IMPEACHMENT OF LORD MELVILLE.

HC Deb 11 June 1805 vol 5 cc249-323

Previously to the moving the order of the day on Mr. Whitbread's motion for the impeachment of the right honourable lord viscount Melville,

The Speaker rose, and addressed the house in the following words: I hold in my hand a letter which I am desired to communicate to the house. It is signed "Melville," and dated Wimbledon, June 11. The contents of this letter are these: "sir; having observed, in the votes of the house of commons, that a committee has been appointed to consider of the tenth report of the commissioners of naval enquiry; and having obtained a copy of a report which that committee has submitted to the house of commons, I take the liberty of requesting that the house will allow me to be admitted, and heard on the subject of those reports. I have the honour to be, sir, with great respect your most obedient and faithful servant, Melville."

Mr. Robert Dundas (son of lord Melville) then observed, that in consequence of the notice which he had formerly given, he would move that lord viscount Melville be admitted into the house to be heard in his own defence according to his request.—The question was put and carried in the affirmative without a dissenting voice.

The Speaker ordered the serjeant at arms to attend with the mace at the door, and to inform lord Melville that he might come in. His lordship, who was in waiting, immediately entered, and advanced within the bar, where there was a chair placed for his reception. The speaker said—"there is a chair for your lordship to repose on."—After sitting down for a few moments,

Lord Melville rose and spoke as follows:—Hitherto every attempt I have made to be heard in explanation or vindication of my own conduct and character, brought in question by the tenth report of the commissioners of naval enquiry, has been vain; and, therefore, it is my earliest duty to make my acknowledgments to this house, for that privilege having been at last conceded to me. Under these circumstances, it might be unbecoming in me, in this place, to call in question the justice of any of your proceedings which have already taken place. If, therefore, before making any observations on the report now produced by your own committee, I offer some preliminary considerations,-it is only from an anxious hope of being able to satisfy you, that whatever considerations may have guided the wisdom of the house in their past proceedings, it is essential to the ends of justice, that before deciding on this report, now in my hands, you should give a patient and dispassionate hearing to the considerations I wish to offer.—I shall, therefore, begin by shortly stating the different modes in which I have attempted to obtain this indulgence. I was examined by the commissioners of naval enquiry, without the knowledge of the objects of investigation, and while they were in possession of the whole of Mr. Trotter's accounts with Messrs. Coutts and Co. It is on the items scattered throughout the pages of those accounts, that their observations on my conduct are made, and from which their conclusions are chiefly drawn; but, when I was before them, not one item of those accounts was shewn to me, or explanation asked concerning any one of them. In fact, the first time I ever saw them, or knew that such accounts existed, was when I read them in the tenth report.—I am bound to suppose the commissioners conceived a reserve of this nature to be necessary to the objects they had prescribed to themselves in pursuing the enquiry entrusted to them. I shall not, at present, stop to examine into the justice of that mode of proceeding. I mean barely to notice the fact, in illustration of the assertion I have made; that this is the first moment I have been permitted, in any shape, to offer any explanation on the subject of those resolutions which have been enrolled on the journals of this house, and from thence have found their way to the foot of the throne.—With the same view, I allude to my letter, of the 28th of March last, to the commissioners, after the report made its appearance, (see vol. iv. p. 186).—As the fact appears on the pro- ceedings of this house of the 8th of April, I need not remark, that another opportunity was denied to me by its decision on the question of instituting an enquiry before proceeding to decision.—My letter to lord Hawkesbury is another proof of what I have asserted, and this house is acquainted with the result communicated in the conference between the two houses of parliament, by which the hopes I had entertained of some kind of explanation being opened to me, were precluded, and your committee reduced to the necessity of making their report, without receiving explanation from me in any one particular. This was a consequence resulting from the decision of this house on the 8th of April; for, if the criminating resolutions of that day had not been passed, previously to enquiry, there would have been no bar, from the privileges of the house of lords, to have induced them to restrain me from being examined before the committee. The terms in which I addressed the lords, in my letter to lord Hawkesbury, is a proof that no exertion was omitted by me that could tend to get over the difficulty. "Wimbledon, 6th May, 1805. My lord, I observe that, on the message from the house of commons, desiring my attendance to be examined by a committee of their number, your lordship has started a difficulty, founded on a standing order of the house of lords. I certainly was not aware that such a standing order existed, and had taken for granted, that the licence of the house, to my attending the committee of the house of commons, would have been given as a matter of course. On a question of privilege, originating in the manner this was done, your lordship will readily perceive the reasons which render it impossible for me to take any part; but, I trust, I am guilty of no improper intrusion, when I put your lordship in possession of my own anxious wishes, that, if possible, the difficulty may be got over, and that I may be at liberty to act upon my own feelings, which, notwithstanding the singular circumstances in which I am placed, urge me most earnestly to express my hopes, that I shall not be debarred from giving my attendance on the committee of the house of commons, as requested in the message from that house. In stating these sentiments to your lordship, you will, of course, understand yourself at liberty to make any use of them you may think proper, I have the honour to be, &c. (Signed) Melville."—I cannot conclude this subject, without adverting to another proceeding of this house which has likewise tended, in a very material degree, to limit the means of any explanations being given, which could remove any of the imputations which have been cast upon me. I allude to the resolution of the 29th of April, directing the attorney-general to institute a civil suit, for the recovery of any profits made by Mr. Trotter or myself from the monies issued for naval purposes. I can know nothing with accuracy that passed in this house when this resolution was adopted; but if I am to give credit to those channels of information which are connived at in the daily publications, which are more or less perused by all of us, I am to understand it to have been stated in argument, that if the measure suggested in that resolution was adopted, there could be no further proceeding against me in any other mode. Upon this ground it was opposed, by those who are not supposed to have any particular partiality towards me. With the recollection of this in my mind, I may be perhaps forgiven, if I expressed some degree of surprise, when I heard of the intimation given of an intended motion of impeachment. It was not, however, to make this remark, that I have adverted to this resolution; I allude to it for the purpose of observing, that the delicacy of your committee to Mr. Trotter, joined to their not having it in their power to examine myself, has certainly tended to deprive me of the benefit of any elucidation that might have arisen from a more minute examination of the subject. Mr. Trotter is not interrogated as to any of the supposed participation which has been stated to have taken place between him and me, neither is he asked, whether he was directed by me to lay out any public money for my benefit;, nor is he examined as to my privity, or knowledge of any of those various modes of using the public money, stated in the twelfth add thirteenth resolutions of the 8th of April.—I have been the more pointed in bringing these particulars to the recollection of the house; because, by some strange perversion of the truth, an insinuation has reached me, that I had omitted, till this last stage of your proceeding, to take any measures for my own vindication. The direct re- verse is the fact.—And even now, I find myself placed in a very awkward situation. Understanding that, in consequence of the general intimation some time ago given in this house, of my desire to be heard in person, new difficulties had been started in another place, I again addressed myself to lord Hawkesbury, by a letter, in the following terms: "Wimbledon, 7th June, 1805. My lord; having reason to believe, that, in consequence of a report made to the house of commons by a select committee, discussions are likely to take place in that house, on which I may be desirous of being heard in explanation and defence of parts of my conduct, I am anxious to obtain the permission of the house of lords to attend the house of commons for that purpose, if I should think fit. In my former letter to your lordship of the 6th instant, I expressed to you, as strongly as I could, my anxiety to be afforded some means of removing the imputations which had been laid to my charge, and since that time many circumstances have occurred to increase that anxiety, and I entreat your lordship to give your best assistance to forward the object of my present request. I have the honour to be, &c. (signed) Melville," To the lord Hawkesbury. And the resolution of the house of lords is conceived in the following words: "Resolved, that the lord viscount Melville have leave to go down to the house of commons, and to defend himself there, if he shall think fit, on all points on which the house of commons have not previously passed any accusatory or criminatory resolutions against him."—Circumscribed as I am by this resolution, I know I am not at liberty, even with your indulgence, to defend myself against any of the resolutions of the 8th of April last; and therefore, if inadvertently I should drop any thing that may be so construed, I hope it will be understood that it is not with an intention to arraign in this place the justice of those resolutions, but with the view of being certain that I understand, and do not misrepresent them. The resolutions of the 8th of April are fourteen in number, (see vol. 4, p. 275,) to which another was added on the 29th, viz. "that the attorney-general be directed to take such measures as may appear to him to be most effectual in due course of law, for ascertaining and recovering any sums of money that may be due to the public from lord viscount Melville, or Alexander Trotter, esq. in respect of any profits derived by them from monies issued for naval purposes, and that may have come into their hands subsequent to the first day of January 1786. The twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth are chiefly deserving of attention, the previous ones being merely statements of facts, which of themselves could not have attracted any notice.—The twelfth resolution contains a statement of a variety of positions, apparently meant to lay the basis for the conclusion drawn in the fourteenth resolution. From the terms of the twelfth, I am left somewhat doubtful, whether it was meant to apply to me personally. But as I cannot suppose it possible that the house of commons could intend to leave it ambiguous, whom they meant to charge with criminality, I must take it for granted that I am implicated in it; and I am the more confirmed in this supposition, from having observed the comments which, in other places, have been lavished, without any reserve, upon that resolution, and those comments often made by persons, who being members of parliament, were, I presume, of course, properly informed, and competent to judge of the object of the resolutions which the house of commons had adopted. In order, therefore, to ascertain the full extent of the charges contained in the twelfth resolution, it must be coupled with, and taken in conjunction with the thirteenth; and the joint import of the two resolutions is, that "Mr. Trotter did, at various times, under pretence of naval services, and by a manifest evasion of the act, draw from the bank, and invest in exchequer and navy bills, and lend upon the security of stock, and employ in discounting private bills, and in the purchase of bank and East India stock, large sums of public money for the purposes of private emolument, and in doing so, he acted with my knowledge and consent, being my private agent." And although the charge does not expressly say so, it certainly concludes in such a manner as must leave a full conviction on the mind of every reader, that "Mr. Trotter, so acting as my private agent, did occasionally lay out ten or twenty thousand pounds in those transactions, for my use and benefit." Upon this charge I must, in truth and justice to myself, so- lemnly assert, before this house, and in the face of my country, that it is erroneous in every particular. I never knew that Mr. Trotter had drawn any money, for the purposes of private emolument, in manifest evasion of the act. I never knew that he had invested any money in exchequer or navy bills. I never knew that he had lent upon the security of stock. I never knew that he had employed any money in the discount of private bills. I never knew that he employed any public money in the purchase of bank or India stock. Having disclaimed all knowledge of these transactions, it is scarcely necessary to add, that if any such existed, they were not, as stated, with my privity and consent; neither have I the smallest knowledge or belief, that Mr. Trotter ever did lay out, for my use or benefit, in any such modes, any sum of public money whatever.—Having, in so pointed a manner, disclaimed all knowledge of any of those transactions detailed in the twelfth resolution, I need not stop a moment to express the indignation I must have felt, when I found that not only that knowledge was imputed to me, but that, with a view to give the colour of probability to the insinuation of personal profit arising from such transactions (for no man ventured to advance it as a charge) it was even surmised, that Mr. Trotter had, in the execution of those transactions, enjoyed the benefit of my confidential knowledge of the secrets of government.—I am aware, that, notwithstanding all I have represented, my statement would still be deficient, if I were to pass over in silence a charge, which, if not credited or adopted in this house, has certainly, through the medium of your resolutions, made its way to almost every corner of the kingdom; and it must be within the knowledge or observation of every man, that no pains have been spared, no means neglected, to gain proselytes to the belief of this charge. You will anticipate me, when I mention that of my having been a participator in the profits which Mr. Trotter is supposed to have made from the public money that has passed through his hands. This is a charge which I had positively denied, before you passed the resolutions of the 8th of April; and if a question to this effect had been put to. Mr. Trotter, in any shape, since that insinuation was made, either in the tenth report, or any where else, I have reason to know, that he would have embraced the "opportunity of con- tradicting, in the most unequivocal and unqualified terms, the malignant invectives against my character, founded on the assertion, that I had, directly or indirectly, participated in any of the emoluments he may have derived from the use of the money imprest for naval services and entrusted to his charge, and that I never was, at any moment when he served under me, in the knowledge either of the nature, extent, or application of those emoluments,."—I am at a loss to conjecture, whether, notwithstanding such direct and solemn assertions made by those who alone can be informed of the truth, this calumny is still to be believed and circulated. But there is one fact in refutation of it, which cannot fail to carry full conviction to the mind of every man, if that upon which it rests is not disbelieved or disapproved. I allude to the circumstance of which (in the midst of the loudest clamours against me) a denial has never been attempted, that every sum advanced to me by Mr. Trotter, in any shape, or on any account, has been repaid to the uttermost farthing, and that I am not indebted upon the treasurership in question, in one single mite, either to him, or to the public. Is this reconcileable with the idea of participation? The term supposes receipts, arising out of a joint concern, upon which profits have arisen and are divided, and of course excludes the supposition of any restitution; and I should trust, that this observation must for ever silence those who have been the most active in the propagation of this aspersion.—Not only in the resolutions upon which I have been observing, but in other modes and in other places, my connection with Mr. Trotter, as my private agent, has been so often alluded to, and its having been insinuated for the most malevolent purposes, that my connection with him was so intimate, as to procure for him a communication of the confidential transactions of government, I trust it will not be deemed foreign to the purpose of my attendance in this house, if I detain gentlemen a few minutes on this subject.—When I came into the navy pay office I found him there, having been introduced to it, as I understand, in consequence of his relationship to the late sir Gilbert Elliot and Mr. Coutts. He was, from these connections, countenanced by Mr. Douglas, the paymaster, and occasionally with me in the course of official business. But he attracted my par- ticular notice, by his zeal in pointing out to me the many means that were used to deprive the seamen and their families of the full amount of what they were justly entitled to. He was encouraged by me to prosecute those enquiries, and I was indebted to him for many of those suggestions, which enabled me, during the time I was treasurer of the navy, to propose to parliament, and place upon the statute book, that system of regulations and arrangement, which has since given complete security, comfort, and protection, to every person, of every rank in the military service of the navy, and after their deaths, has extended the same benefits to their widows and children.—These circumstances naturally increased my favourable dispositions towards Mr. Trotter, and I selected him for the office of paymaster on the death of Mr. Douglas. In consequence of this he was in the receipt of my salary, and being constantly, from his situation, near me, he became naturally the channel, through which I had it in my power to conduct many inferior transactions relating to my private affairs.—The following is a copy of the power of attorney, by which, as treasurer of the navy, I authorized Mr. Trotter to draw the money from the bank of England: "Know all men by these presents, that I, the right hon. Henry Dundas, treasurer of his majesty's navy, as well within Great Britain as without, have nominated, constituted, and appointed Alexander Trotter, esq. my paymaster, hereby giving and granting to him full power and authority to draw on the governor and company of the bank of England, for and upon my account, as treasurer of his majesty's navy, all and every sum and sums of money that now are, and shall hereafter be wanted for the public services, under my care of payment, he being particularly careful to specify in each and every draft the service for which the money is drawn."—Such is the short history of the origin and progress of Mr. Trotter's connection with me in business, either public or private; and whatever cloud may now hang over him, and however some parts of his conduct may have recently brought upon me much disquietude and anxiety, I shall never refuse to him the justice of acknowledging, that, under his management, the pay office of the navy was conducted, for a period of fourteen years, without one payment being a moment de- layed at the treasurer's office, and an account of not less than one hundred and thirty-four millions sterling has been closed, without the loss of one farthing having arisen to the public during the whole of that period.—I now proceed to the fourteenth resolution, which is in the following words:—"That the right hon. lord viscount Melville, having been privy to, and having connived at the withdrawing from the bank of England, for the purpose, as stated by lord Melville, of private emolument to Mr. Trotter, sums issued to lord Melville as treasurer of the navy, and placed to his account in the bank, according to the provisions of the 25th Geo. III. cap. 31, has been guilty of a gross violation of the law, and a high breach of duty."—Before examining the justice of the conclusion drawn in the end of this resolution, it is essential to understand the fact on which it is grounded, and which I am certain is altogether misunderstood. It is assumed, and my own authority quoted for it, that I was privy to the withdrawing from the bank of England, for the purpose of private emolument to Mr. Trotter, sums issued to me as treasurer of the navy. If by these words it is meant to convey, that Mr. Trotter had any power or authority from me, to draws sums indiscriminately from the bank for his own use or emolument, I deny that I was privy to any such transactions. I deny that I ever said so, and I affirm, there is no evidence to justify such an assertion. But if it is meant to state, that after the money was drawn by assignments, under the authority of the competent boards, it was illegal to put it into the custody of Mr. Coutts, instead of putting it in the iron chest, or in the hands of the respective sub-accountants, I am yet, after all I have heard, to learn, that in doing so, the act of parliament was violated.—That an indiscriminate power of drawing from the bank was given by me to Mr. Trotter, I conceive, cannot be alledged by any person who attends to the real import of my evidence.—The first question put to me on this subject, by the commissioners of naval enquiry, was in the following words:—"Did you authorize the paymaster, in or about the year 1786, to draw the money applicable to naval services, from the bank, and lodge it in the hands of a private banker?" My answer was:—"I cannot precisely fix the time; but I am certain that I did permit Mr. Trotte to lodge any money drawn from the bank, for public purposes, in his private banker's hands, during the period it was not demanded to the purposes for which it was drawn." The plain import of this answer is, that when the money was legally, and in terms of the act of parliament, drawn from the bank, I permitted Mr. Mr. Trotter to lodge such balance of the money assigned, as was not called for by the person or persons entitled to receive it. But there is not a syllable in the answer, to import that I gave Mr. Trotter authority to draw from the bank, for his own private emolument, any sum that had not been assigned or drawn in terms of the provisions of the act of parliament.—This proposition, which I aver to be the meaning of my answer, is made still more clear in an after part of my evidence. The commissioners put a question to me in the following words: "As the money applicable to naval services was directed to be lodged in the bank, by the act of 25 Geo. Ill. cap. 31, and not to be drawn from thence without specifying the services for which it is drawn, by what authority did you give permission to the paymaster of the navy to draw the money out of the bank, and lodge it in the hands of private bankers?—From the terms of this question it struck me, that the commissioners were proceeding on the same mistake as that which seems to be countenanced by the general words made use of in the fourteenth resolution; I therefore immediately rectified their error by my answer, which is in the following words: "I take it for granted, it always was drawn under the heads of service pointed out in the act of parliament; and when I talk of permission, I mean it under the explanation contained in the answer to a former question, in which I suppose the money drawn under competent authority."—From this plain statement I feel myself authorized to repeat the assertion I have already made, that this resolution, adopting the general terms it has done, assumes and proceeds on a fact not warranted, either by the truth of the case, or by the evidence contained in the tenth report of the commissioners of naval enquiry; and I must here be permitted to add, that the assumption in the fourteenth resolution, of the fact to which I have adverted, came upon me with the more surprise, as, in the report of the commissioners, they have distinctly stated the import of my evidence to be what I have now explained. The passage to which I allude is in the tenth report (see vol. 3, p. 1160,) and in the following words: "Lord Melville states, that he certainly did permit Mr. Trotter to lodge any money drawn from the bank, for the public purposes, in his private banker's hands, during the period that it was not demanded for the purposes for which it was drawn; but it is to be inferred from his evidence, that he intended Mr. Trotter to draw upon the bank for the amount only of the assignments made on him by the different boards (an account of which is furnished to him daily), and that the balance of such sum, till demanded, should alone be lodged by Mr. Trotter in the hands of his private bankers."—Having thus ascertained the fact as it truly stands, the next consideration is, what is the act of parliament, which, according to this state of the fact, the resolution affirms to be violated? I contend, that there is not one clause of the act prohibitory of the permission to lodge assigned money in the hands of a private banker, till the money so assigned is applied for by the person entitled to it. I hope I state my proposition distinctly, and desire it to be adverted to, that the point I at present discuss is altogether unconnected with the question, what use was made of the money when so lodged? That is a separate question, and they ought not to be blended together. I am now, in this part of the discussion, examining the truth or falsehood of a proposition, whether there is any thing in the act of parliament to prohibit lodging the balance of assigned money, till called for, in a private banker's hand. Suppose the case, that instead of lodging the money of the description I have stated in a private banker's hands, the practice had been to open a separate account in the bank of England, for the deposit of such assigned money, till called for: I would ask, whether this would be a violation of the act of parliament? Nobody would have contended, that in such an arrangement, the treasurer of the navy would have violated either the letter or spirit of the act in any one respect, or that he would have met with the smallest blame from any quarter in exercising that discretion, whereby he would be enable to draw out the assigned money from the separate account, without having recourse to the general account raised in his name, in terms of the provisions of the act of parliament. And yet, if the proposition is true, that no draft could be made, except on the general account raised at the bank in the name of the treasurer, the violation would equally exist, in the supposed as in the real case.—The error of the opposite argument consists in supposing, that the object of the act of 1785 went to an extent in its provisions, beyond what was ever in the view of those who proposed it, or of the legislature which passed it. It was not a law intended to embrace all the regulations, which it might be expedient, either by legislative provisions, or by official arrangements, to establish, for the conduct of that great machine, which has now become necessary for the regular payment of the naval service. The single object which the act had in view, was to convert the treasurer's account from a personal to an official account, and thereby to obviate an abuse which had been so much complained of, whereby ex-treasurers of the navy had large balances in their hands, and remained great public accountants, many years after they were out of office. To this object its provisions are complete, and have been accurately complied with; but, if you expect to find in that act such a digest of regulations, as to exclude, in the management of the office, the discretion of the treasurer as to many parts of his duty, you will search in vain. Even that arrangement, which has of late been so much the subject of discussion, I mean the establishment of a fixed salary to the treasurer, in place of his former emoluments from the use of the balance in his hands, is not provided for or regulated by this act of parliament. That was done by the terms of his patent, several years before the act of parliament existed.—The observation I have just made will appear the more forcible, il gentlemen will take the trouble of referring to the act which passed in 1783, for regulating the office of the paymaster-general of his majesty's land forces. It repeals an act which had been passed on that subject in the preceding session, and enacts a new code and system of regulations, amounting to no less than thirty-nine clauses, and embracing minutely every circumstance connected with the business of that office. Is there any such system of regulation contained in the act now under consideration? Certainly not. It is a short act, of twelve clauses, confined to the only immediate object at that time in view, viz. what I have already expressed, the converting the treasurer's account from a personal to an official one; but not regulating, or professing to regulate, the whole conduct of that department.—Not adverting to what I have just observed, I cannot help conceiving that gentlemen mislead themselves, by assimilating the navy pay office, in a great degree, to the army pay office, and supposing that, in all respects, the one has been regulated, or can be regulated, by the principles of the other. In this they are totally mistaken. The navy pay office is to the navy, what not the army pay office alone, but the army pay office, with the addition of army agents, of colonels of regiments, of barrack-masters, and other subordinate accountants, is to the army. The army pay office issues gross sums, to be subsequently distributed by persons holding no situation in the office. The navy pay office makes the minutest individual payments: the fraction of a single seaman's yearly pay, or the quarterly allotment of a seaman's wife. It may be practicable to make all army payments by specific drafts to individuals; but it is impossible, with regard to the navy payments, many of which are for such small sums. I have been informed, that in twenty-six days of the month of January last, the payments amounted to six thousand four hundred and two in number; of which no less than three thousand two hundred and seventy-eight were of sums under twenty pounds; and one thousand eight hundred and ninety-four, in sums from one pound eight shillings to ten shilling's and sixpence. Again, as to wages, there were recently, if I am accurately informed, not less than six thousand eight hundred ships' books open in the pay room of the office, upon any one of which, at any hour, a call might be made for the wages of any seaman who might happen not to have been present at the payment at the out-port, for the money due to him for four or five years, or as many months service.—No person will contend, that in the cases referred to, it is possible to carry on the business of the department by specific drafts, in favour of the respective individuals, and I understand the impossibility has been distinctly admitted. But is it possible, consistently with this admission, not further to admit, that it could not have been in the contemplation of the act of parliament, by minute provisions, to regulate the whole conduct of the office, or to alter the whole former prac- tice, by a few provisions, directed to the single object of altering the nature of the treasurer's account? If such had been the view of those who proposed this act, is it possible that some clause or clauses would not have been introduced, to explain that the general expression of drafts did not mean to imply specific drafts, in payment of individuals, of such sums as those which I have just referred to? This subject was left, as it formerly had been, to the discretion and official arrangement of the treasurer, on such principles as might be most expedient and practicable for conducting the business of the office. It is sufficient, for the purpose of my present argument, to contend, that the expression of drafts, in the language of the act of parliament, neither did nor could mean, specific drafts, in the name of each individual entitled to receive the sum drawn for.—In like manner I contend, that an authority derived from any of the competent boards, in the shape of one or more assignments upon the treasurer, did not render it necessary in the payment of such assignments, that it should be done by specific drafts, in favour of the person entitled to receive it. In the sound construction of the act of parliament, the sums authorized by the assignments were fairly and legally drawn, from the moment the assignments were made, nor did it make any difference in the execution of the act, whether the sums assigned were drawn from the bank in one draft or in ten drafts. Put the case, that ten, or any given number of the holders of assignments, had intimated a wish to receive their payment at the office, or at Messrs. Coutts's on a particular day; it surely could not be maintained, that the paymaster of the navy was debarred from gratifying them in that wish, or that he was guilty of an illegality, if he made the payment agreeably to the mode suggested by themselves.—It becomes still more difficult to believe, that any such alteration was intended by the act, when it is recollected, that the subject was brought distinctly under the view of those who passed the act in question; and yet no such prohibition, as now supposed, was either directly or indirectly inserted in the act. It has been repeatedly stated, and it is true, that the act of parliament originated in the report of the commissioners in 1782. These commissioners, speaking of the difference between the treasurer's statement of the balance in his hands on a given day, and that of the navy board, say: "This difference lies in the cashier's and victualling branches, and arises from the following cause. When the boards assign bills upon the treasurer for payment, they immediately give him credit for those bills in his account kept at their offices; but the treasurer does not himself take credit for any bills in his own account till he actually pays them. The persons who receive these bills do not always immediately present them to the treasurer for payment, but frequently keep them in their possession for a considerable time. The treasurer's balance must therefore exceed the navy balance, as much as the sum of the bills assigned upon him for payment exceeds the sum of the bills actually paid by him. We conceive this excess is not money for which the treasurer is accountable to the public, but belongs to the proprietors of those bills, and remains in his hands, at their risk, until they apply to him for payment."—In these words, the existence, nature, and consequences of the assignments not called for, are distinctly and accurately pointed out; and is it possible to conceive, that if this act of parliament had meant to make any provision respecting these assignments, it would not have been done, in some such plain and precise manner, as to exclude all doubt upon the subject? It would not have been left to doubtful implication or construction of the act, which has already, in the case of small payments, been clearly proved, not to mean generally specific drafts to individuals, as contended for in that construction of the act which I have endeavoured to refute. It will be clearly understood, that in the argument I have stated, I only contend that the act of parliament had not this point in contemplation, and therefore it is unwarrantable to argue, or to resolve, that it has been violated, by any practice which has taken place in the navy pay office during my treasurership.—Before quitting this subject, I must not omit to observe, that the practice of lodging naval money in the hands of Messrs. Coutts continued for two years after I was out of office, and that it was altered ultimately by Mr. Bathurst, not on a clear decision formed by him of its illegality, but because he thought it expedient; and the doubts entertained by lord Harrowby, during his treasurership, arose from conceiving, that the practice was in- consistent with the spirit, if not with the letter of the law. I do not mean to insinuate, that they were aware of the money being again withdrawn from Messrs. Coutts, for the purpose of private emolument to the paymaster. My observation only goes to the point of stating, that the abstract proposition of the illegality of the practice of lodging assigned money in the hands of a private banker had not occurred to those able men, in the strong light it has been resolved with regard to me, otherwise the continuance of it would not have been tolerated for two years after the treasurership of the navy had passed into their hands.—And this leads me to another topic, to which I feel myself warranted to summon the attention of the house, under the circumstances in which I am placed. I have given my reasons in detail, why I contend that the act of parliament has not been violated in any shape; but I submit it to your justice to consider, how far I am, for the object of my present attendance, under the necessity of arguing my proposition to the full extent I have stated. A law may be violated without being grossly violated, and a breach of duty may be committed without warranting the appellation of a high breach of duty. My arguments may have failed in convincing you, that my construction of the act is the true one, and you may remain of opinion, that its provisions extended to objects, which I contend were never within its contemplation. can only say, that tiny judgment continues unaltered, and that I never had even conceived the doubt as to the meaning of the act; till the period of the late discussions, from which I am certainly bound to doubt nay, own opinion, when it differs from others whose talents I sincerely respect; but I cannot carry my acquiescence so far as to admit, that an error of judgment, resting upon the grounds I have stated, ought to have subjected me to such criminating resolutions, as those which tins house recorded on the 8th of April last.—Having endeavoured, as clearly as I can, to explain to the house the grounds on which I contend that no illegality is imputable to me, on the subject of drawing from the bank the sums assigned by the competent boards, you will immediately perceive the nature and extent of the benefit which I conceived the paymaster might derive, from lodging the money, thus drawn from the bank, in the hands of Messrs. Coutts. I have already adverted to the transactions referred to in the twelfth resolution, and denied the imputation contained in that resolution, of my being privy to those transactions My impression, with regard to any benefit, the paymaster might derive from the money lodged in Messrs. Coutts's hands, was ,simply this. I conceived it to arise from an understanding between him and the partners of that house, as to the advantage they might respectively derive from the customary use of money while in their hands, and such an arrangement between them, I know, could not prevent the paymaster from drawing, at any moment, from Messrs. Coutts's house, any sum requisite:for the discharge of any claim to which that deposite money was liable.—I beg not to be understood as stating, that I entertained this idea from any actual information I had on the subject; but the impression naturally arose in my mind, from knowing such to be the practice universal in similar cases, not only with the public banks, but all banking houses in another part of the kingdom; and it is only within these three months, that I have been made aware of the mistake, by the perusal of a memorandum, written by Mr. Coutts, the principal partner of that house.—This is a precise state of the case and of the impressions I had of it: and when I did not interpose, to prevent the paymaster's enjoying such emoluments, I did not conceive myself to be infringing any act of parliament, nor did I feel that I was incurring, either for the public or myself, the smallest degree of risk, or exposing the business of the office to any inconvenience whatever. I beg leave further to remark, that, although, I never held out this species of advantage as an established emolument of the office of paymaster, or one which I might not have put an end to at any moment I found it expedient to do so, I certainly never felt it to be a clandestine or mysterious arrangement.—Of this I cannot give a stronger proof, than by referring to a fact mentioned in the tenth report of the commissioners of naval enquiry. I mean the suggestion's made by former commissioners, in the year 1786, in which they recommend an augmentation of the paymaster's salary from 500l. to 800l. per annum. But although, from the increase of business which the different acts of parliament had imposed upon the clerks and other officers of the navy pay office, I had been obliged to revise the establishments, and recommend to his, majesty in council to make very considerable additions to their salaries, I did,not recommend, that any such should be made to the paymaster, under the impression that, in the manner I have stated he must derive advantages, which rendered it unnecessary to burthen the establishment with an additional salary to him. In fact, no such, addition was made till the year 1800, a short time before my leaving the office, when a still further increase of business having been thrown upon the persons doing the duty of the navy pay office, in. consequence of the adoption of many new and beneficial regulations, which since the former period had been added, it became necessary again to revise the establishment, and attend to their earnest representation for an augmentation of their allowances. Then, for the first time, was the augmentation to the paymaster's salary adopted, which had been recommended by the commissioners; .and it was done upon the ground of several others, in situations inferior to the paymaster, having been raised to about 600l. The augmentation then made was not felt to be adequate to the labour, importance, and responsibility of the office; but it was purposely kept down, on the understanding, undoubtedly entertained by others as well as by me, that the paymaster enjoyed those advantages to which I have alluded.—I do not rest upon these circumstances, in the view of justifying the regularity of a practice which may, on other grounds, have been since found to be either improper or irregular; but, certainly, I am entitled to found upon them, as the strongest proof that I meant no concealment in the transaction, and that I felt no consciousness of wrong in what I had done.—With the permission of the house, I must, for a few moments, recall their attention to a subject, to which I have hitherto only slightly alluded, I refer to the insinuations thrown out, that my authorizing or conniving at the lodging of the naval money in the house of Messrs. Coutts, could only proceed from an intention of its being appropriated to the purposes, of private emolument. Previously to the year 1786, the navy pay office was situated in the city, in the neighbourhood of the bank, and it, was in consequence of its removal to Somerset-place, that the suggestion was made to me of the convenience of putting the money, when drawn from the bank, in the,bands of a respectable house in the neighbourhood of Somerset-place, The reasons given at the time certainly did satisfy me, and after the maturest consideration I can give to the subject, I am not yet convinced, that my opinion was erroneous. It would serve no good purpose, at present, to enter upon a discussion of that subject; but if ever there should be occasion to do so, I think,I can prove, that both the convenience and the security of the public would be better consulted, by the accounts of the sub-accountants being placed in a situation liable to the daily inspection and examination of the paymaster, than by having them raised in their separate names, at so great a distance from the means of such habitual examination.—I know that, from the nature of the business, and the necessity of so much of it being done at the outports, it is impossible to procure perfect safety, either to the public or to the treasurer, by any constant and daily inspection of the paymaster; but that is no reason why recourse should not be had to that additional check wherever it can be exercised. The commissioners of naval enquiry are themselves aware of the risks that are run, and, therefore, they have made the following suggestion: "We were surprised to learn, that neither the officers nor clerks in the navy pay office, give any security for the faithful discharge of their duty, notwithstanding the great responsibility of their situations. We are of opinion, that the paymaster, and other officers and clerks entrusted with the public money, should be required to find security, in proportion to the amount of their salaries; for though such security may not be adequate to the trust reposed in them, we think it would operate strongly, in preventing the misapplication of the public money."—The measure here, suggested would give a very small additional security to the public; but the Suggestion proceeds on the apprehension that there is a risk, and that being the case, I contend that the risk is increased, by. the naval money being intrusted to a variety of persons, whose accounts are remote, from inspection and examination more than it would be, if those accounts, were subject to the daily examination and inspection of one individual, to whose accuracy and responsibility the treasurer must principally look for his own security and that of the public—Great pains appear to be taken by the commissioners of naval enquiry, to establish that no inconvenience has ensued from changing the former mode of con- ducting the business, and having recourse to that, Which is now practised. Upon all that species of evidence and observation, it is sufficient for me to remark, that the new practice has been, at least, of very short duration. I sincerely hope it will answer the expectations of those who, I make no doubt, have, from the best of motives, adopted it; but, in my own vindication, I cannot refrain from reminding the house, that during the period of sixteen years, when I had the conduct of the office, it was done without any inconvenience or complaint, and, let the new practice prove, on experience, to be as successful as its most sanguine panegyrists can desire, it never can succeed better, as to its effects, than that which has been laid aside to make room for it.—Having, in the course of my statement, given to this house a fair and unqualified explanation of every circumstance connected with the purport of the resolutions adopted on the 8th of April last, I am perfectly aware it may naturally suggest itself to many who now hear me, to ask, why I thought it necessary to make fury reserve in the answers I gave, when examined by the commissioners of naval enquiry? This question having been put to me by many of my private friends, I can the More readily suppose it to arise in the minds of others.—From what I have already stated, it must appear, that it has not been owing to any thing like reluctance on my part, that this doubt has not been long ago removed; and I willingly Seize the first opportunity afforded me of explanation, to premise that the real import of my examination before the commissioners has been either much misunderstood or grossly misrepresented. It has been affirmed, in broad and general terms, that I refused to answer the commissioners, whether I had derived profit from the public money in the hands of the treasurer. I have done no such thing. The commissioners, in their letter to me of the 26th June, called' upon me to give them an account of certain particulars in detail, which, for the reasons I assigned in answer, it Was literally impossible for me to do; and added, that even if I had the means of doing so, I should think it my duty to withhold the information required, on the grounds I stated, alluding to sums which had been occasionally withdrawn for ether public purposes, not naval. Perhaps I need not have added this; but let it be observed, that at that time nothing had occurred to create in my Mind a suspicion, that any communications made by me to the commissioners were likely to be interpreted to my disadvantage.—From that time I heard no more from the commissioners for the space of four months, during which period, it now appears, they had become possessed of all Mr. Trotter's private accounts with the house of Messrs. Coutts. Upon the 2d of November I received the following summons from the commissioners: "Office of Naval Enquiry, Great George Street, 2d Nov. 1804. My lord, being desirous of receiving some information from your lordship, relative to the management of the business of the pay-office of the navy during your treasurership, we request you will let us know, what day in the next week, and at what hour it will be most convenient for your lordship to attend us for that purpose," In consequence of this summons, I immediately attended them, and underwent an examination by questions, obviously prepared with much previous consideration; but as I have already observed, without a communication of one item of these accounts before them, and without an explanation as to any one entry contained in them, and without a conception, on my part, that in that examination I was on my trial, or liable, in consequence of it, to be subjected to severe criminating resolutions.—Having given this preliminary explanation, I proceed to state, that upon an accurate examination of the terms of my evidence, you will perceive how much it has been misunderstood, if it is supposed that I had refused in general to answer, whether I had derived benefit from the public money.—At the time of that question being put to me, I had received the unexpected information, that in the advances Mr. Trotter had made to me, on the account current of my affairs, he (Mr. Trotter) had made those advances, without discriminating whether they were made from private funds, or from the public balances in his hands. With the knowledge I possessed, from the information thus given me of the manner in which he had blended his account, I was induced to adopt a degree of reserve, beyond what perhaps the occasion called for; and upon a review of all circumstances now before me, I am satisfied, that I might then hate as directly and as confidently answered the question in the negative, as I can now; conscious as I then was, and as I now am, that at no time did I act, or authorize any other person to act, in contravention of the patent under which I held the office of treasurer of the navy.—The details I have this day given to you must satisfy every man, that I could contrary to my interest, to exercise any reserve on this subject.—I have understood, that a great deal of acrimony and ingennity have been resorted to, in the interpretation of another answer I have given. I mean when the question is put to me, whether I did direct, or authorize Mr. Trotter, while paymaster of the navy, to lay out or apply, or cause to be laid out and applied, any of the money issued for carrying on the current service of the navy, since the first of January 1786, for my benefit or advantage?" I answered by saying, "To the best of my recollection I never did." I have less reason to complain of the ammadversions which have been made upon this answer; for I certainly might, and ought to have answered, simply, that "I never did;" and my having prefixed the other useless words, arose (as is well known to those who are in the habits of living and conversing with me) out of a mode of expression customary with me in speaking of past transaction.—I have also observed, that on another topic much asperity has been resorted to, founded on the allegation of my having refused to answer questions, on the ground of not being obliged to criminate myself. Of all the imputations I have heard of, I confess this is the one I least expected. If I had been of that disposition, I should not have been exposed to any one of the charges that have been brought against me; and it is the more extraordinary such a one should have arisen, when my accusers have rested the whole of their charges on what they are pleased to call my own confession. The observation is wholly founded on a misrepresentation of my evidence. I never made use of the clause in the act of parliament for any personal reason, but solely to protect me from disclosing any of those irregularities I may be supposed to have committed, in appropriating, for a time any of the naval money to other public services. So far from feeling that to be any imputation upon my honour, I should have felt myself guilty, not only of a breach of public duty, but a most unwarrantable violation of private honour, if I had disclosed any of those transactions. The information I had received from Mr. Trotter, of his manner of blending his public and private accounts, was the single reason I assigned for not answering any question put to me, respecting my having reaped any benefit or advantage from the money in the hands of the treasurer of the navy. Upon that subject I never had recourse to the defence of not criminating myself. whatever, therefore, has any where been said upon that topic, may be a proof of dexterity in misrepresentation; but in point of candour or fair statement, it is certainly entitled to no merit.—I am informed that another charge still has been alledged against me in different quarters, on which I wish to say a few words, not so much from the importance of the charge itself, as from its being a striking proof of the extent to which a spirit of rancorous hostility, once yielded to, will be induced to go, in its exertions to inflame itself and the minds of others. The topic to which I allude is that, whereby I have been charged with having no other motive for remaining treasurer of the navy, after I became secretary of state, except the unlawful gains I am supposed to have derived from that situation. What I am now to state does not rest upon my assertion. There is one who now hears me, and others with whom I have at present no connection in politics, who can bear testimony to the fact, that I never was one hour secretary of state with my own inclination. Under the original institution of the board of India commissioners, the treasurership of the navy was understood to be the appropriate situation of the person who was to take the leading part in the management and control of the affairs of India. In that character I had acted many years with great labour; and, perhaps, I may have had the vanity to suppose, that by a successful administration of that great concern, I had done essential service to my country, and at the same time gratified an ambition, of which no honourable mind has reason to be ashamed; I have no difficulty in acknowledging, that I had a predilection for the India department, and it was the only one in which I ever wished to have been employed.—On this ground I declined accepting the seals of the home department at the time lord Grenville was appointed; and when, at a later period, I was induced to accept them, it was under an assurance, that I should only be required to hold them for the short period of probably a few months, till the return from abroad of a noble lord for whom they were destined, He did not return at the time expected, and the very critical and dangerous state of the country which immediately ensued, rendered it impossible for me to decline obeying the commands of my sovereign, at a moment when he was advised, that any exertions of mine might be of use in repelling the dangers with which the constitution of the country was so peculiarly menaced, during the period I was in the home department. When the duke of Portland-was appointed to that situation, I again made it my earnest request to his majesty, that I might be permitted to confine my labours to the administration of the affairs, of India, and I only desisted from making that request, when specially commanded by his majesty to do so.—I am extremely concerned so trouble the house with such personal details; but I am compelled to do so, by the industry with which any enemies think themselves at liberty to lay hold of every circumstance which they suppose can create prejudice against me. The result of what I have stated on this topic is, that I never had the smallest predilection for the office of treasurer of the navy, except in so far as it was the situation at that time supposed to be appropriated to the person at the head of the administration of India.—I shall now proceed to observe upon the report of the committee of the house of commons, and in doing so, I shall follow the order of the report itself. In the outset, I cannot help expressing my regret for the circumstance stated in the first page of it, and wishing it had occurred to the committee, rather to expunge those questions and answers which appeared to them to exceed the limits of their enquiry, than to leave them in the body of their evidence. The consequence of their not doing so is, that several things are left in the report, calculated to create an impression which would not have existed if the question hat been pursued by more minute enquiry; and this inconvenience becomes the more striking ,when it is recollected, that I was, from the circumstances well known to the committee, deprived of the opportunity of giving them personally any explanation. The report begins by stating the substance of Mr. Trotter's evidence respecting his advances to me: upon which it is necessary immediately to observe, that it is quite impossible to attempt, with precision, to analyse any of the statements given by Mr. Trotter.—None of the public accounts of the office ever were in my custody or possession, and from the day I transferred my balance to my successor, I considered my connection with the navy pay office to have ceased, as much as if it never had existed; except in so far as respected a small balance to which I might finally be liable, on the settlement of my account as treasurer, previous to January 1786, as to Which my account must be made up and cleared as an ex-treasurer, agreeably to the old practice of the office. I likewise took occasion to explain to the commissioners of naval enquiry, that for many years past I never had considered the vouchers of my settled accounts with Mr. Trotter, in the management of my private affairs, as being of the smallest use, and never thought of preserving them, more than I should have done the vouchers of any other settled account in which I was ever concerned. At the same time, I mentioned to them the information I had received from Mr. Trotter, as to the manner in which these accounts were blended, and which deprived me of the means of giving any detailed or satisfactory information on the subjects.—I have shortly recapitulated these circumstances, in order that the house may feel the impossibility of my either confirming or correcting any of the details which Mr. Trotter has given to the committee. It is true, I have now had the opportunity of looking into Mr. Trotter's accounts with Messrs. Coutts, contained in the appendix to the tenth report; but the bare inspection of them is sufficient to convince every person of the impossibility of deriving any information from them; and every endeavour to unravel them has more and more proved the impracticability of doing so.—In short, in the whole minute details connected with this investigation, I have been at the mercy of Mr. Trotter's memory and recollection, without the means or power of either aiding or correcting his recollection in any one item; but this I can affirm, that I am not indebted in one shilling either to Mr. Trotter or to the public. But upon any anterior details upon which Mr. Trotter may have entered, or may hereafter enter, for the reasons already assigned any distinct explanation from me must be obviously impossible.—Nothing can be further from my thoughts, than to insinuate any intention, on the part of Mr. Trotter, to state any thing differently from what his recollection,may have suggested at the moment. At the same time, from the information he has given respecting his books, he has little else to resort to than his memory; and both himself and his friends know that neither he nor they have felt they could depend upon it for a very considerable time past, in the manner they might have done some years ago.—Under these circumstances, and speaking from recollection of transactions many years ago, it is not impossible, or improbable, that in some of his details, Mr. Trotter may have intermixed the transactions of one person with those of another. I thank I can perceive vestiges of the truth of this observation in his evidence, where he mentions the name of Mr. Tweedie. It is true, that in the close of his evidence he explains himself to mean no more than that he employed Mr. Tweedie as a messenger to me; but from the former part of his evidence any person would be led, and the committee seems in fact to have been led into a belief, that, in some shape or other, Mr. Tweedie was entrusted or employed by me in some way more confidential than as a mere messenger; Whereas I have not the least recollection of any circumstance that could create such an impression in Mr. Trotter's mind, and am perfectly certain, that no confidential intercourse of any description, ever passed between Mr. Tweedie arid myself. From what Mr. Trotter had said in his evidence. I observe that the committee have been induced to examine the son of Mr. Tweedie on the subject, and the import of his evidence is to- confirm the statement I have now given.—Having observed thus much in general, I shall proceed to offer every satisfaction the nature of the case admits of, consistently with the reserve that naturally belongs to transactions connected with the government of the country. But I must, in the first place, remark, that during the whole period in which I was treasurer of the navy, I was, at the same time, time confidential adviser of government in every thing relating to the administration of the affairs of Scotland, or supposed to be connected with the general interests of government in that part of the kingdom. In that capacity, every person must readily perceive the impossibility of being so, without having recourse to the expenditure of occasional sums for the purposes of government; and, however satisfied my own conviction may have been, and however clear the necessity and pro- priety of the expenditure, in the instances in which it occurred, might in fact have been, every one must be aware, that it is impossible that those purposes should be detailed, without both great public and personal inconvenience: and I do affirm in the most direct terms, that the 10,000l. which came into my hands during the pay-mastership of Mr. Douglas, was neither used, nor meant to be used, for any object of personal profit or emolument to me. But I think it is impossible for any one to expect, that I should enter into a more minute explanation, either with regard to that sum, or another, of, I believe, about a similar amount, at a later period, without incurring the charge of a great breach, as well of public duty as of private honour. It is unnecessary to dwell upon the uneasiness I have felt from the necessity of withholding explanation on any part of this subject, aware as I am of the many insidious and malignant observations, to which any person must be exposed, who ,feels such a reserve to be his only honourable line of conduct.—There is, however, one striking circumstance in this business, on which I may fairly rest in appealing to the candour of the house. In my letter to the commissioners of naval enquiry, on the 30th of June last, though I referred to the whole, I certainly had particularly in contemplation the sum of 40,000l. advanced by me to Mr. Pitt, for the purposes explained in the report of the committee of the house of commons.—This sum formed two-thirds of the whole; and, if Mr. Pitt had not thought it expedient, as appears at one time to have been his feeling, to divulge the transaction in time manner he has done, I should have thought it my duty never to make such a discovery, from any personal consideration either of fame or safety: and if this investigation had taken place within that period, it is obvious to what an extent of additional suspicion and obloquy I must have been exposed; and yet from the disclosure which has been made, it is now evident that such suspicions would have been groundless, and such obloquy unjust.—It will also be recollected, that with regard to the sum of 10,000l. put into my hands by Mr. Douglas, there is no room for charging me in that transaction with any violation of the act of parliament; for it took place before the act passed: and whatever restraint I might have been under from the terms of my patent, the regulations either as to. placing money in the bank, or drawing it from thence, as enacted by,the act in 1785, in no respect applied to that ten thousand pounds.—The explanation I have now given, applies to twenty thousand pounds of the sum mentioned in the report, and, with the addition of whatever sum Mr. Trotter was at any time in advance for me, in his account current, forms the aggregate of any advance he may have made to me, in so far as I can speak from the conviction of my own mind. It is my belief, that there is some confusion in Mr. Trotter's recollection, when he talks of twenty-two thousand pounds, or twenty-three thousand pounds, as distinct from the advances of "from ten thousand pounds to twenty thousand pounds on his account current." Either the one or the other of these sums, I conceive, must be overstated. I am not aware from what materials Mr. Trotter can make several of the distinctions he has done in his evidence, respecting the different funds from which such advances were made. It is obvious, on the face of his evidence, that much of what he stated bears the character of after-recollection. A striking example of this appears on his second day's examination, when he desires to make an addition of two thousand pounds or three thousand pounds, to the sum of twenty thousand pounds, which he had stated in his examination on the preceding day. It is true, have no materials or documents by which I can either assist or correct his recollection. I was perfectly aware, in my own mind, that I was accountable to the public for the repayment of a sum to the amount of about twenty thousand pounds, drawn for confidential purpose, exclusive of the forty thousand pounds to be immediately mentioned: but Mr. Trotter was totally ignorant of those appropriations; and if he endeavours, from any thing recently avowed, to form a conjecture concerning them, I am sure it will only serve to mislead and confuse him.—It is now necessary to advert to a sum mentioned by Mr. Trotter as having been borrowed by my direction, and on my account. He states the sum to be twenty-two or twenty-three thousand pounds. This certainly differs from my recollection, which is clear as to the sum being twenty thousand pounds, and the annual interest paid on it one thousand pounds. If, therefore, the three thousand pounds in addition was any advance on my account, it must have been on his account current, or in some other mode, which it is impossible for me to trace. The loan took place a few years after I had unadvisedly left my profession, and was connected with some private family concerns, with which it is unnecessary to trouble the house. I observe from the report of the committee, that Mr. Trotter, whom I employed to borrow the money, says he was himself the lender: and, upon his authority, I presume he was so. I certainly had no knowledge of it at the time, having only directed him to procure the loan; and probably, from the question not being put to him, he has omitted to inform the committee, that the circumstance of his having been so was only communicated to me within these few weeks.—The next particular in the report to be observed upon, is the sum of 40,000l. advanced for the relief of Messrs. Boyd and Co.; and it seems to be taken for granted, that this transaction had been suggested by me. If I had been examined, I think there would have been found some shades of difference in my recollection of the origin of the transaction, from what appears upon the evidence reported. But feeling then, as I do now, the urgent necessity of it, it is immaterial to examine whence the suggestion arose, There seems no difference of recollection, however, as to the substance of the transaction, which is fully before you; and I have no disposition to exculpate myself from any part of the blame which can be supposed imputable to it—Upon this part of the report it will be expected that I should advert to what is stated as to my not paying interest, when I repaid to Mr. Trotter the sums detailed in the report of the committee. I do not imagine it will be expected by the house, that I should give any reason why I did not either pay or demand interest on any part of the sums of forty and twenty thousand pounds withdrawn for other than naval purposes. Those sums would have yielded no interest if they had remained in the bank; and it certainly never entered into my mind to conceive, that under the circumstances of the case, the public could look for interest upon money so applied. It has been already mentioned, that for the sum borrowed under my own authority, interest was regularly paid; and if I was, for years, in the practice of paying so large a sum annually as interest, it seems to afford a pretty strong presumption, that I was not in the habit of applying the public money imprest into my hands for the purpose of private emolument. In truth, if I were to enter into any detailed explanations of my own private concerns, I am afraid it would be found, that I had, at all times, too many proofs of that nature to which I could have recourse.—Any consideration of interest, therefore, can alone apply to the sums which Mr. Trotter was at any time in advance for me on my private account current with him. From the latitude of expression made use of by Mr. Trotter, in his original evidence, I find it has been inferred, that he was in the practice occasionally of making advances to me, to the extent of ten or twenty thousand pounds. Mr. Trotter could never mean to state, that at any time he had advanced to me a sum to that amount. He clearly could only mean to speak of the aggregate sum advanced on his account current with me, adding all the items together during the whole progress of the account, on which he plainly states that there was, at different times, a considerable balance in my favour, on which he did not pay any interest.—I have no materials, nor has Mr. Trotter confessedly any, by which he could make a statement on this subject, more accurately than he has hitherto done. But he has very recently communicated to me his belief, that the advance for me of one or two instalments on what is called the loyalty loan, was the only material advance to Which he meant to allude: and, so far as I can form any judgment on the subject, I am inclined to think, that his recollection does not much mislead him in this respect. When I subscribed ten thousand pounds to that loan, I certainly had not at my command the money wherewith to purchase the stock; but many who hear me will recollect, that it was expected of men in public. situations that they should give Countenance to it, and I accordingly did (as I believe many others did) give directions for subscribing to it, meaning to dispose of it as soon as I could. The late Mr. Henry Drummond arranged this for me; but I inadvertently omitting to make the transfer at the proper time, and the value of the stock having fallen, it remained upon my hands. To the best of my recollection I remitted the first instalment from money borrowed in Scotland, Mr. Trotter made provision for the remainder, whether by advance on his private ac- count with me, or through the house of Messrs. Coutts, I do not precisely know: but this I certainly do know and affirm that in this transaction I never had in contemplation the prospect of pecuniary emolument or advantage, nor indeed did I consider it as any part of my private property; but as soon as the last instalment was paid, I executed a power of attorney in favour of Messrs. Coutts, not only to receive the dividend upon it, but to dispose of the stock itself for the repayment of the purchase money, whenever it suited their convenience to do so.—The result of what I have stated is this, that if Mr. Trotter did advance any of the instalments upon the loyalty loan, beyond what he was enabled to do by my private funds passing through his hands, and at the same time carried the dividends to my credit in his account, I may have been a gainer, to the amount of the dividend which arose from what he advanced, above what he might have in his hands of my private funds. This would be the state of the case in the most exaggerated view that could be taken of it, even by the most hostile imagination. The whole dividends upon the stock, during the time it was held, did not, in all amount to two thousand pounds; and I think I need not add more on this point, to prove how unwarranted all the exaggerations have been, which have been propagated on the subject of interest.—I must also further state, that to the best of my belief there passed through Mr. Trotter's hands, arising from my salary and other private funds, not less, and probably mere than seventy thousand pounds during the fourteen years he served under me in the navy pay office. Nor can it be reasonably contended, that on an account of the fluctuating nature I have described, a minute calculation of interest on every sum paid on either side would have naturally occurred to the mind of any man. No circumstance ever arose between Mr. Trotter and myself to call my attention to the subject, and indeed, from the general impression I had of the-amount of the sums paid or received on my account, the balance was too inconsiderable to make the interest an object of importance.—The next point to be observed upon in the report of the committee is,what they state as their second head of enquiry, viz. the communication said to have been made to Mr. Pitt by Mr. Raikes. This is a conversation which is said to have taken place as far back as 1797; and certainly any recollection I have been able to revive on the subject, is rather derived from what Mr. Pitt has recently stated to me, than from any feeble traces of it which remained in my own mind. I can, therefore, in observing upon this subject, only state, that supposing Mr. Pitt to have represented to me the communication in the precise terms he received it (as to which I certainly cannot speak from any recollection of my own), I make no doubt I should have treated it as an idle rumour, conceiving that it originated in the permission I was aware I had given to Mr. Trotter to withdraw from the bank, and place in the hands of Messrs. Coutts, the sums necessary in the regular course of the office, for payment of the small sums which are hourly called for, as well as to answer the claims of those who were possessed of assignments from the competent boards consistent with my idea of the meaning of the act of parliament which I have already detailed at length. It was under this impression I should naturally have so answered Mr. Pitt's communication, and this would so satisfactorily have accounted to me for the report, that I should not have thought of making any further enquiries on the subject.—The third head of enquiry referred to the committee, respects the loss sustained through Mr. Jellicoe. Being obliged to trouble the house so long on other points, it is certainly not my intention to detain you on this: and however ruinous to me it would have been if the loss had fallen upon me, I own it is the point of all others, on which my mind has been least anxious in the course of all these investigations, My fame, not my fortune, is the object of consideration with me. I have appeared before this house to vindicate the former; and as to the latter, the evidence is in your hands and upon that you will form your opinion. When it is so clearly established, that the loss had occurred previous to my having any connection with the treasurership of the navy, and that by no means in my power the loss could have been prevented or diminished, I should feel myself most grievously injured, if his majesty had not been advised to give me the relief I received. I am strongly impressed with a conviction, that if Mr. Jellicoe had lived, and had been in a situation to establish his beneficial interest in the invention for which the patent was granted, the public would, from its value here been glad to have purchased the patent, at a higher price than the loss which has been sustained by his failure; and if I am right in that impression, it is a consolation at least to feel, that the public enjoys the benefit of the invention, as I understand it is in general use, without any compensation, except in so far as the loss in question can be considered as such.—Before concluding my observations on the report of your committee, it is necessary to advert to a circumstance not particularly dwelt upon by the committee, but which from the tendency of some libellous publications that have been shewn to me, seems to be enlarged upon with great assiduity, as affording grounds of dark and mysterious suspicion. I allude to the clause in the release produced by Mr. Trotter, relative to the destroying the vouchers of all pecuniary transactions between him and me. I have likewise heard, that the terms of this clause have even operated on the minds of candid and honourable men; and therefore I should be wanting in justice to myself and respect to them, if I were to pass it over without particular observation: and I am confident, whether you examine this charge upon the glaring absurdity of the imputation itself, you will be convinced how perfectly groundless and injurious it is.—Let us first examine the evidence upon the subject, and it must immediately occur to your observation, that I was at the distance of four hundred miles, when this release was prepared and transmitted to me for signature. I have no recollection whether it was brought to me by any man, of business, or was transmitted in a bank cover to me from London. I think this last most probable, as it appears that I received it at my son's house in the country, and the witnesses who attest my signature are two of my servants. I am confident there was nothing to call my particular attention to this clause; and if there had, it does not occur to me now, that it would have struck me as any thing unusual, or meaning more than a clause of common form, expressive of an obligation on the parties not to keep in their possession any receipts, or other vouchers, which could be made the ground of a claim by the heirs of either party against the other.—I do not, however, enlarge upon this observation; the fact certainly being, that the clause made no impression upon me of any kind, nor had I a recollection of its existence, till it was mentioned to me by a near relation of my own, who now hears me, and this after Mr. Trotter had been called before your committee.—The next remark on the evidence is, the almost certainty it affords, that I was never consulted on the insertion of such a clause, not in a situation to be so. I have already informed you, that I was at the distance of four hundred miles from London, where the deed was prepared; and in addition to this circumstance, you have the most positive testimony from Mr. Trotter, that I was neither consulted, nor did I give any instructions upon it. He is asked expressly, Did lord Melville give you any instructions for inserting the clause to destroy vouchers in the release, before it was drawn up?" He answers, "he did not." Did you know of his having given such instructions to any other person?" "I do not." So stands Mr. Trotter's evidence, every word of which you must believe to be a falsehood, before you can give the smallest credit to the imputation of any such concert or conspiracy as has been surmised.—The evidence does not rest here; for, in so far as negative evidence can go upon such a point, it is as strong as it can be in any case, Mr. Spottiswoode having unfortunately died within these few months, we are deprived of the benefit of his evidence; but you have that of his partner and of his son: and if I had given any special directions to Mr. Spottiswoode respecting this clause, it is most probable that those gentlemen would have known it from my correspondence, or learnt it from their conversations with Mr. Spottiswoode at the time.—If, therefore, you are to proceed on the only evidence before you on this subject, it is impossible for you to believe the foul suspicions which are endeavoured to be reared upon this circumstance.—But I maintain, further, the whole charge is not more defective in point of evidence, than it is palpably absurd on the face of it. If it means any thing, it must mean that Mr. Trotter and I, being conscious of some foul transactions, had resolved to destroy the evidence of them. Allowing the premises, the conclusion is a fair one; but the mode of executing that intention would have been the most extraordinary that ever was imagined. If Mr. Trotter and myself had formed the plan of destroying such evidence, what prevented our meeting together, any day we pleased, and actually carrying our purpose into execution? but it would have been a most extraordinary proceeding, not only to have informed Mr. Spottiswoode and his partners and clerks of our intention, but to have recorded that intention in a formal deed, unnecessarily and wantonly confessing out own guilt, and publishing to every person who saw the deed, the means we had taken to cover it.—This observation acquires much additional force, when it is remarked, that the deed contains a clause of registration; and if either of the parties should ever have occasion to have recourse to it as an obligation against the other, it was necessary it should be recorded in the supreme court of the kingdom, and an extract of the deed, containing the clause itself, produced in the court, before which any suit might be brought, for enforcing the obligation it is supposed to contain.—If, after combining all these particulars, whether arising out of the positive and negative evidence which is before you, or from a contemplation of the manifest absurdities in which the charge is involved, any person can still allow himself, for one moment to harbour such a suspicion in his mind, I must confess myself totally unable to combat the malignity and prejudices of a mind so deeply tainted.—But in order that no circumstance may be omitted which can give a shadow of truth to this supposed conspiracy, we are desired to attend to the circumstance of its bearing date soon after the commissioners of naval enquiry were appointed. But those who attend to this remark will immediately perceive, that it is liable to every observation on the absurdity of it which has been already adverted to. If the parties concerned were panic-struck by a dread of the commissioners of naval enquiry, was it not more natural for them to have had immediate recourse to the destruction of these dangerous documents of guilt, instead of entering into an obligation on the subject, liable to all objections and difficulties which have been pointed out? They surely had no ground to imagine, that this release would not be produced, as well as the documents meant to be destroyed; and I certainly, without any breach of charity, may be permitted to suppose, that not one of the vouchers meant to be destroyed could have been dwelt upon with more ingenuity and asperity than this release, which the parties are said to have framed, for the purpose of covering all the guilt which it is supposed those vouchers would have proved.—I shall only further observe, that if this deed was meant to impose any active obligation upon me, I have certainly been very remiss in the performance of it. On my leaving Somerset Place I destroyed many useless papers. I did the same when I left Wimbledon three years ago. I likewise did so When I left London two years after, and I have occasionally done the same during my subsequent residence in Scotland: but I cannot charge my memory with having ever destroyed any voucher, from a sense of the obligation contained in this release. As to the act of parliament appointing the commissioners of naval enquiry, I believe nobody imagined that any thing but the abuses in the dock-yards were the real object of their appointment. The abuse now complained of in the practice of the navy pay-office had been rectified before bill passed; and I could not suppose it was intended to remedy abuses which had been already corrected. At the time I was applied to for the release I was living comfortably and happily with my family and amongst my friends in Scotland, not conceiving that I ever should be the object of attack as treasurer of the navy; and perhaps I am not very far mistaken in thinking, that if I had continued in that secession from public situation, the attack would never have been directed against me.—I am ashamed to have troubled the house at so greet a length on this part of the evidence subjoined to the report, but for the reasons I began by stating, I thought it impossible for me to avoid it; and I have only further to observe, that there is not one word in the release of any intention or obligation to destroy existing books or accounts. I am led to make this remark, from observing in some of the proceedings before the committee, an inclination to connect with the release the non-existence of some of Mr. Trotter's books and accounts.—I have now finished the observations which I have been desirous of laying before the house; and in the course of them, I trust I have been successful in my resolution of refraining from any asperity of language, expressive of the feelings I may be supposed to possess on the subject of the proceedings which have been directed against me for these many months past. If I ever give vent to any such feelings, it will not be in this place. This is not such a conclusion as I had hoped for, and as I, think I had a right to expect to a long and laborious life, devoted to the service of my country; but I feel. within myself a strength and fortitude of mind adequate to every suffering I have undergone, or by which I may still be harassed. My enemies are mistaken, if they suppose that my spirits are easily to be broken down by any exertions in their power; but I wish I could, With equal truth, assure them, that I was as unassailable in other quarters; the lashes intended for me have indeed cruelly lacerated the feelings of many valuable friends, and of others more nearly and dearly connected with me, and perhaps these strokes are the harder, as some of them have come from hands whence they were least expected. I shall, however, avoid dwelling on such topics, and thank the house for the indulgence they have at present shewn to me.—Neither shall I trouble you much on the motion. I have heard to be intended after I retire. As no such motion has yet been made, I am at liberty to speak freely of it, and I think my understanding is not so blinded on the subject, as to mislead my judgment with regard to the very extraordinary circumstances under which such a motion would now be brought forward. If an impeachment had been proposed on the 8th of April last, it would, at least, have come as an entire question, when no part of the punishment would have preceded the trials I know I may be told, that being removed from a high and important trust, and separated by the interposition of parliament from the councils of my sovereign, is no punishment. I will not stop to discuss such puerilities; but I shall beg only to ask, whether what has already taken place does not probably amount to as much, as even in the case of a conviction upon an impeachment would have taken place? A declaration of incapacity to serve his majesty in any place of confidence or, trust, would, even under such circumstances, have been considered as a punishment not wanting in due severity. The house of commons have not done this in terms, but they have done it in substance from what passed on the 8th of April and subsequent occasions.—You have gone further. To punishment you have added an attack upon the remains of my private fortune, by your direction to the attorney-general. It may be said, this is only reclaiming unlawful gains. Is that so clear case? and does it not admit of some doubt, whether claims upon me would be confined solely to what I have received? But in any view, is it no additional punishment to be harassed, God knows how long, in a court of law, by an investigation of my whole private concerns for a great part of my life, without any documents or vouchers of any kind to aid my recollection in any one particular?—Indeed, when I take a review of these past proceedings, I can scarcely bring myself to believe that a motion of impeachment can be seriously intended. If any such intention has been entertained, it must have been conceived in a moment of sudden violence, forgetting all that has been already said or done upon this subject. Is it meant that a civil prosecution, under the direction of the attorney-general, is to be going on in one place, where I am to be examined upon oath, and the result of that examination communicated to the managers of the impeachment, to aid them, in their conduct of their criminal accusation in another place?—I am confirmed in my conviction, that an impeachment can never be seriously intended or persevered in, from attending to other circumstances, and in particular to that of the many illustrious names, members of another house of parliament, which have been prefixed to requisitions for calling meetings, or have actually attended them in various parts of the country, expressing very violent and inflammatory opinions, founded on what they supposed to be the import of the resolutions passed by the house of commons. In the case of an impeachment, these peers would be the judges of the person chiefly aimed at in those extrajudicial proceedings. It will scarcely be supposed, that no communications on this subject have passed between the great authorities in this house, Who have taken a lead in its proceedings, and many of those noble lords to whom I have referred, and it is altogether inconsistent with a belief of such communications, to suppose that a motion of impeachment could be intended; for it appears incredible, that under such circumstances, those high and honourable characters could have been induced to take a part so totally irreconcileable with the judicial functions they might be called upon to perform.—I believe I am accurate in the recollection of a circumstance which just occurs to me. It was on the occasion of the trials a few years ago at Maidstone, the circumstances of which will be easily recollected. A gentleman of the name of Raikes was challenged as a juryman, and the challenge sustained, on accout of his having been heard to utter intemperate language with regard to the objects of the trials; and this was considered as sufficient to disqualify him from sitting as a juryman upon their trial.—It has been rumoured, that other modes of trial have been thought of, in the shape of indictment. But on that subject, likewise, I am disposed to be incredulous: for I am sure, if any such measure had been in contemplation, no member of parliament would have been induced to take part in the harangues and resolutions of meetings of every-description, and even in this metropolis, calculated to poison the public feelings, and prejudice the minds of those from whom the jurymen must be selected, if such criminal prosecution were to take place.—Upon this subject of prosecution by indictment, I must repeat the same observation I have already made on that of impeachment. It would be an attempt at double punishment. Fine or imprisonment are the usual modes of punishment in the case of a conviction on an indictment in a court of law; but is there any man, circumstanced as I have been in life, who would ever consider what has happened in consequence of the interposition of parliament, as a lesser punishment than that which I have stated as the usual result of a criminal conviction? This proposition may be distorted by any subterfuge which ingenuity may devise; but it is impossible seriously to maintain, that an attack upon me, in the form of a criminal prosecution, would not be an attempt to load me with reiterated punishment, and that too, aggravated by the methods which have been already resorted to, for the purpose of poisoning and prejudicing the public mind.—These impressions are so strong and so convincing to my mind, that I feel secure no further proceedings will be taken against me, and therefore I should think myself guilty of an unnecessary waste of your time, if I were to insist upon them more at large. Perhaps I ought to be aware, that in cases of persons of rank, and who have filled high situations in government, their accusers may think themselves at liberty to pursue lines of conduct, which would be reckoned reprehensible and oppressive, if adopted in the case of a cottager or a peasant: but even that has its bounds, and there are certain fixed and unalterable principles, which cannot be departed from, in any case, without weakening in the minds of all ranks, that confidence in the pure administration of justice, which is essential to the happiness and safety of every inhabitant of a free country.—I have already expressed my hopes, that nothing in the course of this day has fallen from me, in any degree disrespectful to the assembly which, with their indulgence, I have been permitted to address. But I equally trust, I cannot be liable to censure if I have not, in any part of what I have said, shewn a disposition to deprecate, by humiliating submission, any of the future evils which may be in contemplation against me. I have lived too long not to know, that popular clamour often dies away as rapidly as it is excited. A time may come, and I hope it is not far distant, when those who now pursue my conduct with such unexampled rigour, will perceive their error, and become conscious of the injustice I have suffered through misconception and misrepresentation.—circumstances not in my power with honour to control, debar me from the possibility of uttering what it would be undoubtedly my personal interest to disclose. I despair not, even in my own time, to receive ample justice from my deluded country. This is, however, not the period to enter upon that theme. But I feel the consciousness of my own rectitude deeply implanted in my breast, and I shall descend to my grave with the heartfelt satisfaction, that, however the shafts of severity and cruelty may be levelled against me at the present moment, the future impartial historian will be able to hand down my name, in the list of those who have strenuously, and I hope not ineffectually, exerted, during a long life of public service, their unremitting endeavours to promote the welfare and the dearest and most essential interests of their country.—His lordship then withdrew, and after a short pause,

Mr. Whitbrcad rose and spoke as follows:—Sir, it must have been a great satisfaction to the house, I am sure it has been a great satisfaction to me, that the noble lord who is the subject of accusation, and against whom the house of commons came to certain resolutions on a former might, has at last taken an opportunity of defending himself. It would be a further source of satisfaction to me, if the noble lord could have been present during the observation I shall have occasion to make upon that defence. After the noble lord had stated his conviction of his innocence, one would naturally have expected, that, in order to have proved it, and in order that he might have appeared to posterity in the colours he wished to be represented in, he would have said, "find me some means of being put on my trial; find me some means of proving my innocence; let me not rest on my own assertions," those assertions contradictory with one another, contradictory with the evidence of others, and with his own evidence on oath; those assertions which, in the present state of the question, it is impossible for us to take notice of, and I am persuaded the house of commons will not be contented with. But the noble lord, supposing he was willing to put himself on his trial, which it appears he is most unwilling to do, has told us that there is no tribunal by which he can be tried. He says, ";you must not impeach me, because you have prejudged my cause; you cannot try me, because unfavourable impressions have been excited in the public mind against me." Undoubtedly impressions of an unfavourable nature have been made in the mind of every man, they have found their vent in expressions of public indignation; and now, because he has conducted himself in a way which has created the prejudice he complains of, he says, "my conduct has been such, that I cannot be tried." He says, "I challenge and arraign, not the pannel of the jury, not the array, but the whole country; there is not a man fit to sit on my trial; that if there was an impartial tribunal, yet that you have so fettered yourselves by your proceedings, that you have rendered yourselves incompetent to vote either on the motion which I shall propose to you, or even on any other. I deny the assertion. There is no proceeding we have already adopted which is inconsistent with any other we may adopt, and I call on the right hon. gent. opposite (the attorney general) carefully to watch every word I shall offer to the house. I beg leave to say this, because there was something in the speech of the noble lord, which reminds me of what fell on a former evening from a right hon. gent. (Mr. Canning) as to what was the sense of the committee on this subject. He asked me whether, in addressing the house, I spoke as the organ of the committee of which I was a member. The question was unnecessary, for he well know I did not speak as the organ of that committee. I did not profess to do so. If the committee had expressed its sentiments to this house by any organ, it would have been by its chairman in preference to me; but although the question was not necessary, it might not have been put without design. The right hon. gent. might have meant to have insinuated, that if I did not speak as the organ of the committee, I perhaps spoke against the sense of the committee. That insinuation I deny. Whatever the private opinions of the committee were, they have expressed none;and I am at liberty to give notice, and to make the motion which I shall have the honour of submitting to the house. With regard to the proceedings, they stand thus: the house of commons voted the 14 resolutions of the 8th of April, after which I proposed that the whole of the report should be referred to a select committee, meaning to enquire into lord Melville's participation of the profits of the public money. The house thought proper to restrict the committee, and I was persuaded to bring forward a motion for a civil process. Feeling the difficulties with which I had to contend, I abstained from making the motion I intended, and the house only voted for a select committee with restrictions, which were found ineffectual, and were directly against that course of justice which would but for those restrictions have been pursued. A civil suit was moved as well as a criminal prosecution. The house adopted the civil suit; but is that to be considered as a bar to the prosecution? Will any man profess that the one can operate as a bar to the other? Were it so, in what situation would the commons of England stand? What would be the power of the crown, if, when any person was guilty of malversation in office, the crown could direct a civil process against him, and it was to be considered as a bar to an impeachment by the commons; or if the crown was to order the attorney general to institute a civil process, in what situation would the justice of the country be placed, if it could be contended that this was a bar to a criminal prosecution? I would ask, are there never two different processes going forward at the same time? Are such proceedings unknown to the law of the land? In the common case of an assault, we often find that a civil action and a criminal prosecution are both instituted at the same time. Where a case is so atrocious as to call not only for restitution, but also for example on the part of the public, the two actions stand on the same foundation. Is there any difference as to the principle in the present instance? The civil suit is to recover money, the criminal prosecution to punish the offender. Notwithstanding all the noble lord has said, sure I am that the country would not consider the restitution of the money from the pocket of the noble lord, as any compensation. But, supposing that having ordered the civil process, the law was that we could not have the impeachment, what in such case should we do? We should cut the knot. We should order the learned gent. over the way (the attorney general) to abandon the civil process. But there is another thing which I might propose. I might propose that the civil suit should be abandoned as unworthy of the least consideration in the punishment of the delinquent, or it should be suspended till the criminal prosecution was at an end. The noble lord has said, "will you do this with respect to my case, which was never done in any evidence against me to be taken out of one court, to be produced against me in another?" No, I would not. What was the case with regard to Mr. Hastings, when he was impeached by the commons? A civil process instituted by an individual was going on against him in the court of chancery at the same time. Lord Thurlow ordered it to be suspended. This is what I recommend to be done in the present case: let the civil process be suspended. I should, however, imagine, that the right hon. and learned gent. over the way has not made any very great progress in obtaining the evidence that may be necessary to give effect to the civil prosecution. I do not think he has any evidence that would be of much use to those who conducted the criminal prosecution.—With regard to the latter part of the noble lord's speech, in which he appeals to the feelings of the house, I have only to say, that there is no man more alive to such an appeal than I am. I am not surprized that a person in his high station, so degraded as he is, should feel as he professes to do, the situation in which he is placed. I hope every man feels for such a degradation of rank. For the relatives of the noble lord I feel unfeigned sorrow and regret; but it is not for me or any man to suffer those the feelings to interfere with the duty due to the public. It is the case with every man who commits an act which subjects him to the. animadversion of the law. Some of his relation must necessarily suffer, perhaps more than he does himself.—But, sir, as to the defence set up by the noble lord, it does fall so far short of any thing calculated to diminish the ground of accusation against the noble lord, that I confess it appears to me he has rather furnished topics on those parts where I felt that nothing new could be said, and on which the house of commons have already voted condemnation. The noble lord has said, and his friends have said, has he not been already sufficiently punished? I answer, he has not. The resolutions voted by this house were carried to the foot of the throne; they contained a proposition to remove him from his majesty's person and government. The noble lord resigned his office of first lord of the admiralty. The right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer suffered him to withdraw himself from the punishment which would have attended the carrying those resolutions into effect. At a subsequent time, when there was a notice of a motion given to remove him from his majesty's councils, the right hon. gent. again suffered him to withdraw his name. The striking his name from the list of privy council, was the mere act of the sovereign by the advice of the right hon. gent. who would not have given it, if he had not expected that he would have been beaten, if the question had been discussed in this house. Now I say, that, on the report of the select committee, such new matter has come out, that it is impossible not to move the impeachment, or some other criminal proceeding. It was said, that it was not necessary to go into the enquiry as to the participation, and restrictions were imposed on the committee, which precluded the enquiry; but, without any intention, things did incidentally come out, that induce me to charge the noble lord with having participated in the profits of the public money. It may be said, "You did not intend to enquire into that charge." True; but it would have been a gross dereliction of our duty if we had not enquired into all the circumstances, after we had partly discovered them. Reduce this to the analogy of private life. Suppose an agent or steward was to be guilty of partiality towards a tenant, to the prejudice of his landlord—suppose the landlord should say to a lawyer, "examine into his accounts; but he is so far from having been guilty of peculation, that I do not even suspect him; therefore you need not make any enquiry on that point." Suppose, on investigating the charge of partiality, that it should appear there were symptoms of corruption, and that the steward had been partial from corrupt motives, would it not be proper, in such case, to proceed with the enquiry? If it incidentally comes to the knowledge of the house of commons, that the noble lord has acted from corrupt motives, what can the house do but adopt the impeachment I have proposed, in order that, by a full trial of all the facts, the guilt or innocence of the noble lord May appear? Give me leave to say, that I apprehend we are but on the verge and brink of that system of corruption which has just been discovered. But by the foot of Hercules you may judge of his site; by the finger of a giant you may form an estimate of his strength. Whether my suspicions are well or ill founded, it is impossible for me to say; but I am satisfied it cannot be proved that the noble lord is innocent, unless he does pass on his trial. We cannot blink the conduct of his lordship. Upon the report of the select committee, I charge the noble lord, and call on the house to impeach him on three distinct grounds. First, to impeach him for the infringement of a direct act of parliament, and a high breach of duty, in violating that law, which he has contended he did not violate; and I now redeem the pledge I gave on a former night, to submit a motion to the house for a prosecution against the noble lord, for participating in the emoluments derived from the use of the public money. I also charge him with having, by false pretences, defrauded the public of money; and, above all, by the acquittance he obtained on account of the business of Mr. Jellicoe. What he suffered to be done by Mr. Trotter was a manifest evasion of the law. He says he never evaded the law of the land, or that if he violated the law, he did not violate it grossly. I maintain he did violate the law in the grossest manner. Did we know of nothing more than what is contained in the 10th report, it would be sufficient; I therefore shall detain the house as short a time as possible. We find, in the first instance, that Mr. Trotter had the authority of the noble lord to draw all the money for the navy pay-office out of the bank. The noble lord confessed to certain sums being drawn from the bank, and placed in the hands of a private banker, as necessary to the business of the office. The noble lord would have us believe that there was some limitation with regard to the mode of drawing on the bank. I maintain be had unlimited power. He drew for a million at a time, and he might have drawn for all the money in the bank, and he might have placed it where he pleased. These are facts which have been acknowledged, and therefore I need scarcely take any notice of them. The noble lord put the public money beyond his own control. After it was placed in the hands of Messrs. Coutts, the noble lord had nothing to do with it. Messrs. Coutts might have gone off with it, without the possibility of Mr. Trotter's obtaining restitution. Lord Melville not only delegated this power to Mr. Trotter, but Mr. Trotter delegated it to Mr. Wilson. When Mr. Trotter went to Scotland, he left Mr. Wilson bank drafts to be filled up as he thought proper. Mr. Wilson might have taken the money to Drummond's, without being answerable to either lord Melville or Mr. Trotter. Mr. Wilson might have done the same thing as to any other clerk in the office, and that clerk as to another in an inferior capacity; so that there might have been no end to the risk the public ran by lord Melville giving his implicit confidence to Mr. Trotter, and allowing him to draw money from the bank. I am afraid these deputies' deputies are a great deal too common. This reminds me of a story of a sovereign coming into an apartment of his palace, and finding a ragged boy busily employed in doing what he employed a servant in scarlet livery for. Upon the king asking him who he was, he replied, "I am the page's page's page's page." In the present case, there was no reason why the principle might not have been continued to the lowest deputy in office. I have expressed a strong opinion of the conduct of the right hon. gent. over the way (Mr. Canning). I think he is to blame for not having dismissed Mr. Wilson. With regard to Mr. Wilson, from what I have been of him, I am induced to think that no one can be more correct than he appears to be. No person could have given his tesmony with more candour and fairness than he did. I have heard that in his office he is highly useful; but having heard that, I think the right hon. gent. is not justified in continuing him in the office under him: for, whether it was from misapprehension of the consequence of his refusal to answer the naval commissioners, yet certain it was, he did stand mute, when he might have given very useful information. This was a line of conduct by no means creditable to him, and it ought to have been marked by that punishment which would have been inflicted by his dismissal.—The noble lord has said, that to these articles of charge, he never had any opportunity, before this, of making any defence. He forgets that he was examined on oath before the naval commissioners; he is no novice in business; yet, though the question was not put to him in writing, one would have thought he could have given intelligible answers. He said he was taken by surprise. But this is not all. When the tenth report was printed, how did it happen that the noble lord did not see the precedent sooner which he had very properly availed himself of this day? Why did he not write a letter to you, sir, before, desiring to be heard in his defence at the bar of the house? No person is more acquainted with precedents than the noble lord. But what does he do? He writes to the commissioners, and says, "I should wish to be examined again, in order to make an explanation of some part of my evidence." Does he say he will go before the house of commons? No! he writes the letter to the commissioners, and states that he will lay it before the house of commons as his entire defence to the charge. There was no charge of direct participation, nor was there now, until the noble lord spoke. When the noble lord observed with regard to the conduct and machinery of office, he said a great many extraordinary things. He stated, that the act of parliament was very incomplete; that it was not so good as the paymaster's act, that the one was a short act and the other a long one, comprising a much greater number of clauses; that the one did not go quite so far as the other. It was the noble lord who brought in the act, and he had many opportunities afforded him of amending it, and of altering it Where it required regulation. Have not the public reason to blame him for not coming to parliament for a new bill, if the first was insufficient? With regard to Mr. Trotter, who is the person through whose agency the whole of this business was conducted, the noble lord would have you believe that Mr. Trotter is not a person in whom confidence ought to be reposed. He said, he knew he had some money of him, but he would have us believe it was a small sum, though he knew that Mr. Wilson drew out 40,000l. to be disposed of in a way to which I shall not allude this night, because it will be a subject of future discussion.—With respect to the money in the hands of the private banker, for which interest was paid, the noble lord says, that the reason it was so placed was owing to the circumstance of his knowing that it was the custom of the bankers of Scotland to allow interest for the money lodged in their hands. He must have known that it was not the custom of Messrs. Coutts or Drummond to allow interest, at least in ordinary transactions. In extraordinary transactions, where large balances are left in bankers' hands for a certain time, they do give a small interest while it is in their possession. I think the noble lord is sufficiently conversant with business to know what the custom is; but he states that Mr. Trotter advised him; and yet he pronounces a panegyric on him, stating that he recommended himself, by the hints he gave for the relief of seamen. All this might be very useful; but if Mr. Trotter had deceived him, he should not have continued him in office, but he should have told the right hon. gent. (Mr. Canning) that he was not the man whom it was proper to employ. The noble lord said, Mr. Trotter would have given evidence to the effect he had stated, if he had been asked this or that question, which Would have given him the opportunity. He has been asked in various ways whether lord Melville participated in the profits of the public money, and he said he never would give any account. The noble lord says, that previous to his examination before the naval commissioners, there was such a mixed account that he Could not particularize it. Is there any man of common sense who will believe that Mr. Trotter could not have discriminated between the different items of the account by the mere operation of subtraction? Would the noble lord believe Mr. Coutts if he should say to him, "really I have lost my books of accounts, but I have 50,000l. of your money, you must take it as you can." Even in that case, it would be easy to ascertain the precise nature of the account. It would only be necessary to go to the different counters at the bank, and desire the, clerks to write down the different balances of the public money. The result would be, that all above that would be his lordship's private property. You are told, that if Trotter's accounts are complicated, Coutts's are more so. Suppose Trotter was to ask what money he had at Coutts's, and was to be told that the accounts of the shop were so blended, that it was impossible to separate the one from the other, would Mr. Trotter believe this? Such an assertion would be fundamentally false. With regard to Mr. Trotter's fortune, it is all public money. He was a person originally not in an affluent situation. It was because he was a meritorious man that lord Melville promoted him. To what? To a salary of thousands? No, to five hundred a year only. Did that enable him to enjoy the comforts and luxuries of life, and at the same time to increase his fortune to an extent enabling him to lend large sums of money to lord Melville? It was either public money, or money illegally laid out. Lord Melville says the act of parliament is so constructed that it is impossible to abide by it. I should have said, make the act consistent. Would any one think of giving a banker's check to a poor seaman who came for a small sum of money? Certainly not. Consequently there must be money at the office for the regular payments required to be made. It would be impossible to be resorting continually either to a private banker's, or even to the bank. The noble lord had again pronounced panegyric on Mr. Trotter: he says there was no loss, no risk in what was done. I am really ashamed to take up the time of the house in arguing this part of the case. It is the weakest part of the defence to state that it was for greater safety and expedition that the money was at a private banker's. By law it ought to have been at the bank of England; against law it was at a private banker's; the risk was therefore run by lord Melville, whose money it was not.—Before I proceed to the question of participation, I come to the losses to the public. I believe that if this trial were to go on, it would be found the public have sustained losses to a considerable amount. In one instance, there is the sum of 2000l. a year, for 16 years, the noble lord's additional salary, which has clearly been lost to the public. Why was that salary granted? It was on condition that he should not take the money out of the bank. He has violated that condition, and he ought therefore to return the salary he has received, to do that which he has not done. The subject of the navy bills will be for future investigation, when the trial is gone into. He says, there are only two persons who can give any information, himself and Mr. Trotter. He has not positively denied that he made a profit of the public money. As to Mr. Trotter, he would not inform you. He was examined two or three times. He is asked a question respecting Tierney, which he answers, and then another as to lord Melville?, which he refuses to answer. He afterwards came back with a written statement of the advances to lord Melville; he has three days to consider; he makes a deliberate statement of advances of from 10 to 20,000l. Mr. Trotter is described as a person of infirm memory, but he recollects himself a little: though he said at first there were no advances, he has brought them up now to the amount. of 46,000l. Lord Melville has not contradicted any of the statements made by Mr. Trotter. From what I have seen of Mr. Trotter, he is a man of infirm memory, but a person of infirm memory does not wholly forget facts. He only recollects them gradually. He is like a person who, having been in a dream, is just awake. I have no doubt, when he comes to recollect himself, but we shall hear of more, of many more advances. Before the report of the committee, there were strong grounds to infer the participation of lord Melville. It was natural to be supposed he would not have run the risk he did, or have placed such confidence in Mr. Trotter for nothing. His refusing to answer before the naval commissioners is a strong presumption. Is that done away by what he has said to-day? He has never told us that he did not make a profit of the public money. I have shewn that the presumption is strong against him; that Trotter's fortune has been raised out of the public money. From the period the noble lord went out of office to the present time, he has been in possession of 5000l. the balance of his ex-treasurership; we find his balance was not paid up. This is a strong circumstance of presumption. Another is, that before the committee of fees and gratuities in 1786, and the committee of finance in 1797, the circumstance of public money being lodged at private bankers, to increase the salary of Mr. Trotter, was not made known to the committee. There is another strong circumstance, the books of accounts being destroyed; though the noble lord dwelt on that fact with great ingenuity, he did not convince me. It is only by the trial he can convince the world that the books were not destroyed for the purpose of concealment. The noble lord says, that after his retirement to Scotland, he was in the habit occasionally of burning useless papers. He has only burnt occasionally some, and yet he knows there are none remaining. This is an extraordinary circumstance, from which I presume guilt. To whom did the papers and books belong? To lord Melville and Mr. Trotter? No, the public was the third party. It was in the books so burnt that the transactions of the navy pay-office were recorded. It is to be presumed, that if all these transactions were innocent, the books and papers would have been preserved for the justification of the person who had the trafficking with the public money. These circumstances, however, are considerably aggravated by the report of the select committee, particularly by larger advances having been made than were before acknowledged. The advances by Mr. Trotter to lord Melville were without, interest; how these advances have been appropriated, lord Melville has most unblushingly told you he will not reveal. The noble lord. states, they burnt the vouchers immediately after the execution of the release in which there is that extraordinary clause. He had been out of office two years before the execution of that release. Mr. Trotter had been in office up to the time without any thing to call for it; upon a sudden it strikes Mr. Trotter, that it might be necessary to exonerate the heirs of lord Melville. It is a strong presumption of guilt, that the precept for the balances of the navy were issued at this period. Mr. Trotter thought that something might come of the transactions between him and lord Melville: he went to Mr. Spottiswoode, and the release was prepared. Immediately afterwards the sympathetic conflagration of papers began: thus, what was stated to be a casual burning of papers, turns out to have been premeditated, and the result of an agreement. Is it not known that persons lose the exercise of their reason and judgment, when they have done something they are afraid of being detected in? Their fear, anxiety, and over-caution, frequently lead to the detection of what they wish to conceal. These are strong presumptions of guilt, which have been highly aggravated, by the report.—There is another circumstance strongly enforcing the guilt of the noble lord, which came out in evidence before the last committee. It exonerates the right hon. gent. opposite from having known any thing of the private profit obtained by lord Melville. Who is that right hon. gent.? The brother minister and friend of the noble lord, the person to whom he ought to have revealed every thing of a secret nature; but if the right hon. gent. had known of such transaction, he would have stopped it. When the noble lord had the conversation with Mr. Pitt, he did not tell him that one of the purposes for withdrawing the money was to raise Mr. Trotter's salary. He said, he did not believe that more was taken from die bank than was necessary. The right hon. gent. placed a false confidence in the noble lord who concealed the truth from him. If Trotter's salary was inadequate, that was the time to have mentioned it; but the noble lord knew the right hon. gent. would have prohibited it, and therefore he did not tell it him. What did lord Harrowby say? His reason for not enquiring is an aggravation of lord Melville's offence. He says, that as the office was regulated by several acts of parliament, brought in by his immediate predecessor, he had no reason to suppose that any irregularity was committed. No man could have supposed it, for lord Melville concealed it till the commissioners of naval enquiry extorted it. The right hon. gent. says, he does not believe lord Melville adverted at all to the act of parliament, or thought that the practice was illegal. One would have thought when the noble lord was so defective in memory that he would not have destroyed those valuable scraps. Nothing is so little under control as the memory. I hope, whenever I am called upon to give my evidence, there will be sonic document to assist, my memory. The right hon. gent. over the way, who is the brightest star of oratory, who has often surprized the house by his sudden and unassisted memory of facts, and his facility of bringing them to bear, every circumstance is brought by the effort of his memory in a focus; yet when you ask him a plain question, he says he cannot perfectly recollect. This is that which makes me lament the destruction of the papers. If all those circumstances were to go before a jury, after the noble lord has peremptorily challenged the whole array, or selected twelve men from among his own friends, I think it would be im- possible for him not to be found guilty But, what do I ask you? I know there is circumstantial evidence which is irresistible, but I know that circumstantial evidence may be overturned by a single fact. I do not ask you to convict him, but only to find a bill to put him on his trial. Let him pass on his trial. The noble lord, in his letter to the commissioners, states one reason for not giving his evidence; he premises that he has given instructions to Mr. Trotter, to disclose whatever he knew, and yet Trotter refuses to tell any thing. It is impossible Trotter should not know what he paid into the hands of lord Melville. He asserts, he never was in advance more than from 10 to 20,000l. The noble lord does not deny it in his letter; he does not deny it now: there is a mixed phraseology in his defence, between denial and avowal: the inference is, that he does not recollect. He omits saving any thing about the 20,000l. He says that the advance only happened once; Mr. Trotter states it was many times. These two persons are at variance. Let us go to trial. Here are two men accusing each other; one saying, you have made false statements, and yet who continue to panegyrise each other. There is such a difference between them, that it is a fit matter to be enquired into. We should know how far the public have been defrauded. There are various other sums in the report. I will take the 23,000l. which was lent without interest. In order to show that the money did not come from Mr. Trotter, it should have been proved whom else it did come from. There is another sum of 23,000l. advanced through Mr. Tweedy. The noble lord never tells us how or when he repaid it. I have a right to presume that it is public money. Trotter could have nothing in his possession, but the public money. That part of the transaction remained perfectly unexplained. There was direct proof that lord Melville would not even trust his right hon. friend opposite (Mr. Pitt) with his secrets when in office, as he would not in form him what he had done with part of the public money. His lordship would not have told what had become of the 40,000l. had he been asked concerning it. Was it to be supposed that he would sacrifice his private fortune for the public good? His lordship had said, that he had not employed any of the money for his own use or advantage: but I must still deny that any such inference can possibly be drawn from all the circumstances the case. It is evident that both the 10,000l. and the 23,000l. alluded to, have been employed for lord Melville's private purposes. Even supposing that his lordship's character was spotless, and his innocence undoubted, it was totally impossible that he (lord M.) could obtain that wish which he had expressed, that his name might descend to posterity with his reputation unblemished, so long as such serious charges lay against him uncontradicted by proof, of without his being put upon his trial. If his lordship had a friend in the house—if he had a relation in the world to whom his character was dear—if he had a heart to feel what every honest man ought to feel, even although they had all shackled themselves with forms as he himself had done, his lordship ought to say to them, "get over these forms, and suffer me to go before my peers, that I may by the oaths of witnesses purge myself of such suspicion of criminality." So far from acting thus, however, his lordship has only said, "I am innocent, but do not try me." I shall leave any impartial man to form an opinion upon his lordship's character. Was it possible for posterity to come to a perfect knowledge of these transactions, when his lordship thus refused to furnish the clue to them?—I have thus gone through the most material charges against lord Melville, if I have succeeded at all, I may assure myself that every man of honour must necessarily vote with what I am about to propose to the house. Before concluding, however, there is another charge against lord Melville, which I cannot help noticing. His lordship had obtained the sum of 24,000l. under false pretences, and under statements that could not be borne out. I shall have occasion to animadvert more fully on those matters when treating of the conduct of other individuals, which stands totally without justification. I shall at present confine myself to the case of lord Melville. Mr. Jellicoe was in the office of paymaster, or deputy paymaster, at the time lord Melville was appointed to the office of treasurer. That gent. was in the habit of having balances to a considerable amount in his custody. It struck lord Melville, in looking over those balances, that they never decreased below a certain sum. His lordship had brought Mr. Jellicoe before him, and interrogated him upon this subject. An answer was given to the questions put by his lordship, and securities were offered by Mr. Jellicoe, which appear never to have been taken. Owing to these circumstances, and his having large sums of the public money in his hands, Mr. Jellicoe had been tempted to do that which he would not have done, had not his conduct been so overlooked by those who were over him, and whose duty it was to superintend these matters. Was it not the duty of lord Melville, I must ask, on discovering the circumstances of Mr. Jellicoe's case, immediately to suspend him if he did not make good his balances? Had his lordship followed such a line of procedure on this occasion, that gent. (Mr. Jellicoe) might have lived longer, and died happier than he had done. It is alledged for his lordship, that circumstances of commiseration influenced his conduct, and prevented him from suspending Mr. Jellicoe from his office. It is not unfair, however, to argue, that the compassion of lord Melville, in abstaining, from taking notice of Mr. Jellicoe's deficiency, proceeded from particular circumstances. It is stated in the evidence, that lord Melville's political and confidential friend never questioned the truth of what his lordship had asserted, nor ever called for any evidence concerning it. In the case of a political friend, it is natural to place an implicit confidence; so the right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Pitt) took it for granted every thing was true, and adopted the plan that was first suggested to him. After searching for precedents during a period of fourteen years, none were found to justify the measures adopted. There was an intention of obtaining money from parliament to make up Mr. Jellicoe's deficiency, merely because lord Melville said that there were some hopes entertained that parliament would make his patent for cast iron more valuable, by granting him remuneration. There is another extraordinary feature in these transactions, which shews the real spirit of them. It is repeatedly said by lord Melville and Mr. Trotter, that the principal part of the balances had accrued before his lordship came into office. Notwithstanding this, lord Melville entrusted Mr. Jellicoe with 20,000l. or 30,000l. even after he discovered his real situation. At one period his lordship even suffered that balance to amount to 37,000l. On account of the statements made by lord Melville on this particular subject, it is absolutely necessary that he should go to trial upon it; for without such investigation, neither the house nor the public can be satisfied. Lord Melville said much about the manlier in which he came to be treasurer of the navy, and that he did not accept of it for the purposes of private emolument. I would wish to know when it was ever established as a rule, that the office of the treasurer of the navy should always go to the person at the head of the board of control? The one office had nothing to do with the other. It was therefore solely for the purpose of emolument that his lordship had accepted of both these offices. His lordship had continued secretary of state from year to year for the space of ten years, and had at length talked of retiring to Scotland for the remainder of his life. No such thing, however, has happened. On the first dawn Of an alteration in administration, up comes lord Melville from Scotland, with 40 or 50 proxies, saying he was not too old or infirm to stand candidate again. His lordship must have known well, that his right hon. friend opposite could not spare him. It is evident that he procured the office of treasurer of the navy merely as a sinecure, for the purpose of deriving certain profits. This, upon trial, will be proved to satisfaction.—There are several objections urged against the further prosecution of lord Melville. I say he has not been punished for any of the acts he has committed. Had no fresh evidence come out on the further investigation of the 10th report, I should not probably have called on the house to inflict any additional censure or punishment. I feel it however to be my bounden duty not to propose a conviction and punishment, but only to ask that his lordship be put upon his trial. In laying this matter again before the house, I fully relied upon the support of his friends, on account of such a motion being the only means of proving his lordship's innocence. It is no doubt some what unfortunate, that when we are so much occupied in considering of the means of defending ourselves from the attacks of foreign enemies, we should also have occasion thus to distract our attention to other matters; but, notwithstanding all I have heard argued upon the necessity of leaving off all other considerations than our national safety and defence, I know, and am convinced of the fact, that no time is so proper for trying delinquents as the present time, or the moment their crimes are committed. If any delay is occasioned, delinquencies will never be tried at all. If we are occupying ourselves with minor considerations, instead of great concerns, the fault attached to those delinquents themselves who had so offended. With regard to the length of time that may be occupied in such an impeachment, I shall only say, that so far as depends on me, no delay shall be occasioned. The matter lies now within a very narrow compass, and the whole business may be accomplished within a very short period. In the case of lord Macclesfield, the space of 25 days was only occupied in proving his guilt upon his trial. In the present case, perhaps, a similar period might be occupied, so that the loss of time cannot be deemed very material. Some talk of the expences that would be necessarily incurred. This, however, is a very absurd consideration. If we are too poor to be robbed, we are not too poor to demand justice. No sum of money would be too great for accomplishing the punishment, or establishing the innocence of lord Melville. His lordship has dwelt on his greatness; he has been raised to another house of higher dignity than this; that he has not been raised to that dignity by a monarch whom he has deceived and betrayed, is an object worthy of being ascertained. He is a new peer, raised to that dignity under a minister, now a member also of the same house (lord Sidmouth), of whom I will say, that he never would have advised his majesty to raise lord Melville to that dignity, had he known of the transactions now known to the house of commons. But if a peer is disgraced by his practices, it ought to be known to that house that he is a disgraced man. Such a character is not meant to sit there. I will not move the articles of impeachment now, but shall content myself at present with moving, "that Henry lord viscount Melville be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanours."

Mr. Bond, after expressing his agreement in opinion with the hon. gent. that some farther proceedings should be taken in this affair, declared his dissent from him as to the mode which he proposed to pursue; to which he should therefore offer an amendment. The proceedings of the house in this business seemed to have become somewhat embarrassed, and, with the leave of the house, he would take a short review of them. When the hon. gent. first brought forward his motion for a censure of the conduct of lord Melville, he had voted against it, because he considered it as premature, and that it was not founded on a knowledge of all the circumstances of the case. The motion, however, for censure had been carried. The next step was the appointment of a select committee to investigate closely the allegations of the tenth report. Restrictions were imposed on that committee, satisfactory, no doubt, to those who proposed them, but quite the reverse to him. The question that then came to be discussed was, whether a civil or a criminal prosecution should be instituted. Resolutions of censure had already been passed against lord Melville. He could not agree with those who asserted that this was no punishment of the noble lord; he should think himself wanting in respect to the dignity of the house, did he agree with them; for his part, he should consider the expressed disapprobation of the house, as one of the greatest calamities that could befall him. After this, lord Melville resigned his high situation as first lord of the admiralty; and here again he must differ from those who asserted that this was not the necessary effect of the vote of censure. The striking off the noble lord's name from the list of the privy council was it questionably the effect of that vote. Under these circumstances, feeling that this punishment was in itself severe, and being satisfied that if the ends of justice were Satisfied, the most lenient modes should be adopted for that purpose, he supported the motion for a civil process, because that was the milder measure. The question now was, is there not new matter sufficient to warrant a different mode of procedure from that originally adopted? He contended that the circumstances recently disclosed were not only new, but in a much higher degree criminating than any that had hitherto appeared. They proved decidedly the participation of lord Melville in the profits made by his agent. In the first place, 10,000l. which lord Melville avowed to have been expended in the secret service of Scotland, and which he declared, on being questioned as to its application, that no human power should wrench it from him; was that a satisfactory answer? was is not rather a most dangerous precedent? and who could say at what point it might stop? Did the noble lord lend this sum, or give it away? If it was a gift, when was it repaid? If it was a loan, how was it possible, whatever curious and delicate circumstances might have attended the transaction at the time in 1796, that so many years should have elapsed without allowing of its being divulged? At a subsequent period there was a sum of 11,000l. unaccounted for. Were these not new facts? The charge was not that lord Melville had been a gainer by any particular speculation, but that the public money had been generally diverted from its proper course, from which he had derived advantage. It was proved by evidence, that money had been so diverted, that the noble lord had laid his hands on it, that it had come into his possession, and it was but fair to conclude, that the charge of profiting by it was established. These two grounds were a sufficient justification of a criminal prosecution; but there were other strong facts in reserve. The hon. gent. adverted to the conversation between Mr. Pitt and lord Melville after the communication made to the former by Mr. Raikes, and reprobated the conduct of lord Melville in concealing the truth from his right hon. friend. It was impossible to blame that right hon. gent. for allowing himself to be deceived; he had many things of great importance pressing on his attention, and was obliged to place implicit confidence in those with whom he acted. No blame therefore attached to him, but very serious blame to the noble lord. When he practised that deception he knew that he was in the wrong, be knew that if the real state of the case was explained, the person to whom he was addressing himself would have effectually prevented the recurrence of such abuses.—Another strong fact was the circumstances attending the exchange of releases between lord Melville and Mr. Trotter. The noble lord pretended to say, that had it been his interest to conceal any part of this transaction, it would have been absurd to display it as he had done. But the display had not been very great. Neither Spottiswoode's partner nor clerk knew any thing about it; and as to the registration, it was notorious that were the foulest conspiracy that could pollute parchment sent to be registered, so indifferent were the clerks to what passed through their hands, that it would stand as little chance of becoming public as if it had been done in a foreign country. The date of this release created more than ordinary suspicion. The act instituting a commission of naval enquiry passed on December 29. The first precept of the commissioners was dated the 17th of the succeeding January; the second precept the 2d of February; and the release was signed by lord Melville on the 18th of the same month (hear! hear!).Immediately after we find the noble lord busily employed in destroying papers, &c. If all this was innocent, if it were merely the effect of chance, then was the noble lord the most unfortunate of men; but a coincidence so extraordinary required a great deal more explanations, and till that explanation was given, the impression on his mind, and on that of every honest man must be, that there existed grave grounds of doubt that it was not entirely the result of accident. Let it be remembered, that all he wanted was further enquiry. If the noble lord could acquit himself of the imputations on his character, he vowed to God he had no friend who would rejoice more sincerely than himself; but in the mean time, he felt it to be his duty to send him to that enquiry. The proceedings ought certainly to be criminal, but he dithered from the hon. gent. opposite as to the mode. There were two modes,—impeachment, and a criminal prosecution by the attorney general. In the present instance he should prefer the latter. Some cases were more fitted for the ordinary courts of justice, others for a high and enlightened tribunal. if impeachment was more dignified, it was likewise more cumbrous and expensive. Of this we had had many proofs. Would to God that one of them (the trial of Mr Hastings) could be blotted from our annals! Nothing human could be inure perfect than the administration of justice in the ordinary courts of Great Britain, and he trusted he should not hear any objection to the proposition, on the ground that the prosecution was under the management of an officer of the crown, when the high character of the attorney-general, for honour and integrity, was considered. Although the hon. gent. had hinted the propriety of suspending the civil suit now carrying on against lord Melville, he had not made a specific motion to that effect. He. would therefore insert it in his amendment, which would then run thus:—"That his majesty's attorney general be directed to prosecute Henry lord viscount Melville for the several offences which appear, from the re- port of the commissioners of naval enquiry and that of the select committee of the house of commons, to have been committed by the said Henry lord viscount Melville; and that the attorney general be directed to stay proceedings in the civil suit, instituted by order of the house, against the said Henry lord vicount Melville."

Mr. Whitbread, in explanation, observed that he meant to propose the suspension of the civil suit, if the impeachment should be carried.

The Master of the Rolls did not think it necessary to take up the time and attention of the house with entering into a detail of all that had already passed upon the case now before the house. But he would ask, was it not an object worthy of the attention of the house, that a notice had been publicly given of a motion to remove lord Melville from his majesty's councils; and that that motion, or the effects which might possibly flow from it (an additional censure and a punishment, in consequence of the proceedings of that, house), had only been prevented by the advice which his right hon. friend (Mr. Pitt) had given to that effect, and that his majesty had actually erased the name of that noble lord from the list of his privy counsellors? Was it not an object worthy of the attention of the house, that lord Melville had resigned a most principal and ostensible situation in the government of his country, in consequence of the determination of that house? Were not the resolutions of the 8th of April still unreversed; and were they to add the resolutions now proposed, to the punishment which he had already received? If the motion for an impeachment had taken precedence of the other proceedings, it would have been impossible, according to the regular proceedings authorized by the constitution of the country, to have added the former proceedings to that which is now proposed. By parity of reasoning, if not strictly a speaking contrary to the forms of our law, it would be, strictly speaking, according to the principles of justice, repugnant to all idea of equity and fair reasoning, that the two modes of punishment should be inflicted in this inverted order of proceeding. The only case that he recollected in which any thing similar was attempted was in that of lord Somers and three others. According to Bishop Burnet, it was evident that an address to the throne and an impeachment were moved upon the same ease. The lords, however, differed in opinion from the commons, and thought that it might be deemed a bad precedent; they sent up an humble address to the throne, expressive of these sentiments, and the sense of the public appeared to go with them. The sovereign also refused to give his Sanction to such an extraordinary mode of proceeding. Upon comparing that with the case now before the house, or at least with the proceedings had upon it, it would be recollected, that at first a vote of censure was passed upon the conduct of the noble peer who had been that evening heard in the body of the house in his own defence; the next subject of debate was, whether a criminal or civil prosecution should be instituted against him, and after that a committee was appointed to make further enquiries into the circumstances of the case; but that committee was precluded from any investigation as to the participation of the noble lord in the profits of public money, which, according to the terms of the resolutions, had been misapplied. Something, however, had incidentally come out which appeared like a proof of his participation, and the hon. gent. who had opened the debate had reserved himself to the present opportunity of bringing that before the house. But he could assure the house, that no positive evidence to that effect had appeared before the committee, although there were grounds for conjecture, principally arising from the idea of the commixture of accounts, and from the circumstance of papers having been burned which were at that time supposed to be useless. But there was no additional evidence as to these points. The circumstance of a release having passed between the parties, he conceived to be the only new point that was now brought forward; and, as far as any man could positively take on himself fairly to say, lord Melville might have been unacquainted with the minute clauses, or precise terms, of that release, though he knew, generally speaking, that a release was to be executed, and signed it in perfect confidence on the propriety of conduct of the party from whom it came. In such a case, it was necessary either to settle accounts and give up vouchers, or else to destroy them generally. The latter course was adopted; and as he was confident that, before any grand jury, that would not be sufficient evidence upon which to find a bill, he could not be induced to think that such a circumstance would form sufficient ground for that house bringing up an impeachment to the bar of the higher chamber of parliament. The hon. gent. who opened the debate had nevertheless thought that it afforded the strongest authority for the adoption of such a measure, and had given three principal reasons in support of his opinion. But, when the house came to consider of the first of them, namely, the charge of a breach of law by the manner in which he had applied the public money, they would find themselves under the necessity of revising their former proceeding before they could be enabled to come to a fresh determination upon that point. In fact, before the year 1782, it was a question which admitted of some doubt, whether the application of public money, in the manner which had been stated, was not to be considered the fair emolument of office; and even on a consideration of the act of drawing money from the bank, it did not appear to him that there was any thing criminal within the meaning of the act; there was no mention made about where the money was to be deposited after it was drawn from the bank, whether it was to be lodged in the strong chest at the navy office, or whether it might not be placed in the hands of the most convenient banker. But admitting to the full extent the idea of criminality as expressed already by the house, and to which determination it was his wish to pay the utmost possible respect, was it not to be recollected that the house had already made its option, that it had adopted a certain line of proceeding; that lord Melville had been already punished by the erasure of his name from the councils of his sovereign, by his loss of place, and by his future disqualification from holding any place of public trust in consequence of such proceedings? It was not proposed to undo the former part of his punishment, and it was contrary to all principle of law to punish any person a second time for the same offence. All punishment was inflicted for example's sake; and would any man presume to suppose that it was at all probable that any future treasurer of the navy would say, that the punishment of lord Melville was nothing, that he might follow a similar course with safety, provided there Was no danger of an impeachment?—There was one point of the speech of the hon. gent. who made the motion, however, on which he thought it would be necessary to make a single remark; it had been stated that the noble lord had challenged the whole country as unfit to sit upon his jury; that there was not at present an tribunal which was likely to come to a fair, dispassionate decision on his case. Was it of slight consequence that the commons of the united kingdom had come to a decision that he had beep guilty of a gross violation of law, and a high breach of duty? was it of slight consequence that meetings had been held in various parts of the country following up such a declaration? was it of slight consequence that peers of parliament had lent the sanction of their names to resolutions of a similar nature; or could any reasonable man suppose that it would be in the power of any individual whatever to do away the impression which would be made upon the minds of all classes of his majesty's subjects by the authority of such resolutions, or by the force of such examples? If any tribunal, however, could be chosen which was more pure than another, it was the assembly in which the subject was then discussed; they were not tied down by the forms of ordinary courts of justice; they were a discretionary court, and they would know how to appreciate the value of what had already passed, form a correct and impartial judgment as to what lord Melville had already suffered, and he had no doubt that they would, by a fair comparison of the nature of the charge with that of the punishment which has followed, very readily decide whether the noble lord has not been already punished in a proportion adequate to his offence, or whether there is a foundation in justice for bringing him to a new trial. To those who thought that lord Melville had, in the first instance, deserved to be impeached, he supposed it must now be clear that any further prosecution would be vexatious and unjust.

Earl Temple observed that the right hon. and learned gent. had chiefly rested on a comparison between the proceedings on the case of lord Melville with the ordinary course of proceedings in a court of justice, though he had admitted what constituted the most essential part of the difference between the proceedings in that house and those of a court of law, that is, that while the latter are confined by rules of law, the power of the former is discretionary. This was an argument why they should not be supposed to be fettered by any thing of adherence to the dry forms of law which might, in some instances, be favourable to the rejection of a charge on which the criminal ought, in strict justice, to be; found guilty and to receive the punishment of the law. The learned gent. however, could not wish that the noble lord should be freed from the charge which lay against him by any fiction of the law; it must be his wish that his lordship should be acquitted in a more honourable manner. For this reason, he supposed, he had quoted the case of lord Somers; but he had entirely omitted to notice the distinction between the two cases. In the case of lord Somers there was an address sent up to the throne, and an impeachment to be moved for in the house. In the case of lord Melville the house had only determined what appeared to them to be the nature of the offence committed by lord Melville, and left the sovereign to the exercise of his own feelings, without calling upon him for the expression of any opinion which might possibly be supposed to have weight in any other place. The learned gent. had mentioned in another part of his speech, that there was nothing new in what now appeared before the house. Was it not something new that the noble lord had himself acknowledged that he might have applied a considerable sum of money to the management of affairs in Scotland, and that he had added, that he would not on any account divulge the nature of these transactions? Was it not of serious importance that the noble lord had not related the whole of another transaction when questioned by the chancellor of the exchequer, but had concealed a part, even from him? And, with respect to the law, though it did not precisely state where naval money was to be placed, in transit from the bank to the hands of those who had demands upon the navy office, it stated clearly enough where it was not to be; it was not to be placed in the hands of Mr. Mark Sprott, or subjected to the control of Messrs. Coutts. He trusted the house would not lose any thing of its dignity by giving up a prosecution in a case where corruption was notoriously apparent, and where statutes were laid aside as useless lumber.

Mr. I. H. Browne observed, that he had voted for the resolutions agreed to by the house, which contained so severe a censure on the conduct of lord Melville, and which were followed by the more degrading stigma of the erasure of the noble viscount's name from the list of the privy council; whether, by these proceedings, the noble lord had been sufficiently punished or not, seemed now in a great degree to be the question. The punishment,in his opinion, was extremely severe, but, perhaps, not more so than the nature and extent of the crime demanded; but, surely it might reasonably have been expected, that the punishment would have ended there. It is said, however, that new matter of charge has since arisen, and that consequently additional punishment should be inflicted. Here he thought there was much room to doubt; the new matter so much spoken of seemed to him to consist of suspicions, which must have been considerably done away by the speech of the noble viscount, in which it was but candour to say, that there was a great deal to alleviate, little or nothing to aggravate his offence. He should not negative the measures now proposed because he thought that the offence of the noble viscount was of a light nature, but because nothing new had been proved, and because, under all the circumstances of the case, he thought the punishment already inflicted perfectly adequate to the offence. The house should not forget the perilous state of the country, the menace of invasion that hung over it, and the other serious exigencies that claimed their attention. Nor did he believe that the public looked for any thing more than had been done by the vote of the 8th of April.

Mr. Riley Addington declared that he was proceeding to execute the most painful duty, that in the whole course of his political life he was ever called on to perform; because he could not divest his mind of a just consideration of the great services rendered to his country by the noble person who was in this instance the object of accusation, and because he could never cease to remember the many marks of private friendship and kindness, of unremitting attention, which it had been his fate to experience from that noble lord. These were considerations which could not be obliterated from his mind by any circumstances Whatever. But still they must yield to a sense of public duty. After the very ample and able view which had been taken of the whole of the case by his right hon. friend who moved the amendment, in all whose sentiments he entirely concurred, he did not feel it necessary long to trespass on the attention of the house. To what had been urged by his learned friend on the floor (the master of the rolls), and also by the noble lord who was heard that night in his own defence, he had listened with the utmost attention, and he confessed, that for the first time in his life, he was not convinced by his learned friend. When the first proceedings were taken against lord Melville, when the criminating resolutions were proposed, his wish was to have the whole of the case referred to the examination of a select committee, before the house should come to any decision upon it. But in that it was his misfortune to differ from a majority of the house, and to the vote of that majority he bowed with deference. He could not, however, forbear to remark, that if one were allowed to judge from events, had the course then recommended to the house been adopted, this consequence at least would have resulted, that the whole of the charges would have been referred to a committee, which would have gone into the investigation unfettered. There would have been in that event no pretence, and therefore there could be no wish or intention, to subject the committee to any restriction. The house having come to no determination upon the case of lord Melville, the house of peers could have had no reason to hesitate in allowing that noble lord to attend a committee of this house, and to submit to an unrestrained examination. The restraints since imposed on lord Melville were, he fully believed, founded on the criminatory resolutions of the 8th of April. If it had been the pleasure of the house to pursue a different course, he was persuaded that considerable embarrassment would have been avoided in the prosecution of the enquiry. But it did not however follow, that because there might have been something erroneous in the beginning of the business, that therefore the house should stop short in the performance of its duty. If no farther steps were taken, he could not but say that full atonement would not be made to public justice. When gentlemen stated, that justice was already satisfied, and that it was not intended to follow up the delinquency of the accused beyond the resolutions of the 8th of April and their consequences, he felt some degree of surprise. Unless it was in contemplation to take further proceedings, in case any new matter of crimination should ap- pear, why refer any charge to the consideration of the select committee? Unless something more was intended, the purpose of the select committee was quite nugatory. From the new matter which the report of that committee had disclosed, further proceedings appeared to him indispensably necessary. It was next to impossible that the civil suit which had been ordered by the house could lead to any satisfactory result, and therefore he should support the criminal process recommended by his right hon. friend. This process he would prefer to the proposition of impeachment, for the reasons stated by the right hon. mover of the amendment. He would prefer it on these grounds, that it would be more convenient, while it was equally calculated for purposes of justice; that it would be as efficacious in its enquiry, while it would be attended with less expence, and more expeditious in its decision. If, however, the criminal prosecution which the amendment proposed should not be acceded to, he was free to declare, that under the circumstances, he saw no alternative left but to vote for the impeachment. The right hon. gentleman concluded with repeating, that he felt the utmost pain from the irresistible necessity he was under, on this occasion, to sacrifice private feelings to the call of public duty.

Mr. Alexander argued the question upon grounds principally legal. He contended that the mere using of money in the hands of a public accountant, was not considered by our constitution as an offence malum in se; otherwise lord Melville was only equally culpable with the ancestor of Mr. Fox, and other prior paymasters. He argued that it was not an offence at common law; consequently, it was to be considered as a breach merely of a remedial statute, the object of which was, as the noble lord at the bar contended, principally to guard against lengthened accounts and combined responsibility, and the pretences of holding over public money founded upon such responsibility. In that point of view the noble lord had, as speedily as possible, paid over the balance to his successor. Other gentlemen argued the object of the act was to guard against possible loss to the public by individuals speculating with public money. If they were right, he admitted the act had been infringed, but contended, in a case between individuals, it would be a civil injury, to be redressed by a civil action only. He contended that statutes only prohibitory of what was not wrong in itself, or contrary to the common law, when not clothing themselves in the sanction of a penalty, as appeared from the managers against lord Macclesfield's admission, did not justify the commons in impeachment. If, however, lord Melville's case was taken out of this construction, by his being a public officer, he contended at large, that dismissal from office, and the restitution sought through the attorney general, was the adequate punishment and proper mode of redress to the public.

Mr. Wilberforce rose, and suggested the propriety of an adjournment, front the state of the debate and the lateness of the hour (twelve o'clock); a loud cry of "go on! go on!" followed, and the hon. gent. did not persevere.

Mr. Pytches rose, and stated, that according to his opinion lord Melville would have done better had he intimated to some friend of his to tell the house that he acknowledged he had done wrong and was sorry for it; instead of coming forward himself to make a speech, in which he most pertinaciously asserted his innocence, and shewed not the least sign of any remorse of conscience. Had he manifested any thing like repentance, even though so late; had he even appealed to the feelings of the house, he might have met compassion. But front the whole of his demeanour, combined with all the circumstances, of the case, he really thought hint entirely undeserving of lenity, and should therefore vote for the impeachment.

Mr. Somers Cox declared, that although he had no acquaintance whatever with the noble viscount, yet he felt as much for him as any man could for another when he saw him at the bar of the house that evening. But, however deeply he might be impressed with the melancholy situation of lord Melville, he had a paramount duty to discharge, which prevented him from being led away by his feelings. He could not therefore agree that the noble lord had been punished sufficiently, for though some honourable members entertained that opinion, what was the fact? The noble lord did not speak as a man who acknowledged the justice of the proceedings had against him; but, on the contrary, he said, that the day might come when his innocence would be established, and testified by posterity. Good God! see what was the situation of the country. Were not the people groaning under the severest taxes, which they bore with patience and resignation? Should the house, at such a time, let the noble lard off, without coming to any resolution of confirming his guilt or establishing his innocence? When the tenth report of the naval commissioners was fully examined, the facts which it stated must convince the mind of any man that the strongest suspicion ought to attach to lord Melville. In addition to this, when he looked at the proceedings of administration, who endeavoured (he lamented to say) to sustain the noble viscount; when he considered that the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Pitt) recommended to his majesty to expunge the noble lord's name from the privy council book, what, he asked, but the strongest suspicion of guilt could induce such a severe proceeding on the part of his right hon. friend and colleague? The report of the select committee stated that the noble lord had 10,000l. of the public money in his hands, before the pay-mastership of Trotter, and subsequently to that the use of 11,000l. more, beside the money of the floating account, for which no interest was paid. Under these circumstances, how could he vote in any Manner, but to ascertain those facts, and satisfy the public expectation? It must appear to the house that the matter was too momentous to be treated lightly. He heard it argued since he came to town, that former paymasters used to convert the public money to their own private emolument; but this was no justification, for nothing could be clearer that the practice was wrong than the enactment of a statute to prohibit its continuance. He also heard it said, that this was persecution and party matter; if he considered it in that point of view, he would be the last man in the world to support such a cause. When this conduct was imputed to opposition by the other side of the house, they ought surely to consider how far the charge was founded. It might be asked, was there no appearance of party on the ministerial side? He thought there was, and much more the appearance of it with them than with those termed the opposition. Under all the facts and circumstances of the case, he felt himself called on, in duty to himself and the country, to vote for the motion of impeachment.

Mr. Cartwright thought the object of public justice, whether for the purpose of example or punishment, already attained with respect to lord Melville, and therefore would oppose any further proceedings in this case.

Lord Henry Petty, in reply to the observations made by the master of the rolls, said, that both the noble lord who had appeared within the bar, and the learned gentleman, had, in fact, impeached the resolutions of the house by the manner in which they had attempted to reason on the construction of the act for the regulation of the navy office. It was to be remembered, that that act had been brought into the house by lord Melville himself, and there could be no doubt on any man's mind as to the true intent and meaning of the act, when they looked back to the circumstances under which it was introduced. It was after the resolutions moved by lord John Cavendish, after the memorable speech of Mr. Burke on the reform of the abuses of office, and after the various discussions that took place thereon, that this act was passed, and the distinct motive and end of it was, to prevent public officers from being private bankers, and to prevent the diversion of the public money to the purposes of private emolument. It was an act to remedy a grievance that had prevailed, and which was universally felt at the time as a gross abuse. The noble lord therefore, who yielded to the public sentiment in bringing in the bill, could not be ignorant of its true meaning, and it was idle to talk of its provisions not having been violated, because it did not specify how long money drawn for specific naval services might be suffered to remain in the hands of the paymaster, in its transit from the bank to the pocket of the public creditor. It was obviously the spirit and letter of the act, that no money should be drawn but for specific services, and that it should be applied directly to the object. The simple question then was, whether this law had not been violated? Whether in various instances it had not been distinctly evaded—such as in the 40,000l. drawn for and given to Messrs. Boyd? And he asked how the learned gentleman could reason, that the law had not been broken when a fact so glaring stood uncontradicted? In truth, not the least palliation had been offered by the noble lord; nor did there appear in any part a the case any thing to support the reasoning of the learned gentleman. He was ready to confess that there might be circumstances attending the breach a a statute which might palliate and soften the departure, and to which the charge of a gross violation of law would not be applicable. A statute might be obsolete, or peculiar exigencies might arise to justify the departure from an act: but was this the case here? The noble lord had wilfully violated his own law, and in doing so he had been guilty of a high breach of his public duty. These were the resolutions of the house, and the truth of these resolutions could not be impeached. But the learned gentleman asked, why the house should go further, since no new circumstances had come out except the release? What, was the 22 or 23,000l. advanced to lord Melville without interest no new circumstance? Was not the 22 or 23,000l. lent him, with interest, a new circumstance? and above all, was not the extraordinary fact of the 10,000l. found in his hands in 1789, a new circumstance? Was it not a new circumstance that Mr. Trotter had advanced money to lord Melville's family and servants, since it must be known to the noble lord, that all such advances were made from the public money? Certainly most important matter had come out in the new enquiry, and above all he of requested the house to pay attention the discovery of the 10,000l. which lord Melville owned to Mr. Trotter he had in his hands. Mr. Trotter was taken up by lord Melville, no doubt, in a state of purity and innocence. He was unacquainted with the arts of office. He had a fair character, and it was to be presumed a clear conscience. In the duty that he owed to his patron, he would naturally look to him for instruction, but he would look also for example. And what was the example he set him? He confessed to him, he held 10,000l. of the public money in his own hands, and which was to be managed so as ultimately not to fall on Mr. Trotter What a declaration with which to commence this connection! It is the prerogative of persons of high rank and station, to spread the influence of their example all around them. When such a hand as that of lord Melville was put into the public purse, a thousand hands would imitate the example. When Mr. Trotter saw that his principal was so little scrupulous as to take 10,000l. Out of the money intrusted to his care for his personal use, he must be from that instant initiated in the abuse of his trust. The noble lord had that day pretended that 20,000l. which he had also taken from the naval fund, he had employed in secret services for the management of Scotland; and he had, with a high tone, declared that he never did, and he never; would communicate the application of this sum. At the time that the noble lord had presumed to do this, he was not in the situation of a confidential servant of his majesty. What were they to say then of this management, which was not even to be communicated to his principals? He violates the law; he diverts from the naval; service 20,000l. which he must have obtained by a false pretence, and he loftily says, he will not disclose what he did with it, because it went for the management of Scotland. Not even to the right hon. gentleman, the confidential minister of the crown, to whom it was his duty to make known the transaction, did he communicate the use; for the right hon. gentleman owned that he was ignorant of it. Like the man of Ross, he seems "to give by stealth;" but perhaps he now blushes "to find it fame." It was not, however, precisely the sort of fame which a statesman ought to covet—to give away the public money to unaccounted purposes. It did not appear that any hint of this sum was ever given to any one, nor did it appear that the 10,000l. was ever repaid. Indeed all that regards this 10,000l. was most suspicious. His words to Mr. Trotter, on the occasion of his telling him of his having the money, are most singular. He expresses to him his apprehension that he, Trotter, may ultimately suffer; and thus he put Mr. Trotter on his guard, and gave a sort of hint that he must take care of himself. Here perhaps was the source of all the traffic, and speculation, and job bing that followed, and particularly of that most notable novel discovery in book keeping. known by the name of a mixed account! But it was said, that an impeachment before the lords was improper in this instance, because several of them had made declarations on the guilt of the noble lord, and at public meetings had prejudged his case. This was very idle. What great prosecution was there ever carried on, upon the merits of which, before trial, persons liable to be impannelled as a jury were not in the habit of conversing, and of giving their opinion? No great case could occur, but it would be the topic of discussion; and it was no argument against a fair trial, that it was freely canvassed beforehand. But a learned gentleman (Mr. Bond) had thrown out an intimation as if there was something in the mode of im- peachment which made the house of lords an unfit instrument for a trial, and he referred to the dilatory, protracted trial of Warren Hastings. Lord Henry contended that this was an argument against the constitution of the country. The argument of protraction in one case did not apply to another. There never was a case more suitable to impeachment than the present:—a minister of the crown, a public accountant, a peer had violated an act of parliament of his own making, had committed a high breach of duty in using the public money for his own emolument, or at least there was strong presumption that he had done so. Then by whom could he be properly tried but by the house of peers? By whom could he be properly pursued but by the house of commons, the guardians of the public purse, which he had dared to violate? But it was said by an hon. gentleman (Mr. Hawkins Brown) that there were other reasons against further prosecution, and he mentioned one, the menace of invasion! What, said lord Henry, would the hon. gentleman insinuate, that such is our dread of the enemy that we must not even dare to proceed in the administration of our own laws for the preservation of public morals! What would he say, on reading a paragraph in the Moniteur, that such was our dread of invasion as to desist from pursuing a state delinquent! Lord Henry put this in a strong point of view, and concluded with an animated appeal to the house not to disappoint the expectations of the people, which their steady and vigorous conduct in the outset of this affair had so happily raised.

Mr. Wilberforce rose, and suggested the propriety of adjourning the debate. He observed, that there were a great many gentlemen anxious to deliver their sentiments on a subject of such material importance; and the lateness of the hour (half past two o'clock), he thought, would be a sufficient inducement to adjourn; especially when it was recollected, that by lengthening the present discussion a few hours, no good would be obtained, as every gentleman could not be able in that time to deliver his sentiments.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer rose, and urged the same reasons as Mr. Wilberforce, for an adjournment, to which effect he concluded with making a motion, which was unanimously agreed to; upon which the house adjourned at three o'clock on Wednesday morning.