent issues, viz. 22d November 1799, and 9th April 1801, were made by similar orders. The service for which these naval payments were made, was communicated to me in confidence, and I consider it to be of so delicate a nature, that although the late treasury board signified in a secret letter to me from Mr. Vansittart, dated 1st May 1804, "That the individual in question had performed the service for which the navy bills had been issued, to their lordship's satisfaction, and therefore directed the navy board to make out a clearing bill to discharge Mr. — and his partners from the responsibility of the debt to government;" yet I am decidedly of opinion, that even mentioning the name of the parties, with the sums issued to them at the particular periods before-mentioned, in any report to be laid before the public, would not only endanger the loss of a great part of the money to government, but would subject the party who had been employed to very great inconvenience.—I therefore submit these circumstances to your consideration, as I find it impracticable to give you a copy of the orders tinder which I acted, "omitting the secret instructions respecting the services to be "performed," as they are contained in almost every line of the authority: I am, nevertheless, ready to lay before you, privately, all the papers relative to the transaction, provided I am assured that it is not to be publicly reported upon, as in
474
that case I should consider myself not at liberty to make the communication without first consulting the government. With respect to the 2d issue of navy bills to Messrs. Hammersley and Co., I beg leave to acquaint, you that lord Hobart, one of his majesty's principal secretaries of state, signified to me the king's pleasure, that I should take under my control, and provide funds for the preparation of a project intended to be carried into execution on the enemy's coast (a copy of which I have the honour to inclose in obedience to your precept); and considering it more for the interest of the public, that the funds should be in the hands of a banker, rather than in those of a person unknown to me, and over whom, whilst money was at his command, I could expect to have but little control; I judged it most advisable to have the money imprested to Messrs. Hammersley, and Co. who have no other concern in the transaction than paying such bills as had my approval. I have the honour to be, &c. (Signed) A. S. Hamond."
On the motion for their being printed,
Mr. Tierneycalled the attention of the house to the papers. It was a direct and wilful perversion to call them papers that corrected the evidence of lord St. Vincent. That evidence stood unimpeached. The house had an interest in the character of lord St. Vincent, and his private friends had an interest. The charge here was no less than one of direct perjury. It was the general fate of all men in high situations to subject themselves to calumny, if they touched the work of corruption. He would aver, and that without fear of contradiction, that with regard to the secret expedition, lord St. Vincent never did give his sanction to it. Lord St. Vincent uniformly protested against the appropriation of naval money to any but naval services, or to other purposes than those for which it was voted by parliament. His lordship uniformly took care that not one farthing of the public money of his department should be misapplied. Lord St. Vincent never made any appointment of a single naval officer to the expedition, although he night have desired lord Keith to give it a convoy. The whole was left to the persons appointed by the treasury. The papers which were just read, had nothing to do with the charges against lord St. Vincent. By lord Hobart's letter, it appeared that the whole expense was to he defrayed by the treasury. Lord St. Vincent washed

475
his hands of it When he returned to sir A. Hamond the letter of lord Hobart. To be sure, it was impossible for lord St. Vincent, as a member of the cabinet, not to have known of the expedition, but he had no participation in lodging navy money in the hands of the hon. baronet. Here then ends, in the face of the house, the first charge against lord St. Vincent, and the remarkable phrase that either the situation of lord St. Vincent or sir Andrew Hamond would appear from the papers, one in which no man of honour would wish to stand. As a seaman, lord St. Vincent gave his opinion respecting the project for choaking up the harbours of the enemy; but, as a servant of the public, he had never departed from his resolution not to use the public money against the votes of parliament. I have but one more observation to add, which is, that the worthy baronet has my warmest thanks for the production of his papers.
Mr. Canningobserved, that the impression made upon his mind was, that the hon. baronet had moved for the production of these papers for the purpose of repelling a charge, the substance of which was to be decided by the answer to be given to a question, whether the comptroller of the navy had employed money entrusted to his charge in other services than those of the admiralty? That was the charge, and which charge it was not for him to say had been repelled; that was with the house. But how it might appear to be conformable to, or contrasted with, what might have been said or sworn elsewhere, he left to the consideration of the public.
Mr. Foxobserved, that what had just been said by the right hon. gent. was fair, if indeed it was not something more than fair. But he had a right to expect that the point should be put on the true ground, and perhaps it would have been fair if the rt. hon. gent. had put forward the charge against lord St. Vincent. The ground of bringing forward these documents was, that my lord St. Vincent's evidence, as delivered to the commissioners of enquiry, was incorrect, as was indeed stated in one of the documents themselves. Now, it was so far from being so, that there was no incorrectness whatever in that evidence; on the contrary, lord St. Vincent understood the matter at the time, as be and every body else understands it now, and he should be glad to have the incorrectness pointed out. It was another matter to say that the hon.
476
baronet was to blame in what he did on the subject of that expedition; that was a point which was not now before the house. The question at present was, whether the evidence of lord St. Vincent was, or was not correct, and it really appeared to him perfectly correct.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid that whatever might be doubtful, thus much indisputably appeared on the face of these papers; that the transaction which occasioned the expence, the expedition which had been so frequently repented, was a measure perfectly well known to lord St. Vincent; that to the expence being incurred, he had no objection; that he objected afterwards only to its being defrayed out of naval money—(a cry of hear! hear!)
Mr. Greysaid, that lord St. Vincent knew of the transaction of some secret service was a fact; but that lord St. Vincent disapproved of and protested against the application of naval money for that purpose, was equally indisputable; no naval money was, either directly or indirectly, issued for that purpose under the authority of that noble earl. His answer was given to the commissioners of naval enquiry with reference to his assent to the naval money being employed to the purpose of that Secret service, which assent he most indisputably never gave. Lord St. Vincent was, therefore, perfectly right in that sense, when he said he knew nothing of the transaction.
Mr. Wallacesaid, that as far as his recollection went, it did appear to him that the noble earl was quite incorrect in the statement he made before the commissioners; for it appeared from the communications of sir A. S. Hamond, that the noble earl not only knew of and approved the secret service, but that he also assented to providing the funds for it. Most certainly the impression on his mind was directly the reverse of that felt by the hon. gent. (Mr. Grey) opposite to him.
Mr. Grey.—I say the representation of the hon. gent. who has just spoken, is directly the contrary of the transaction to which he refers. If he means an epithet to apply to the evidence of the noble earl.Mr. Grey. —I say the representation of the hon. gent. who has just spoken, is directly the contrary of the transaction to which he refers. If he means an epithet to apply to the evidence of the noble earl.
Sir A. S. Hamondsaid it would appear, that his lordship directed that the comptroller of the navy should have funds for defraying the expenses of the expedition, and he would beg to know whether these funds. were to come from his own pocket,

477
or from the money of the navy. This letter was written by lord St. Vincent, in which he told sir A. Hamond that his lordship was satisfied the service (that was, the secret, or stone expedition) would be properly performed. Here the hon. baronet alluded to the letter of lord Hobart, of the 7th of March 1804, and of earl St. Vincent on the 9th, wherein his lordship said, "It as thought advisable under the present circumstances of the war, that an attempt should be made for the prosecution of a project for choaking up the harbour of Boulogne, the success of which will depend on secrecy and dispatch. I have the king's commands to inform you it is his majesty's pleasure that you take this under your immediate control, and communicate in confidence with Mr.———supplying him with such funds, and giving him such orders for the purposes of protecting the vessels, and supplying stones and other materials, which may be judged necessary to be embarked, as shall be requisite for accomplishing the object in view. The advance you may have occasion to make for this service shall be hereafter repaid from the treasury. The vessels will proceed to the Downs, and you will receive orders from lord Keith." Another letter on the following day from the noble earl to sir A. S. Hamond stated, "I received your letter of yesterday inclosing instructions from lord Hobart for an expedition on the naval service, and which I have no doubt will be well performed; but as the whole expence is to be defrayed by the treasury, I do not see any occasion for any part of the detail being transmitted to the navy board."
Mr. Wallace.—I beg to know whether I have stated the direct contrary of the true representation on these letters? I have not dune so, as far at least as my understanding goes. I say, it was stated originally in my lord Hobart's letter, that the funds were, in the first instance, to be supplied from the navy, but that they were ultimately to come from the treasury, and that my lord St. Vincent was aware of this. I should he glad to know what he has to say against that?
Mr. Grey.—My lord St. Vincent states, that the whole expenditure is to be defrayed by the treasury. He protests against the application of any naval motley for that purpose. I have my lord St. Vincent's authority to state, that he would have quitted altogether; or to use
478
his own emphatical expression, put his hand in the fire, rather than he would have consented to the issue of any naval money for that purpose.
Mr. Wallace.—I did not mean to say any thing in contradiction to what the noble earl has thought fit to communicate to the hon. member as to what he would have assented to: I am stating only what appears on the face of the papers.
Mr. Grey.—I say the papers completely prove that which my lord St. Vincent said to me.
Mr. Sullivanlamented that he had had the misfortune not to be in the house when this discussion had commenced, and that, therefore, he could but imperfectly reply to all that had been said. But he was clear that the expedition was perfectly known to lord St. Vincent, and he thought it but justice to all parties to say, that he was perfectly acquainted with the whole transaction. Lord St. Vincent resided at that time chiefly in the country, and, therefore, the communications with him were entirely by notes. His (Mr. Sullivan's) letter to sir Andrew Snape Hamond was dated 9th Feb. On the 10th, lord Hobart wrote to lord St. Vincent, that for security, and expedition sir A. Hamond was to take charge of the whole of the preparations, and to advance the funds which were to be afterwards replaced. Sir A. Hamond proposed to raise the money by an issue of navy bills, which were to be paid off when the money for the expedition was issued from the treasury. The funds thus created were paid into Messrs. Hammersley's bank. He did believe in the beginning, that lord St. Vincent was acquainted with the whole of this arrangement. But he acceded to the declaration of partial knowledge, because he was sure that the noble lord would not say that which was hot true. But till he knew that his lordship had declared himself so entirely ignorant of those particulars, he did believe that he was perfectly aware of them. He did believe the hon. gent. opposite, when he stated that lord St. Vincent declared he would have sooner put his hand in the fire than have countenanced this application of the navy money. But certainly lord St. Vincent did not shew any,such aversion to it at the time, he supposed from what had been said, because his lordship did not know it was to be done.
Mr. Vansittartthought he could throw some light on this transaction, by statics

479
what he knew of it from his official situation at the time. Great difficulty arose from the unwillingness of lord St. Vincent to apply the navy money to this expedition; and there being at that time no vote of credit, the only resource that remained was, that the comptroller of the navy should provide the funds in the first instance, and that they should be replaced from the treasury as soon as the vote of credit passed. He was glad his right hon. friend, who was then treasurer of the navy, had explained the matter in the manner he had done. He Was sure lord St. Vincent was a man of honour, but without that explanation he should have found it difficult to reconcile the evidence with what he knew of the facts, though he could not suppose any improper design in lord St. Vincent. At the same time, it was obvious, that the hon. baronet stood fully acquitted by the documents on the table, so far as any charge may have been made against him of having acted in this business without being fully authorized.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersupposed the house must now be satisfied from the reading of the papers, that there was no intention to take the house by surprise, nor to advance any other unfair object, and that any surmise of that kind was absolutely unfounded. Whatever construction may now he put on the words of the evidence, the obvious impression they were calculated to make was, contrary to the intention of the noble lord, he did suppose, that sir A. Hamond had issued navy money for services, of which the first lord of the admiralty knew nothing. This was the impression they had made on his hon. and learned friend (the attorney-general), till the matter had been explained. He asked, under these circumstances, what would have been the counsequence if the enquiry had been stifled in the manner that had been proposed? What injury would not have been done to sir A. Hamond, if it had been only known that he had advanced the money to be replaced,but without the first lord of the admiralty having any acquaintance with the transaction for which it was advanced? Now it appeared that-it was advanced for a service known and approved of by the first lord of the admiralty; that there was an arrangement that it should be advanced by the comptroller of the navy, to be replaced by the treasury. It now appeared, and it was a point much relied on, that in
480
transaction which was purely naval, and which was approved of by the first lord of the admiralty, there was no objection on the part of that noble lord to the plan going forward, provided the expense was not defrayed out of the funds for the naval service. This was a new light, in which the transaction would not have been placed, if this discussion had not been instituted; what the effect of it was, he should not say.
Mr. Foxwas astonished to hear from the right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt) that the natural construction was, that lord St. Vincent meant to say he knew nothing of the Stone expedition. Could any man suppose that was what his lordship designed to represent? Was not the most indolent observer in the kingdom informed of it? Then, as to the money, true it was there was no attack upon the integrity of the noble lord. Whether lord St. Vincent, in the high situation he held, did wright or wrong, in suffering the expedition to proceed, was a question on which at present he was called upon to give no opinion, but as a pecuniary transaction it was perfectly obvious he would not suffer the funds of the navy to be applied to it. The right hon. gent. said the design was to stifle the information contained in the papers. Did requiring them to he publicly read indicate any such indisposition? Then why talk of surmises, when those hon. members to whom the surmises were attributed, could not have the most remote idea of their contents. With regard to the innocence or culpability of sir A.Hamond, that was also a question foreign to the present enquiry, and would, no doubt, be a subject of future discussion. If there existed any feeling on the mind of a single individual in that house, which attached the smallest suspicion to the character of the noble earl who had been so often named in this debate, he hoped the matter would be investigated with the utmost industry, and he (Mr. Fox) was fully convinced the enquiry would terminate in a way most honourable to his lordship.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas surprised to hear hon. gentlemen disavow that there was a design to stifle information when a motion was proposed to expunge the order for the perusal of the paper. With regard to the assertion that what lord St. Vincent said implied he knew nothing of the transaction, in this he must persevere. He did not say what his lordship's intention was, but he (Mr. Pitt) would

481
repeat, that the natural impression from the papers was, that the noble earl knew nothing of the affair. But in order to remove any doubt on a matter that appeared to him so plain, he would read the question and answer from the report:—Q. "It appearing that 1400l. was advanced by Messrs. Hammersley and Co. between the 18th of Feb. and the 21st of April, 1804, for a secret service, was the comptroller of the navy authorised by you to perform a secret service, or have you any knowledge of the transaction?" —A. "He was not; nor have I any knowledge of the transaction." —His lordship might mean that he was not officially apprized of it, but the common impression would be, that he had no knowledge of the transaction regarding that secret service. This was the conclusion he drew, and he believed most persons had deduced on the perusal of the report.
Mr. Greysaid, the right hon. gent. had been guilty of wilful misrepresentation —[a cry of order!]. The chancellor of the exchequer rose with much warmth. The speaker felt it his duty to inform the honourable gentleman, that the expression he had made use of was not justifiable. Mr. Grey said, he was sorry that any improper expression should have escaped him in the warmth of the moment. He contended that there was no evidence of any disposition to stifle enquiry; on the contrary, he had expressly declared his desire that every document that could aid the defence of the hon. baronet, or any attack to be made on lord St. Vincent, should be produced, only wishing to regulate the manner in which such documents' should be allowed to go forth. He contended, that the questions put to earl St. Vincent were only relative to the application of the money.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerstated, that what he had said, was, that there had been an attempt to stifle these papers, and he said so still.
Sir Charles Polewas now called upon from all sides. He stated, that the object of the questions put to earl St. Vincent related solely to the apparent irregularity in the application of the money. When his lordship answered that he knew nothing of it, his lordship was then asked whether it might not have been applied to the stone expedition? He answered, it could not, because there was no authority for such an application, the money for the stone expedition being to come from the treasury.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought it extraordinary that this explanatory question and the answer to it were omitted in the report.
Sir Charles Polesaid, the question was asked for the purpose of assisting his lordship's memory. The same general negative being given, it was thought unnecessary to insert the question in the report.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, that the question had been for so long a time quite out of sight, that, without consulting his recollection, he should not have known what was the immediate object of discussion. He had witnessed a great deal of clamour and irritation, of crimination and recrimination, and of every thing, in short, but argument. The motion before the house was, whether the papers which had been presented by the worthy baronet (sir A. S. Hamond), and read at the table by the clerk, should be printed for the use of the members? Had any objection been offered to its adoption? What possible mischief could result from the publication of these papers? He had heard none assigned; he could conceive none; and therefore he should cordially assent to the motion. With respect to the testimony given by lord St. Vincent before the naval commissioners, and annexed to the eleventh report, his (Mr. Hobhouse's) impression upon reading it agreed with the statements of his right hon. friend below him (Mr. Vansittart), and of his right hon. friend near bun (Mr. Sullivan); both of whom, from the public situations they at that time filled, were well acquainted with the whole proceeding, and most capable of forming a correct judgment. The question put to his lordship was, "whether the comptroller of the navy was authorized by him to perform any secret service, for which a certain sum was advanced, and whether he had any knowledge of the transaction?" The answer was— "he (the comptroller of the navy) was not, nor had he (lord St. Vincent) any knowledge of the transaction." What other inference could be deduced from this reply, except that his lordship did not know the secret service alluded to, and had not authorized it? This from the letters which had now been read, was certainly not conformable to the fact. It appeared, however, from the same documents, that his lordship looked to the treasury for the payment of the. expence, and therefore he was not guilty Of warrant-

483
ing the application of naval money to secret services. By the explanation now given by lord St. Vincent's friends, it was clear, also, that to this point his lordship intended to direct his answer to the commissioners. The evidence, thus construed, left not the least shadow of blame upon his lordship. He (Mr. Hobhouse)entertained the highest opinion of lord St. Vincent's integrity and honour; he admired his professional talents, and completely approved his administration of the admiralty during the time that he presided at that board. Mr. Hobhouse concluded with repeating his wish, that a debate so totally irrelevant to the question under consideration, might no longer be protracted.
Admiral Markham.—Lord St. Vincent certainly knew it; I knew it; sir Thomas Troubridge knew it. With regard to approving it, I never did. I can mention a circumstance which will skew lord St. Vincent's acquaintance with the affair. I remarked to his lordship at the time the business was carrying on, with so little secrecy it was conducted, that it was the common talk from one end of the river to the other, that the comptroller of the navy was fitting out these stone ships. Lord St. Vincent replied to me, "You and I have nothing at all to do with it, the treasury is to pay for it."
Lord Dunlothought it strange that the explanation given to lord St. Vincent's mind by a particular reference to the stone expedition, was not inserted in the report. If the question was put, why was it not in the minutes; if it was in the minutes, why was it not in the report?
Sir C. Polesaid, it was not put down, because it had been directed merely to assist lord St. Vincent's memory, and because it had not produced any knowledge of the matter in his lordship's evidence.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, the misapprehension arose from the unhappy circumstance that the witness did not understand the question, which required sonic explanation for the direction of his mind. The question was put down without explanation, and the answer was recorded without qualification. Thus the misapprehension was in the report, without that which had some tendency to correct it.
Mr. Robert Wardcontended, from the time, that lord St. Vincent must have been perfectly aware that the expedition was going forward, and that the letters sheaved it. The noble lord must besides have
484
been aware that the money was to be advanced by the comptroller of the navy, to he replaced by the treasury.
General Gascoyne,from what had been stated by the hon. baronet, who was at the head of the commission, thought it clear that the commissioners conceived the noble lord's memory wanted assistance and direction. They knew his lordship well; and if they conceived his memory was deficient, he could not imagine they thought so without reason. He was the more ready to admit the propriety of this proceeding, as he himself had been a member of a court martial on a very meritorious general officer, before which the noble lord had been a witness, and the noble lord's memory failed him so much that he forgot precise orders given by himself. He could therefore conceive very easily, why persons so well acquainted with his lordship as the commissioners, should have thought it right to assist his memory on the occasion now alluded to.—The question was now put, and the papers were ordered to be printed.

NAVAL COMMISSIONERS' RENEWAL BILL.
The Chancellor of the Exchequermoved the reading the act appointing the commissioners of naval enquiry, and the act being read accordingly, the right hon. gent. rose pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill for the further continuance of that act for a time to be limited. In a former part of the sessions, he observed, that it was his intention to bring forward this motion, if it should appear that the commission of naval enquiry should be unable in the course of the sessions to fully discharge the duty assigned to them on their original appointment. This inability was now apparent, as several objects still remained for investigation which would necessarily occupy much time. It therefore became proper to prolong their continuance. With respect to the conduct and character of this commission, he was as willing as any man to admit, that it had produced much useful and important information. At the same time, however, he would say, that there were several parts of the conduct of this commission of which he could not approve, but still their investigation had been productive of many results that would conduce to the public service, and on this ground he felt it his duty to submit this motion.—The motion being put,
Mr. Whitbreadthought it extraordi-

485
nary that the right hon. gent. should select the very time he was moving for leave to bring in a bill to prolong the existence et the naval commission, in order to cast a slur upon the conduct of that commission. Such a reflection from any man in the house would excite surprise, but from the right hon. gent. on such an occasion too, it must he peculiarly surprising. Not only that he was quite sure it was decidedly opposite to the general opinion of that house, and the universally received sentiment of the country, that those commissioners were in any part of their conduct deserving of censure. So far from it, that there could be no doubt that the public feeling was warmly in their favour, too much so indeed to afford any thing like a gracious reception to the right hon. gent.'s remarks. Those commissioners, in his judgment, and he believed there were very few who really differed from him, had discharged their duty with peculiar moderation and justice. If the right hon. gent. thought that they had in any instance deviated from that duty, or made an improper exercise of the power intrusted to them, it was incumbent on him to have stated it, and not to have dealt in loose insinuation. Persuaded of the merits of this commission, and that where the results of its enquiry were in any case imperfect, that imperfection did not proceed from any want of diligence or capacity on their part, but from a deficiency in the powers with which they were invested, he should move an amendment, the object of which would be to remove that deficiency. The first point upon which he would propose to extend the power of the commissioners, would be to compel public officers to furnish them with accounts or documents in such form as they might think proper to specify. Thus, no treasurer of the navy, or other public officer, or deputy, would be permitted to thwart or delay the proceedings of this meritorious commission. The next amendment he would submit would go to repeal or new-model the 5th clause, which appeared to have been so improperly made use of to prevent the full disclosure of public delinquency, and to protect delinquents. These effects, which were notorious, and which occasioned general regret, must impress the mind of every man who was really anxious for the success of this enquiry, with a strong conviction of the necessity for this amendment. No objection could be made to a further extension of the pow-
486
ers of those commissioners from any apprehension that that power was likely to be abused; for against such an apprehension the discreet and moderate manner in which they had heretofore acted must afford sufficient security. According to the act, as it now stands, every person had, it seems, a right to decline to answer any question which he chose to think might tend to criminate himself. This afforded such a latitude as was calculated completely to defeat all enquiry, and he would appeal to the learned gent. on the other side (the attorney general), whether any man would be permitted in a court of law to decline answering a question merely upon his own conception that the answer might tend to criminate him. The practice, on the contrary, was, he apprehended, that if a man declined, upon such an allegation, to give an answer, the court was competent to say, that it did not appear likely the answer would produce such an effect, and that therefore the witness must answer. If, however, the answer should tend to criminate the witness, the common law would protect him against the consequences. Now, it was his wish to invest the naval commissioners with a discretion of the same nature as that possessed by the judges—that they should have the power of compelling reluctant witnesses to answer —that such witnesses should be protected by this act, not against the answer, but against the consequences of such answer. With this view the hon. gent. moved an amendment to the motion—that the word "amend" should be inserted after the word continued.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved upon the allusions which the hon. gent. had made to what he thought proper to call a slur thrown out by him upon the conduct of the naval commissioners. Surely the hon. gent. could not suppose that because he felt it his duty to bring forward this motion, that he was therefore divested of the liberty of speech, or that he was to be held out to the odium of that house or the country, because he had thought proper to animadvert upon the conduct of the naval commissioners. He certainly did think that those commissioners had in certain instances executed their powers in a very unbecoming manner. But still he was ready to say that their services were productive of public utility, and in consequence of that opinion he brought forward the motion before the house. With regard to the new provisions recommended by the hon. gent., he did not conceive that

487
there were grounds for their adoption. They were at all events of such a nature as to require much deliberation, and therefore he should oppose their introduction into the original frame of the bill. If, however, they should appear upon future consideration to he necessary, it would be competent to the hon. gent. to propose them in a future stage, when there would be a better opportunity for discussing them, than on the present occasion; namely, in the shape of a motion for an instruction to the committee to receive such clause. Into the merits of these amendments he would for the present decline to enter at any length. But as to the last point respecting the 5th clause of the act as it stood, he would say, that it would appear to him a breach of common equity, and a most dangerous innovation upon the old constitutional practice, to oblige a man to criminate himself. It was such a proposition as he trusted the house would feel to be at least deserving of too much serious consideration, at once to give a sort of opinion by the adoption of the honourable gentleman's motion that such an amendment was necessary.
Mr. Foxentirely concurred with his hon. friend in thinking the insinuation thrown out against the naval commissioners by the right hon. gent. who had just sat down, a most extraordinary circumstance indeed, particularly when the time at which the right hon. gent. expressed his disapprobation was taken into view. If the ground of this disapprobation was of a serious and important nature, it was highly inconsistent in him to bring forward the motion before the house. For if the commissioners were deserving of such censure, how could the right hon. gent. reconcile it with a just sense of public duty, to propose the continuance of their power? But if, on the contrary, the grounds of the right hon. gent.'s disapprobation were of a trifling or comparatively unimportant nature, how strange was the opportunity chosen for declaring, it! There was something peculiarly remarkable in the conduct of the right hon. gent. respecting this commission. At such a time, what could he mean by alluding to trivial errors—
Just hint a fault and hesitate dislike, Anxious to wound, and yet afraid to strike.
Those two lines appeared to be quite appropriate to express the disposition of the right hon. gent., they seemed to be made for him. With respect to the proposition
488
of his hon. friend, gentlemen would consider that the adoption of it would not go to bind the house to any subsidiary amendments that might be hereafter submitted. He merely proposed that as an amendment was obviously necessary in this act, that the original title of the bill should correspond with the desired object. If the amendments recommended by his hon. friend were calculated to entrench on the great and fundamental principles of common law, he would not, from any degree of regard or gratitude to the commissioners of naval enquiry, and no man respected them more than he did, be induced to assent to their adoption. He wished not that any man should be bound to criminate himself; but, in any act which had for its object to compel public officers to account for their conduct of the public money, he was very unwilling that a clause should exist, calculated to shelter any public officer from rendering such account, if he chose to decline it. At least, any officer who should avail himself of such a clause, and thus explicitly declare an apprehension of the discovery of his guilt, ought not to be allowed, for one moment afterwards, to retain his office. The case was different with respect to private individuals. But, when the public thought proper to appoint a commission to enquire into the conduct of its stewards or agents, was it to be borne that any one of such servants should refuse to answer the questions of such a commission; but, still more, was it tolerable that after such refusal he should remain in office? If a public officer were innocent, why should he wish to be silent, and, if he were guilty, why should the legislature protect him in his silence? He did not mean of course that any officer should be forced to furnish grounds of prosecution against himself, but that, if he persisted in that conduct which clearly implied a consciousness of delinquency, he should be dismissed from office. Gentlemen often appeared to forget the nature of these commissions. They were in fact, to be considered as the representatives of the public, examining the conduct of public servants. If a master were to appoint any person to enquire into the affairs of his family, and a servant were to refuse to answer such questions as might be put to him, from a fear of criminating himself, would such a servant be permitted to retain his place? Certainly not. Why, then, should a treasurer of the navy, or his clerk, or any other public servant,

489
however high, he allowed to remain in office after refusing to answer to the agent of their master for the manner in which they had managed his concerns, particularly when their refusal betrayed a sense of guilt? Whether public officers should be compellable to answer such commissions or not, it ought, surely, in common sense and equity, be understood that a refusal to answer should be immediately followed by dismissal. If that were understood, then the refusal of the 5th clause would not be so essentially necessary, although still a provision to meet such a case as that of Mark Sprott would be called for. That person declined to answer, on the ground that he was not, being no public officer, compellable to answer questions under the act. So he was advised by the lawyers whom he consulted. Perhaps those lawyers were Bright, but whether or not, it was proper to extend and explain the powers of the commissioners so as to leave no room for doubt or cavil, and to enable them fully to execute the purpose of their appointment. The hon. member repeated, that it was desirable to be understood that such a commission as that under consideration was not to be viewed by public officers as a hostile court of enquiry, but as a representative of the public, to which they are as much obliged to account, as any servants are to the enquiry of their masters.
The Attorney-Generalopposed the amendment. If it were adopted, he would put it to the consideration of the house how the bill was to be framed agreeable to its title, unless there was a private communication between the hon. gent. and his right hon. friend before the bill should be drawn up, and that the objections existing in the mind of his sight hon. friend against those amendments should be removed. If the objections prevailing against those amendments, which objections he himself felt strongly, should not be done away by future discussion, the house, if the amendment now proposed were acceded to, might be placed in the dilemma of having prefixed a title to a bill, with which the bill itself may prove to be inconsistent. It was manifest to him that it would be much better to postpone the adoption of a title to the bill, which would imply an alteration of the existing act, until that change itself should be determined on.
Mr. Sheridansupported the amendment, and observed, that although he agreed with the right hon. gent. that this was not the
490
proper stage for going into detail or discussion upon the nature of such amendments as might be necessary, yet he agreed with his hon. friend, that some amendments for the purpose of enlarging the powers of the board of naval enquiry were necessary, from the embarrassing impediments those commissioners had already experienced in the course of their proceedings. The right hon. gent.'s leading objections were directed against the suggestions of his hon. friend (Mr. Whitbread), for enabling the board to enforce answers to such interrogatories as they should deem necessary, from the witnesses brought before them, without having the objects of their enquiry defeated by pretences that those persons were not bound to answer interrogatories, tending to their own crimination. His hon. friend never meant, he was confident, to expose any man to the severity of criminal proceedings, in consequence of any testimony extorted from him by the authority of the commissioners; and the law of the land would protect him in such a case. The house, certainly, in appointing the board of commissioners for the purpose of naval enquiry, did not surrender any of its own privileges; neither did he conceive the house to have warranted any individual to direct his censures against the conduct of those commissioners which it had so highly approved: and before the right hon. gent. proceeded to direct such heavy censures against that board, it was incumbent upon him to have pointed out those parts of their conduct which called for his reprobation. He had himself given notice of an intention to move for the thanks of that house to the commissioners of naval enquiry, for that conduct which had already excited the universal gratitude of the country without doors; and when he should have the honour of bringing that motion forward in a day or two, he should hope, if not for the concurrence of the right hon. gent., at least for some explanation of those parts of the conduct of the commissioners, which he had taken so untimely and unqualified an occasion to censure. The commissioners of enquiry had complained that their powers were defective, inasmuch as they had no power to enforce the answers to which his hon. friend alluded; and the right hon. gent. was all alarm, lest public officers should be placed in the liability of criminating their conduct, by telling the truth. It did not appear however, from

491
the existing state of things, that self-crimination was much the order of the day But he would beg leave to ask the right hon. gent. if he was always so much alive to constitutional feelings on this point or whether he had forgotten the bill introduced by himself into that house in 1785. for the express purpose of enquiring into abuses which had obtained in the fees of the public offices of government, by which bill, the commissioners appointed under it were invested with such powers as completely stripped all persons brought before them of those rights now so warmly and pertinaciously contended for by the right hon. gent.? Did the right hon. gent. on that occasion plead Magna Charta in support of his arguments, when he gave the most decided resistance to the admission of a clause moved by him (Mr. Sheridan), for the protection of persons aginst the extortion of answers tending to their own crimination? Did the right hon, gent. forget that the identical Mr. Trotter, of whose rights he was now so jealous, was, under the former bill, compelled to answer interrogatories similar to those which he had refused answering to the commissioners of naval enquiry? which circumstance is alluded to in the appendix to the tenth report. So far, however, from agreeing with the unqualified censures thrown by the right hon. gent. upon the commissioners of naval enquiry, he thought the house was bound to them by every sentiment of the most unlimited gratitude; and when he should have the honour of calling for the expression of that gratitude, by a motion of thanks, he should frame his motion, so as either to make it impossible for the right hon. gent. to dissent from him, or compel him to shew some reasonable cause for his dissent. He agreed with the right hon. and learned gent. that there was no very great likelihood of frequent or confidential intercourse between his hon. friend (Mr. Whitbread), and, the right hon. gent. who introduced the original motion. If, however, the right hon. gent. wished to have any suggestion as to the amendments which were deemed necessary in the bill, as by courtesy of the house he had the nomination of the committee to prepare and bring it in, perhaps he would act wisely in nominating on that committee his hon. friend. and some of those near him.
Mr. Roseperfectly coincided with the motives. of his right hon. friend, in opposing the amendment; though he had been a
492
decided friend to enquiries, of this kind, ever since be had the honour of a seat in parliament—[a laugh]. Gentlemen might laugh if they pleased, but he would boldly look them in the face, and say, without fear of refutation, that there was not amongst them one who was more disposed than he had ever been to the strietest economy in every branch of the public expenditure. He well remembered the bill alluded to, and how warmly it was opposed, as well by an hon. member unfortunately no more, as by the last and preceding hon. members who spoke, but who were this night such strenuous advocates for opposite principles. It was felt on that occasion, that it would be necessary to examine many public officers long in the habit of taking large sums of the public money, and who would never be induced to answer interrogatories, if not compelled to it. It was then objected from the other side of the house, that it 'was unconstitutional to force men to answers that would criminate themselves, and expose them to prosecutions, and that a particular clause was necessary to guard against such consequences; but the introduction of such a clause was resisted by his right hon. friend, upon the ground that the law of the land gave ample protection in such cases, and rendered such a clause wholly needless.
Mr. Bankersupported the amendment, because it was obvious, from the complaints of the naval commissioners, that their powers were defective, and their enquiries, therefore, in many instances, inefficient; but this defect might not arise from any imperfection in the act itself, or in its construction by the commissioners, If, upon due investigation in the proper stage of discussing the bill, an amendment should appear necessary, he should support it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer,in answer to what had fallen from Mr. Sheridan, respecting his bill of 1785, said, if hon. gentlemen would take the trouble of referring to the bill itself, they would find it contained no one of the obnoxious or unconstitutional principles which the hon. member had thought fit to impute to it. —The question was then put on Mr. Whitbread's amendment, and negatived without a division; and the original motion for leave to bring in the bill was carried.

MILITARY COMMISSIONERS' BILL.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose for the purpose of moving, that leave be given to

493
bring in a bill appointing commissioners to examine into the public expenditure of the departments therein mentioned, and to report such observations as might enable the legislature to correct and prevent irregularities at present existing in such departments, and to adopt a better mode of conducting them for the future. He said, that as he had stated on a former night the objects of his motion, it would not now be necessary to explain them very minutely. They would chiefly comprehend the great branches of the military administration: the offices of barracks and ordnance, the commissariat and the quarter-master-general departments. There were several other objects to which he wished this commission to extend. By a bill passed some years ago, the inspection of the public accounts was taken from the auditors of imprest, and vested in a commission; however well that commission had fulfilled its duty, yet, from the length of the war, and the great increase of public business, it was impossible to avoid large arrears, an evil which could not be avoided, unless by appointing a fresh commission to assist in bringing up the accounts. This was one object; another was to examine into the expenditure of the public money in the West Indies, to take measures for recovering what was due, and for preventing the recurrence of abuses in future, all which was now before the board of treasury. Having thus briefly stated the outlines of his plan, the right hon. gent. expressed his readiness to listen to any suggestions that might be made to him for the purpose of rendering the operations of it more effectual. The result of such a commission must be, that the public would have the satisfaction of being assured, either that no abuses existed in these departments, or if they unfortunately did exist, that measures would be taken to correct them.
Mr. J. Fitzgeraldenquired whether the operation of the bill was meant to extend to Ireland?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that would be a subject of future discussion.
Mr.Ellisonasked if the war-office was to be included?
The Chancellor of the Exchequeranswered in the affirmative.
Sir John Newportwished to know, whether or not the commissariat of Ireland was to be subject to investigation by this commission, as well as that of Great Britain?
The Chancellor of the Exchequercould give no positive answer. He was not sure whether the same commission would serve for both countries or not. Ireland might, perhaps, require a distinct commission.
Mr. J. Fitzgeralddesired to be informed, whether or not it was to be understood that a distinct commission was to superintend the military department of Ireland?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerentertained some doubts if the same committee could undertake the management of both Great Britain and Ireland; local knowledge might, perhaps, be necessary; but on this subject he had not made up his mind.
Sir John Newportpressed for a more explicit answer to the question of his hon. friend.
Mr. Pittsaid, he had not yet made up his mind on that part of the subject.
Mr. Fox,notwithstanding the plausible professions under which the right hon. gent. brought forward this bill, had no hesitation in declaring his decided opinion, that any bill of this sort brought into parliament, for the specious purpose of investigating abuses in the public expenditure, by persons who were themselves the friends and colleagues of delinquents, gave him no hopes whatever that such enquiries were serious. That such persons should be the institutors of enquiry, and the nominators of the committees by whom such enquiries were to be carried on, was a circumstance which the house must regard at least with considerable suspicion. With respect to the personal delicacy of any man, acting under such circumstances as those in which the right hon. gent. stood, that was certainly his own consideration; but if he (Mr. Fox) was the person closely connected with delinquents, he should feel himself bound, by considerations of personal delicacy, to take special care not to be the man to bring forward such an enquiry, and to name the committee, for carrying it on, conscious as he must be of the sentiments such a circumstance must produce in the opinions of all thinking men. The motion for the bill to institute the committee of naval enquiry, on a former occasion, was brought forward by an hon. admiral, who every man must perceive, from the course of that enquiry, and the results it had produced, was serious in his intentions for the detection of delinquents. But he begged to ask, if that bill had been introduced by lord Melville, did any man believe that the house would have had before it Reports, such as those already

495
made by the naval commissioners? He would not now pretend to dive into the feelings and motives of the right hon. gent.; but for his own character's sake he would profess that had he been similarly circumstanced with regard to the persons detected of delinquency, he would not have ventured to come forward for the purpose of naming the committee who were to follow up the investigation; and if ever there was a question upon which the house should be least diposed to compliment the right hon. gent. with the privilege of nominating a committee, the present was undoubtedly that occasion. He approved, however, of what the right hon. gent. said of the objects of this bill. It was much; but there was still a necessity for much more. The navy and the army were undoubtedly two great branches of public expenditure, in which great abuses had unquestionably occurred, but there were still others that as loudly challenged enquiry. Did the right hon. gent. think that enquiry was not full as necessary in the expenditure of the treasury, so much more immediately connected with himself? and upon the same principle, if he were to bring enquiry forward and name the committee, he might as well nominate the lords of the treasury at once to investigate and censure their own delinquencies, if they were guilty. But that those persons whose conduct was the object of enquiry should be permitted to nominate the enquirers, was contrary to every principle of common justice, common decency, and common sense. But let not the right hon. gent. "lay this flattering unction to his soul," that after what had passed in that house, after the enormities that had already been dragged to light, the public would be satisfied with the appointment of a commission by himself, to enquire into those branches of the public service with which he himself was immediately connected. If he entertained this hope, he was convinced that he would find himself very seriously mistaken.
Lord Castlereaghrose, with much warmth, to vindicate the conduct of his right hon. friend (Mr. Pitt), whose individual purity not only placed him far above the unwarrantable imputation of the hon. gent., but justly attached to him the esteem and confidence of the country. The personal purity of his right hon. friend rendered his character such as any country might be proud of, and the spotless integrity he had maintained during perhaps
496
the longest political life ever enjoyed by any prime minister of this country, marked him out as the very individual by whom the country would most wish such a committee to be nominated. He called on the house to repel with indignation any imputation on their honour, let it come from what quarter it might. Would they endure to be told, that they were willing to subject themselves to the authority of any individual, however pure his character, however high he might stand in their estimation, from the experience of many years during a period as critical and important as ever occurred in the annals of the world? As to observations on the intended regulations of the bill, it would be more proper to defer them till the bill was actually before the house itself.
Mr. Foxexplained, by saying, he had not imputed to the right hon. gent. any such direct influence as to say he could dictate the choice of a committee. He only meant that there was generally a sort of courtesy observable in the house, on most occasions, to indulge the inclinations of the right hon. gent.
Mr. Greyadmired the dignified zeal with which the noble lord asserted the individual purity of his right hon. friend; and yet he begged leave to remind the noble lord, that more flagrant corruption had prevailed in the country during the period that right hon. gent. had been at the head of the government, than during any other period in our history. He (Mr. Grey) well recollected, that the noble lord himself had taken fire in a similar manner, when his own individual purity was called in question by a right hon. gent. who was now one of his colleagues (Mr. Foster). The noble lord indignantly repelled the insinuation of corruption brought against his own, government, and concluded by an high-fraught panegyric on the spotless purity. of the Irish house of commons! His right hon. friend, however, answered, "the noble lord mistakes me—I have urged no insinuation; but I directly charge, that there was a gross and corrupt profusion of the public money perverted to procure votes in the Irish parliament in favour of the union; and I charge the noble lord, then at the head of administration in Ireland, with being the proposer, chief manager, and principal instrument in carrying that measure." The noble lord, however, sat silent, and did not think proper to venture on a reply.—The hon. gent. concluded

497
by observing, that after what had passed with respect to abuses in the naval department, there was well founded suspicion, at least, that similar abuses were prevalent in other departments also. The expectations of the people were now raised, and they looked up for investigation. If it was earnestly and honestly followed, the people would be satisfied, but if merely carried on for the purposes of deception, and the protection of delinquents, the natural result would be dissatisfaction and discontent in every quarter of the realm.—The question was now put, and leave given to bring in the bill.

PROCEEDINGS RESPECTING LORD MELVILLE AND MR. TROTTER.
Mr. Spencer Stanhoperose, and said that he felt it necessary to have the matter of charge contained in the tenth report of the commissioners of naval enquiry put in a course of investigation. The charges which it made were very serious, and should be proceeded on with decision and dispatch. Though he was convinced that lord Melville was not guilty of participating the gains of malversation of public money, yet he should not attempt to screen the noble lord, or throw dust in the eyes of the public on the present occasion, but he thought it improper to have condemned the noble lord before he was heard; in saying so, however, he did not mean to question the decision of parliament, which found the noble lord guilty of having violated the law; but he could not refrain from saying, that he abhorred the barbarous mode of first cutting off a man's head, and trying afterwards whether he was guilty. He was of opinion that the most eligible mode of proceeding would be, to have a civil process instituted against the noble lord and Mr. Trotter in the court of exchequer, in order to have restitution made to toe public. Should it turn out, in the course of the proceeding, that the noble viscount was in a corrupt league with Trotter, he trusted, then, that the house would proceed by impeachment; but he again repeated his conviction that this was not the case. He concluded with moving, "that the attorney general he directed to take such measures as may appear most effectual in ascertaining and securing, by a due course of law, such sums as may be due to the public by lord Melville and Mr. Trotter, in respect to the profits araising from money applicable to the service of the navy, which
498
came into their hands subsequent to the 1st of January, 1786."
Sir Robert Buxtonseconded the motion, and said, that illness prevented him from being in the house on the first night of discussing the subject of the tenth report; had he been able to attend, he should certainly have voted in the majority, on the ground of the noble lord's having violated an act of parliament.
Mr. Bankesregretted that the motion was brought forward this night, because he did not think that it would satisfy the public, or answer the ends of public justice. No man had a higher respect for the courts of law than he entertained, and he hoped that the matter might some time or other come before one of those ancient tribunals, where no prejudice existed, and from which, consequently, a fair and just decision should be anticipated; but lit wished the house to consider at present, before it parted with the business, or send it to the court of exchequer, what would be the result. This might be easily inferred, considering that the person or persons to be examined might demur, and thus defeat the end of substantial justice: besides, the intricacy and mixture of the different accounts, and the diffculty of distinguishing the items of each, threw difficulties almost insurmountable in the way of accomplishing the object to be attained. He was decidedly in favour of a committee with enlarged powers; but as this did not seem likely to be attained, he thought that the magnitude of the subject, and the satisfaction of the public, made it necessary to move generally, that the attorney-general be directed to prosecute the noble lord and Mr. Trotter. He should therefore propose as an amendment, that all the words after "lord Melville and Mr. Trotter" be left out, and these. words be inserted, "and that the attorney-general be directed to prosecute the said lord Melville and Mr. Trotter for the said offences."—On the question being put,
Mr. Windhamconsidered it perfectly clear, that the best way of proceeding would have been to have referred the whole matter to a select committee, who could have taken the opinion of the law officers in what manner the suit ought to be brought with the best chance of succeeding in its object. They would have been able to ascertain whether there existed evidence sufficient either to support a

499
civil action, or a criminal prosecution. Since that course was not taken, and the alternative lay merely between the civil action and the criminal prosecution, he should give his vote for the latter.
The Master of the Rollsobserved, that every thing on which a civil suit could proceed had been already settled by the vote of the house. What were the reasons urged by gentlemen on the other side of the house for the adoption of the resolutions of the 8th instant, in opposition to the wish of his right hon. friend, that the whole business should be referred to a committee? Because they asserted nothing could be done in the committee. It was impossible to change their opinion of the transaction, as it was impossible to do away the effects of lord Melville's confession of an infringement of the law, and the proofs of Mr. Trotter's. speculating with the public money. If so, if this were true; how could a committee find out better grounds for Prosecution than what existed? If parts of the subject were referred to a court of law, it would be highly improper that the same topics at the same time should be under the consideration of a committee of the house. It would be better to postpone a reference to law without abandoning it altogether. An hon. gent. had proposed an amendment to the original motion for a civil suit, in which he had moved for a criminal prosecution! and that to ascertain whether or not lord Melville received any profits from the use of the public money. If he did, they ought to be the object of a civil suit. Besides there was no better chance of obtaining that information in a criminal court than in a civil one Evidence must he produced in both, and evidence would prove it in either. The resolutions of the house, contained a censure on lord Melville's conduct. His resignation which was in consequence of those resolutions, was in fact a substantial punishment inflicted by the house. After these grave resolutions, it would be hazardous to send the affair into a court of law. The conviction could not be answered for, nor the sentence on conviction. It would be impossible, he believed, to prove any actual participation in pecuniary advantages, and the legal punishment might not accord exactly with the idea the houses entertained of the heinousness of the offence.
Dr. Laurencecontended, that the resolutions of the house only went to one
500
branch of the charge, namely, the violation of the law, which had been admitted, and would not preclude an enquiry into the participation in the peculation, which was punishable, both us a civil and criminal point of view.
Sir J. Newportexpressed his preference of a committee with extensive powers, to committee with limited powers, and contended that such a committee should make general enquiry and refer certain points for prosecution. As however this was not to be done, he certainly preferred a criminal prosecution to a civil one. In his estimation, the satisfaction of public justice was of infinitely more consequence than the regaining of a paltry sum of money.
Mr. Pytchessaid he thought that if the shameful conduct of this great delinquent were screened, men would, soon become ashamed of speaking against corruption. He severely censured the conduct of then last administration of the right hon. gent. opposite, and spoke with much warmth in favour of a criminal proceeding.
Mr. Foxsaid, he had but a word or two to offer on the present question. Gentlemen had alluded to several modes of proceeding, in order to meet the intentions of the house, and the expectations of the country. Some, it appeared, were fora civil, others, for a criminal prosecution: others again, would prefer the mode of impeachment. His object was, to see lord Melville prosecuted and punished one way or the other. As the case now stood, the noble lord was not punished in any degree at all. If the present question, or the amendment moved upon it, or an impeachment, went nearer the accomplishment of their object, he should vote for it. He had no other anxiety, than to see adopted the speediest mode of obtaining redress for his constituents.
Mr. S. Stanhopein explanation, said, that lord Melville had already been sufficiently punished, unless he was convicted of wilful participation in the illicit profits.
Mr. T. Grenvillefelt no very strong motives of preference for a criminal rather than a civil prosecution. Be feared that either would be found inadequate for the discovery of a corrupt participation on the part of lord Melville. But as he now had no other choice, he should vote for the amendment, as it seemed somewhat more closely to follow up the spirit and intention of the resolutions which the house had already adopted. This was more his object than a vain attempt to recover the money.

501
Should the house adopt no other measures than those now proposed in furtherance of their resolutions, they would but ill answer the expectations which the country had conceived from the resolutions. By these the house had pronounced that lord Melville had been guilty of a flagrant breach of the law, and of an evident dereliction of duty; and was no legal punishment to follow such a proved and acknowledged offence? As to an impeachment, little could be expected from it. The public justice of the country might be better satisfied, perhaps, by a criminal prosecution, and in that view of it, he should vote for that mode of proceeding.
Mr. Sheridansaid, there were two modes proposed; one for a civil suit, and the other for a criminal process. The gent. who proposed the former said, he did not think lord Melville had participated in the slightest degree in the emoluments of Mr. Trotter. He would ask, why then did he move that a civil action should be instituted against him? Surely, every person must see that such a motion was absolutely useless, that it must be worse than useless in the opinion of the gentleman who made the motion; as, though he was convinced lord Melville did not participate in the profits of Mr. Trotter, he made this motion, it is to be supposed, to prevent those on the other side from instituting more effectual proceedings. The house was how driven to make a choice of the two measures, and, something like a grand jury who had not found a bill, they were about to proceed for the recovery of the money, assuming every thing which ought first to be precisely ascertained. The house were turning their backs upon that of which they had proof, namely, the violation of the law, and they were sending the participation, of which they had no proof, before a jury.
Mr. Wilberforcesaid, that the hon. gent. who had made the present motion, did not seem to have attended to the circumstances of the case. For that hon. gent. he entertained the highest respect, but he could not think that his motion was calculated to produce any good effect. The subject of the motion was one, on which there was no proof, and in the success of which, their own professional men did not hold out to them any very flattering hopes. What man could seriously listen to the recommendation, who would not I most smile at the right hon. and learned
502
gent. in contending that a civil prosecution was the only remedy, and yet at the same time confessing that they would not answer foe the success of it. He sincerely regretted that the powers of the committee had been restricted. On the investigations there to he made, the public might have relied for success. Any other mode must be open to disappointments, inconvenience, and delay. The attention of the public was fixed on the proceedings of the house, and of the courts of judicature, to which they should resort for justice and punishment of the offenders. He was averse from allowing the possibility of the ends of justice being defeated, or that any disappointment should flow from such a quarter; that the public should find that they were so short-sighted, ignorant, and improvident as to the decision which must follow. It was their duty; they were called on to preserve the good opinion of the public in the course of law of the kingdom; and, so far as in them lay, not to allow the public mind to relax in any share of that love, confidence, and affection in their proceedings which we knew at present existed. Here a great public delinquent had been proclaimed to the country. His offence had even been in part acknowledged: but when parliament carried him into a court of law, nothing could be made of him! He approved of the observation of the hon. bart. (sir John Newport). It was not money which that house and the country sought for in this instance; it was for the adoption of that proceeding which should best consult the dignity and honour of parliament, and of the nation. His hon. friend (Mr. Bankes) had said, that the adopting of the one mode of proceeding in the criminal court, would not preclude them from their civil suit. In this he agreed with his hon. friend. He had not contended, as the hon. and learned gent. (the master of the rolls) seemed to imagine, that they would avail themselves of both proceedings. That he understood not to be the meaning of his hon. friend; but only that if one failed they might then recur to the other. If in the criminal action they felt embarrassed, they might be entitled in the civil action to attempt something like compelling restoration. It was of the utmost importance for parliament to take care that they did not go to demand the opinion of a court of judicature in that part of their rate in which there was a

503
chance of failure. He was a great friend to judicial proceeding and he wished the people in general to be so. He confessed he had had no doubts, although the spirit of the law was unquestionably with them, whether it was equally clear that the letter of the law was so too.— None of those gentlemen, however, who were better qualified than he pretended to be to judge on that subject, having started any doubt on the subject, he should hope there was on that point no risk of failure. Failure was at this moment greatly to be deprecated. It was not against the courts of law alone that the obloquy would attach. Parliament would also come in for its share. He was not anxious for popularity, he was solely solicitous to preserve unbroken, those bonds of esteem, affection, and confidence, which he hoped would always continue to subsist between the people of this country and parliament. He therefore, as the best measure which now remained to be adopted, gave the amendment his cordial support.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer.—I think I am warranted in saying that the mode proposed by the hon. gent. (Mr. S. Stanhope), is that which was approved by a great majority of the house. The question then is, whether we shall wave it, and substitute one which the gentlemen themselves, who have brought it forward, say is liable to some objection? The observation made respecting the powers of the committee does not appear to me to he founded in fact. The question of enlarging its powers did not affect the particular case of lord Melville. The doubt arising upon that subject was whether the powers of the committee were sufficiently wide, and embraced every other proper object of enquiry, exclusive of the particular case referred to a court of law? That, however, is not the question now. The question now is which of the two modes is preferable? and I contend that the civil bill is better calculated to obtain the object than the criminal process. After having inflicted so heavy a wound upon lord Melville, as that which his lordship had already suffered, he did not understand that the house wished to follow it up in a penal way, unless satisfied of his lordship's participation in the profits. With a consciousness to that effect, I thought the house would be content with au assurance that his lordship was not to return to his majesty's councils. I think, then, that
504
the house ought not to go those lengths which they declined at first without a further aggravation of his lordship's offence. With this feeling, therefore, I shall vote for the original motion.
Mr. Whitbread.—The right hon. gent., who has just sat down, argues as if the house had decided that they would proceed by civil suit. That, however, is not the case. He has indulged in much sarcasm against me on account of the course of my proceedings. Sir, I say, that in what I have done, I have proceeded with deliberation, and I am not sorry for any step I have taken. I wish to proceed in both ways. I mean after the house had declared itself upon that part of the charge which is indisputable, I wished for a committee to ascertain every thing else connected with the subject. The house has decided upon the violation of the law, but not upon the participation of viscount Melville in the profits. Now what says the right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt)? He advises us to try a civil suit for the participation, while the law officers of the crown admitted it had little chance of success. I therefore wish for a mode by which effectual justice may be done, and that is a committee of the whole house. That a great wound has been inflicted upon my lord Melville by the discovery, I admit; but is that a punishment? When a grand jury finds a bill, is that a punishment for the offence charged, and is the case not to be sent for trial to a petty jury? I admit that the vote of the house compelled the resignation of lord Melville; but there is a great deal of difference between that resignation and his dismissal. The people should have seen and known that he was dismissed. The effect ought to have been plain and palpable to the understanding of every man. If a civil suit were to discover that the money was picked out of the pocket of the public, would that be punishment, unless followed by restitution? I admit I might have the-committee, and the right hon. gent. said he would not oppose it; but to obtain his concurrence, I must have abandoned the particular case in question, and acquiesced in an attempt to cloak and screen lord Melville, and that I did not choose to do. The criminal proceeding is, I am sure, the best calculated to obtain the ends of justice, and I shall accordingly vote for it.
The Attorney-Generalwished to offer a word or two in explanation of the opinion

505
imputed to him. He never asserted that the mode now proposed would wholly or necessarily fail of effect; he only said that great difficulties might arise to obstruct the end it attempted to accomplish. If it was the object of the mover to obtain pecuniary redress for the public, the court of King's Bench might not be able to grant that redress. It could not grant it unless evidence was adduced of the distinct amount of lord Melville's participation in the illegal profits. Otherwise an enormous fine might be attempted to be imposed upon him, which the court would not be able to make out. Better hopes of the recovery of the money for the public might be entertained, therefore, from a civil than a criminal prosecution, and from that persuasion he should vote for the adoption of the former.
Mr. Tierney.—I cannot agree in the scanty and restricted powers which some honourable and learned gentlemen will only allow to this house. I always thought, that by the spirit of the constitution it possessed stronger inquisitorial powers than any other tribunal in the country. .The right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt) would have it understood, that the house does not wish to proceed to any more punishment against lord Melville; but I contend, on the contrary, that the house has not shewn any disposition to stop here. We have voted that lord Melville has violated the law, for private emolument. What then is the next question? Why give us the money back again, and we have done with you? But how are we to get the money? The attorney-general gives very little hope of the mode proposed; and therefore I approve of a committee of the whole house as the best mode of getting at the crime, the punishment, and pecuniary redress. I feel it an unpleasant task to rise for the purpose of defending the dignity of the house. The house may not waste its time upon persons of inferior note; but I contend that there is no precedent of a minister, high in the king's councils for many years, breaking the and suspected of a corrupt motive in doing so, being handed over to the attorney-general. I am confident there is no case nor precedent of the kind. I disclaim a vindictive spirit towards viscount Melville, and assert, that my conduct yields to no influence, except a sincere regard for the honour of the house of commons. I think, therefore, that the house cannot stop here, but, that it must call for some
506
punishment: The plain question is, whether the house thinks that enough has been done? If they think enough has been done, they will vote for a civil process, in concert with the right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt). If they think the public expect that punishment should follow guilt, they will adopt the, criminal proceeding. With regard to the questions referred to the committee, namely, how far the right hon. gent., as first lord of the treasury, may be concerned, and two or three others, they are only so many episodes, while the main story out of which they arise, is not to be touched. I lament that we are driven to this course; but I think our character and our duty to the public require that we should send viscount Melville to that tribunal where justice may inflict punishment wherever convicted guilt deserves it.
Mr. Serjeant Bestchallenged any law officer of the crown to state, that any good was likely to result from the mode they supported. The books and papers of third parties could not be called for. All that was wanted could be got by criminal prosecution. If a man was not pronounced guilty who refused to answer a question, still no jury would be found to declare him innocent who was a self-convicted violator of the law. The wound inflicted was not much in point of fortune, considering the places the noble lord still retained. It must then be sought in his character. But if it was there, it was strange indeed that, with such a wounded character he should remain a private counsellor of his sovereign. The house then divided on the question, "that the words proposed to be left out stand part of this question," Ayes 223, Noes 128, majority 95. The amendment was of course rejected, and the original motion carried.
Mr. Foxthen moved, "that the house do now adjourn;" and on this question there was another Ayes 98, Noes 240, majority 142.—While strangers were excluded, the report of the committee appointed to examine the lists given in en the ballot for the select committee was brought up. On reading the report, it appeared that the names of the members chosen for the committee corresponded exactly with those in the list read on Friday by Mr. Whitbread.
Mr. Whitbreadthen stated, that it was his intention to move that some of the names on this list should be expunged; but as that motion would probably occa-

507
sion some debate, the proposed that its consideration should be adjourned until the next meeting of the house.—Adjourned.