IMPEACHMENT OF LORD MELVILLE.

HC Deb 12 June 1805 vol 5 cc329-79

The order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for the impeachment of lord viscount Melville, being moved, and the original question and amendment having been put from the chair,

Mr. Leycester rose. He said he should take that opportunity of offering a few words to the house in explanation, of the grounds on which he felt that he should discharge his duty conscientiously, both to lord Melville and the public, in giving a negative to the motion. But before he should come to state these grounds, he begged to say a few words on a subject that was only collateral to the question in debate, namely, what the hon. gent. who had brought forward the motion, had said with respect to Mr. Wilson. That hon. gent. had fairly and candidly admitted that he understood Mr. Wilson to be a very meritorious officer, and when he had appeared as a witness before the committee, to have behaved himself in a very proper and becoming manner. In this statement he concurred, as he was sure every member of the committe would. But then the hon. gent. had stated that the right hon. gent. below him (Mr. Canning) ought to have dismissed Mr. Wilson from his office, and in this he differed from that hon. gent. The hon. member here offered some observations to show that Mr. Wilson had not acted criminally, and ought not to have been dismissed from his situation. Having stated so much as to the collateral point, he came next to the main question. If the present were an original proceeding against lord Melville, he should not give his negative to the motion of the hon. gent. because the facts before the house were not satisfactorily accounted for, and he thought enquiry was necessary. But from his professional habits he was not disposed to think a man guilty, till he should be proved to be so, after having had a full opportunity of justifying himself against the charges against him on a fair trial. Whatever would have been his opinion, with respect to the present motion, if it had been an original proceeding, the question had now taken a different turn. The question now was, whether an impeachment according to the motion, or a criminal prosecution, according to the amendment of his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Bond), should be adopted? And here it was to be considered what proceedings had already taken place. On the 8th of April, resolutions of censure had been passed on the conduct of the noble lord. On that occasion he had been discharging his duty in a different place, and had not heard what had been urged induce the house to adopt these resolutions. He had no doubt that something conclusive must have been brought forward on the occasion; but for his part, he could not find any thing that would justify the proceedings that had been taken. Lord, Melville had been charged with withdrawing the public money from the bank, for the purposes of private emolument; but lord Melville had stated the very reverse to be the case; he had stated, that it had been drawn only for the expediency of the public service. From all that had passed, he had not observed any thing tending to criminate lord Melville on that head. The noble lord had afterwards been struck out of the list of privy counsellors; and on the 29th of April an order was made, directing the attorney general to commence a civil suit against his lordship. Two questions had arisen on that occasion; first, whether a civil suit should be commenced against him; and next, whether a criminal prosecution should be instituted; and though many different opinions prevailed on the subject, which were fluctuating and changing, yet at length the civil suit for the recovery of the money was preferred. It would be inconsistent for the house to order a criminal prosecution after having adopted the other mode of proceeding; and herein it was painful to him to differ from his right hon. and learned friend (Mr. Bond), for whose opinion he entertained the highest respect, and for whose person he felt the most sincere and zealous friendship. The circumstances which led to a suspicion of participation on the part of lord Melville, had been before the house, in that part of the evidence of Mr. Trotter, where he says that he had been sometimes in advance 10 or 20 thousand pounds to lord Melville. As the civil suit had been Ordered, the select committee, with the instructions they had received, had considered themselves as precluded from enquiring into any matters that were the objects of that suit; and if any of the witnesses that had been examined before them, Lad set out with stating that they were about to give evidence touching sums advanced for the private use of lord Melville, he had no doubt that they would have been stopped in the outset. That having been the case, he contended that it would be highly inconsistent for the house to stop the civil suit, and institute a criminal prosecution now. He did not mean to say that a case might not be made out, in which it would be right to adopt such a course; but he insisted that such a case should be first made out. His right hon. and learned friend had stated that new matter had been produced to the house, and he was ready to admit that if such matter, as had not been in the contemplation of the house before, had been brought to light, and of sufficient magnitude to justify the alteration of their proceedings, the inconsistency might be properly incurred. This question turned upon the cases respecting two or three sums. As to the 20,000l. that had been lent to lord Melville by Mr. Trotter, there was no evidence to prove that his lordship knew the fund from which it had been procured. Neither could he discover any trace of evidence to prove, as stated by his learned friend, that lord Melville had participated in the interest arising from navy, exchequer bills, or other stock purchased; and he saw no reason for supposing that such participation existed. He admitted that the 10,000l, which had been in the possession of lord Melville previous to 1786, and the other sum of 10 or 12 thousand pounds, being half of the 23,000l. advanced out of the public money, had been prima facie unexplained. But, for sake of argument, he should suppose, what would he most disadvantageous to lord Melville, that both had been applied to his private use, and then it would only follow, that they had been advanced to him from time to time as a temporary accommodation. It had been argued by the noble lord opposite (lord H. Petty) that these sums had never been repaid. If that had been proved, he should admit that it would be a sufficient reason for the, house to depart from its adopted proceedings, in order to institute a criminal prosecution. But he wished that noble lord to bear in mind that the charge was not supported by the evidence; and that the hon. gent. even, who had brought forward the motion, had not asserted that these sums had not been repaid. It was stated in the report that these sums were repaid, but without interest. He could have wished that the noble lord had examined the evidence before he contradicted that fact. The hon. member here called the attention of the house to the answers of Mr. Trotter, to two questions on this subject, where he stated that these sums must have been paid to him, and to him as paymaster, and to his answer, that not only these sums, but all other advances to lord Melville, since the year 1786, had since been repaid. He asked, therefore, whether in fairness or candour any mind could suppose that these sums had not been repaid? If it could be proved that they had not been repaid, that would make out a stronger case than any that had yet been made, because it would prove an embezzlement of the public money. There was no proof that the public had, lost a single shilling. On the whole, therefore, it appeared only, that in the course of 14 or 16 years, lord Melville had been accommodated with sums to the amount of between 20 and 30,000l. As to the bond of release, he thought there was nothing extraordinary in the clause. Though such a clause was not usual in the precedents of bonds or release, he should not have thought it extraordinary if such a clause were presented to himself in a release, and he should not hesitate to sign it. It appeared by the evidence of one of the gentlemen that had been examined, that covenants to give up vouchers were frequent; and the introduction of this clause for burning of vouchers had arisen from the parties having been at the distance of 400 miles from each other when the release had been executed, and the inconvenience of transmitting the vouchers mutually such a distance. If this clause had come to their knowledge without any previous acquaintance with the circumstance of the destruction of vouchers, it would never have given rise to any unfavourable suspicions. All this, therefore, had been known previous to the civil suit; and it would therefore be inconsistent to alter the course of proceeding. He would ask whether two. processes could be instituted without subjecting the party to a double punishment? If they could not institute the criminal prosecution without interfering with the civil process, they ought not to prosecute at all. The noble lord had been already punished by the successive measures that had been taken with respect to him. The hon. gent. who had brought forward the motion had stated, that the noble lord's resignation had been voluntary, and not in consequence of the resolutions of the house. But could any one seriously assert that he had not suffered in consequence of the resolutions of the house? He was himself of opinion, that the noble lord ought not to be further punished, because he had already suffered punishment to the utmost extent to which an impeachment would subject him. The hon. gent. (Mr. Whitbread) had said, that he did not wish to carry the punishment a hair's breadth beyond what the ends of justice required. But what was the end of justice? Not to crush the individual, but to make an example that might deter others [...]from the commission of such crimes. Could any body suppose that lord Melville had not been made an example of? They had only to consider what he was twelve months since, and to compare that with his present degraded and fallen state. He confessed that he thought the ends of justice were satisfied, that lord Melville had been sufficiently punished, and that enough had been done for example, and he should therefore vote against the motion.

Mr. Wilberforce admitted that the hon. gent, who had preceded him, had acted conformably to his usual character and conduct, and had discussed, the question throughout the whole of his speech with that candour and moderation which became a member of the legislature. It was painful to him, after all that he had heard, to be compelled still to dissent from the conclusions which the hon. gent. had drawn, and particularly because he felt the difficulty and embarrassment in which the house was placed. But whatever might be his feelings on the occasion, or his sense of these embarrassments, they should all give way to the dietates of duty, and for the ends of substantial justice. He had come down to the house the preceding day with his mind discharged from the influence of what had passed, with a view to attend to what the noble lord had to urge in his defence, and in the expectation that any thing that was doubtful might be explained, and any thing that was wanted might be supplied. He had come to the house entertaining doubts concerning the motion which was to be submitted to it. But whatever might have been the impression on his mind in that instance, the speech of the noble lord had convinced him, that some further criminal prosecution was necessary before the ends of justice would be satisfied. The principles too which the noble lord had laid down, and particularly one of them, were such as to call for severe reprobation. It might be said that they had now arrived at a new era in the course of the proceedings on this business. They had been in Such a state with respect to several particulars, that they could not look for information to any other than his lordship; and though, when permitted to attend in that house, he had been laid under restrictions in another place, it was to have been expected; that notwithstanding these restrictions, he would not have omitted to have entered into a defence of his conduct fairly and temperately. But so far had the speech of the noble lord been from a justification of his conduct, or from proving the steps harsh which the house had taken, that it strengthened the charges already affecting him. He should not go over the whole of the arguments of the noble lord, because they had been infinitely better refuted by the hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Whitbread), and because he should only injure that hon. gent.'s arguments, if he were to attempt to repeat them. But there were one or two topics on which he felt it indispensably necessary for him to touch. The noble lord in his speech had acknowledged no criminality; he had attempted to justify his conduct, and stated that the law of the land had not been violated. In support of this assertion he had argued from the statute, and from the conduct of subsequent treasurers of the navy, and in particular of lord Harrowby. As to the argument founded on the provisions of the statute, the noble lord insisted that the statute only required that the money should not be drawn from the bank but for naval services, which regulation of the statute had not been violated. But was it to be supposed, that the legislature could in such a statute regulate the manner in which every minute sum was to be drawn, or that having directed that the money was not to be drawn but for naval services, it was not intended that the money, when drawn, was not to be applied to any but naval services? Could it be endured, that the money should be stated to have been drawn for naval services, and the application of it to any other purpose than naval services should be attempted to be justified by any such miserable quibble? It had also been said by the noble lord, that lord Harrowby had doubted of the propriety of the practice, and that it was continued two years after he had been in office. When that noble lord had found that the practice was illegal he reformed it. Every body who knew lord Harrowby, knew that his health had been such as not to allow him to attend, when appointed, to the duties of his office; and every body who knew that noble lord, knew also, that when afterwards his state of health permitted him to discharge these duties fully, he had conducted the business of his department in strict conformity with the law, and with a rigid adherence to the letter and spirit of the statute. It was unnecessary to argue that the act of parliament was clear and imperative on this head. The manner in which it had originated, the discussions that had preceded it, and the circumstances that had attended its enactment, all threw a light on its meaning. The great and main object of the statute was, to prevent balances from accumulating in the hands of sub-accomptants, and to make the bank the only banker to the public for the navy money. He remembered an attempt that had been made to justify the practice of making private profit by the use of such money on a former occasion, by a reference to the practice of former treasurers. But on this subject two things were to be considered; first, that the case had been altered when the law proscribed the practice; and next, that the continuance of the practice was aggravated by the circumstances with respect to the noble lord under which the law had passed. For what purpose was an additional salary of 2000l. given to the noble lord, if not as a compensation for his having been deprived of the emoluments arising from the use of the public money? It is admitted that the treasurer was not to make profit by the public money; and is the distinction to be tolerated that what the law does not allow to the treasurer of the navy, shall be permitted to the paymaster? What is there in the law that does not apply to either as well as to the other? He was sure that the provisions of the law were equally clear as to both. What the noble lord could have meant by stating he did not know of Mr. Trotter's having derived any profit from the use of the public money, but by his share of the interest it bore when lodged in Messrs. Coutts's, he could not perceive. The noble lord seemed throughout a great part of his speech to argue, that Mr. Trotter had not derived any private profit in drawing the money from the bank, though here he admitted it [a cry of no! no!]. He had made a note on the circumstance at the time, but if he misunderstood the noble lord, he was glad to be set right. It appeared to him, however, a narrow and weak distinction that had been put between the purposes for which the money had been drawn, and the uses to which it had been applied. The noble lord had said, that if he had been asked a question directly, as to that point, he could not have had any hesitation in answering it. The conclusion, therefore, was, that Mr. Trotter had been permitted to draw money from the bank, for the purpose of applying it to purposes of private emolument. He was sorry to be obliged to state it, but this was not satisfactory to him, nor could it be so to any one who looked for substantial information. He could recollect but one part in which the noble lord appeared to him to be satisfactory, and that was his reason for keeping his place of treasurer of the navy in consequence of its having been connected with the superintendance of Indian affairs, which that noble lord had presided over and regulated whilst at the head of the board of control, in a manner most honourable to himself and beneficial to the country and the company: and here he begged leave to bear testimony, in justice to that noble lord, to the purity and integrity with which he had administered the affairs of the India company during the whole time he presided over them, particularly in his appointments to high and important offices in that service. He had an opportunity of being acquainted with many such appointments, where the noble lord knew nothing of the person he appointed, but from his integrity and ability. He had heard one person (lord Teignmouth), who had been governor-general of India by his lordship's appoint- ment, say, that during the whole time of his being in that important station he had never been applied to by his lordship for any one thing as a matter of favour, which could have been in the smallest degree disagreeable to his feelings.—With regard to the burning of the papers and the clause in the release for that purpose, he observed that many thought that a doubtful transaction. For his own part, if, as it had been put by the learned gent. (Mr. Leycester), that stood by itself, and they had not known of any destruction of papers he thought that it would not have given rise to any suspicion. But he agreed with his right hon. friend (Mr. Bond) who had remarked upon the coincidence of the time, and the destruction of the papers, whilst the parties were at such a distance from each other, that this was a doubtful circumstance. The noble lord in his letter to the commissioners had stated, that he was in the habit of amusing himself occasionally with destroying useless papers (a loud cry of no, no; on which the hon. member consulted his copy of the report). He had mistaken a word. The noble lord had stated, that he employed himself in the occasional habit of destroying useless papers. When these circumstances were considered, it would be impossible to divest one's mind of the suspicion of some impropriety. But the topic upon which he felt most sensibly, the article in his lordship's speech which affected him most forcibly, was that in which he spoke of the 10,000l. which he had in his possession when Mr. Trotter had been appointed paymaster. Of the application of this sum, he had declared that he would give no account to that house, or to any other body or individual. It would have been surprising that any man should make such a declaration, but it was particularly astonishing in his lordship, who was so well acquainted with business, so well versed in history, so well skilled in the practice of the constitution, so well informed on the subject of legal delinquency, and so much in the habit of preparing the defences of others. What did it amount to but the avowal of a principle, which, if the house were once to recognize, would put an end to all the advantages of the constitution, and the most invaluable privileges of that house? It was the same as if the noble lord were at once to say, "I will be greater than the law; I will be superior to the constitution; I will do that which both prohibit, and I will, not be accountable to any authority for the trespass." When our sovereign ascends the throne to which he is entitled by hereditary right, it is required of him to take an oath that he will govern according to the laws. It is equally the law that no money voted by parliament should be expended but as the law directs. The noble lord had spent 10,000l. for which he refused to give any account. It was a libel on the constitution to suppose that any grievance could arise for which it did not point out a remedy. It was a principle of our happy constitution, and that which endeared it most to his enthusiastic love and admiration, that it was as capable of vigour and secrecy on some occasions as of openness and publicity in others. But the noble lord was prevented from any disclosure by considerations of public honour and private convenience. When the noble lord had accepted of a place in this country, he must have entered into an obligation to discharge the duties of it according to law. What country the objectionable principle might be accommodated to, he knew not; but sure he was, that it was not calculated for the meridian of this country. This brought to his mind an anecdote of one of our own princes, who was most unprincipled and unfortunate, James II.; no, he meant another that was more profligate than unfortunate, his immediate predecessor, Charles II. who, if he had had the benefit of such a principle as the noble lord's, need not have employed any chancellor of the exchequer, or resorted to the extraordinary means which he found necessary to enable him to supply his extravagancies. It could not be true that such a secrecy was either essential to the dignity of the government or the safety of the country. The anecdote he alluded to was one which is recorded of the observation made by a Mr. Gourney, on an occasion of one of the extraordinary means resorted to, to extract money in the reign of that profligate monarch. His observation had been, "that a king of England, who governed by the laws, would be the greatest sovereign on earth, but that if he should not be the man of his people, he would be the weakest." This [...]had such an effect on that monarch as to put a stop to his extortions for a time. But they should look to the consequences that would result from the principle of the noble lord, the measures of public corruption, secret depravity, and undue influence that it would give rise to. The avowal of such a principle led one to think that there was something dark and mysterious in the transaction that would not bear the light, and he should only add, that the simple declaration of it was big with dangers which might not be foreseen. The main question was, in his mind, whether lord Melville had not been already punished? and that would lead them to consider the nature and amount of his lordship's crime. He had formerly stated, that whether it were considered with respect to its intrinsic turpitude or its possible consequences, it was a crime of the greatest magnitude. With respect to the circumstances that had attended its commission, it appeared equally indefensible. It had been committed by one acquainted with the laws and judicial proceedings of the country; it had not been committed in a hurry nor through passion, but had been persevered in for many years; so that it was characterised by its intensity, if the expression might be allowed, on one hand, and its continuity on the other. It had been urged that the noble lord had already sustained much punishment; but it was his opinion, that the striking him out of the list of privy counsellors was the only punishment which he had yet suffered. (A cry of no, no, from the treasury benches, and of hear, hear, from the opposition.) The resolutions that the house had voted, pronouncing on his conduct, unquestionably formed no part of his punishment, because they might very properly precede the motion for impeachment. And if the hon. member who had brought forward this motion, had followed up the resolutions with a similar one, it would have been right in him to have taken the sense of the house on the resolutions first, and on the question of guilt. Under all the circumstances of the case, considering that such a crime had been committed, had been so elucidated, so justified, and so defended, he would rather that they should rescind all that had been done, and allow lord Melville to be restored to all his former distinctions, than that they should stop here, and not adopt any further criminal prosecution for obtaining the purposes of substantial justice. It had been argued by the learned gentleman that the criminal prosecution would be inconsistent with the regularity of their proceedings; but though there had been a variety in the measures they had adopted,yet that variety had arisen from the different circumstances in which, at different times, they had been placed. When the resolutions had been voted, and the vote for carrying them to the foot of the throne, the lights they then had were sufficient to justify these proceedings. They had also in view the criminal prosecution;and if his right hon. friend (Mr. Pitt) had intended, by advising the name of the noble lord to be struck out of the list of privy counsellors, to defeat the criminal proceeding, he ought to have stated it to the house and given them a choice. In both these cases they had acted according to the lights they had, and in carrying up their sense of the conduct of the noble lord to the throne, they had only discharged a duty as a branch of the legislature. But he could not conceive that they by that precluded themselves from adopting any further proceedings. With regard to the different modes of proceeding, he was inclined to adopt the amendment that had been proposed by his right hon. and learned friend (Mr. Bond). But he thought that those who were agreed in substance, should not differ about the manner of attaining it, and he was therefore of opinion that his right hon. friend would do well not to press his amendment on the house, because it was desirable that those. who were agreed upon the end should not appear to differ about the means. He should therefore agree in the original motion, though he was disposed to prefer the amendment. He gladly agreed with his right hon. friend in his eulogiums on the administration of justice in this country; he also with pleasure concurred with his panegyric. on that mode of trial which was one of the most valuable rights of the people of this country, and rendered its constitution the most enviable on earth. He should hope that the hon. gentlemen opposite might be induced to adopt the amendment; but if they should persist in the original motion, he should be obliged to vote for it. He begged pardon for trespassing at such length on the house; but he could not sit down without making lone or two observations on the arguments of the learned gentleman who had preceded him in the debate. That learned gent. had said, that if it had been proved that the sum of 10,000l. had not been repaid, he should vote for further proceedings. It appeared, therefore, that his difficulty was only a question of degree, and resolved itself into expediency. If they thought that the punishment already inflicted was not adequate, they were not precluded from adopting further proceedings. The learned gent. had insisted that no loss had been sustained by the public. But there was one loss which the public had certainly suffered, in the additional salary of 2,000l. that had been granted to the treasurer of the navy, as had been stated by the hon. gent. (Mr. Whitbread), in lieu of the profits derived from the use of the public money. But this he should not dwell on as an item of loss. The great loss was not in money, it arose from a cause much more important and deeper, which struck at the root of all those principles, which, by being kept pure and uncontaminated, could alone secure the constitution against public corruption, and prevent the affections of the people front being alienated front that constitution which was so justly the object of their admiration. He had but one remark more to make. When lord Melville allowed Mr. Trotter to draw the navy money from the bank for the purpose of placing it at a private banker's to derive profit from a participation in the interest of it, he ought naturally to have warned him against hazarding the public money by speculations in stock jobbing; yet no such evidence had appeared in the statement of the noble lord. When also the noble lord could, if the case had admitted of it, have justified his conduct, and had omitted to do so, he was justified in concluding that he could not. The main question, therefore, for the house to ask themselves was, whether, as this motion had been brought forward, the punishment already inflicted was sufficient, or whether, without conniving at the conduct of lord Melville, they could vote against the motion? he had been doubtful at first, but after having heard the defence of his lordship, he felt that he had no option. He thought he understood from the learned gent. that they might come at a knowledge of further circumstances relative to the 10,000l. by the evidence of Mr. Trotter, and that alone was sufficient to justify further proceedings. If all persons in office who had the disposal or care of public money were to imitate the example of lord Melville, by diverting the public money to private purposes, crimes would be multiplied, and there would be no end to the delinquency. As to the application of money to secret services, he begged to remark, that only 100,000l. were allowed annually for England, and that sums voted for foreign secret service money were to be accounted for by the oath of the secretary of state that they had been expended. If such practices as formed the charges against lord Melville were to be suffered to pass with impunity, it would be vain to adopt or enact regulations for the security of the public money or the direction of public offices. Lord Melville should account for the sums of public money which he had received. The learned member had said, that his defence had extenuated his guilt, but he was convinced, on the contrary, that by it it had been aggravated. The learned gent. had also stated, that this was not a time for going into enquiries; but it was to be considered, that the necessity had been imposed upon them by those who would not let them know what their guilt was. He depended on the strength and resources of the empire for its protection, on the superiority of our navy, and the valour of our forces; but he depended more on the affection and attachment of the people of the country; on their love for the constitution, and their loyalty to their sovereign, which would be ensured more effectually, if they should see that there was no impunity for crimes committed against the public, and that their rights were respected, their liberties secured, and the laws equally administered on the eternal principles of sound policy and impartial justice.

Lord Castlereagh felt himself peculiarly called upon to state the grounds on which he must give his decided negative to the motion of the hon. gent. He had been anxious that the question should be discussed by those who possessed great legal and constitutional knowledge; but however that knowledge belonged to his hon. friend who had just sat down, he was, he owned, surprised at the mode in which he had treated the subject, to the discussion of which he seemed to have conic for the first time, and of which he appeared to have taken the most antiquated view. He trusted the period was now arrived when the question was fully understood. When the hon. gent. opposite made his motion, he was by no means aware whether he intended that the measure proposed by him should be supplemental to the civil suit instituted by order of the house, or whether it was to be a substitute for that proceeding. The explanation with which that hon. gent, had followed the speech of his hon. friend behind him (Mr. Bond) shewed that he meant the latter. In this case the civil suit ought not only to be suspended, but altogether abandoned. On the po- sition of his hon. friend, that if new matter had been laid before the house, new steps ought to be taken, he was anxious to join issue with him, supposing that his hon. friend of course meant new matter, not merely nominally so, but substantial aggravated matter, sufficient to arrest the attention of the house, and to induce it to adopt that proposition, which, when the discussion took place on the relative advantages of a civil or a criminal proceeding, his hon. friend had thought it right to reject. Up to the present moment, every step taken by the house seemed clearly to indicate, that they relinquished all idea of criminal prosecution. He was by no means desirous of tying the hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Fox) down to any opinions he had delivered; but certainly, on the second night of the debate on this subject, that hon. gent. had declared, that if lord Melville were removed from his majesty's councils and presence, he should consider all personal proceedings against him as concluded, and that there would then only remain to obtain pecuniary justice for the country. But it was not on authority, however high and respectable, that he wished to rest the merits of the case. He agreed perfectly with his hon. friend who had just delivered his sentiments, that the house might come to certain resolutions with a view to a subsequent impeachment or criminal prosecution; but he put it to the candour of the hon. gent. who moved those resolutions against lord Melville, whether or not he had intimated any intention of this nature. He had not clone so; he had contented himself with dropping a hint that he would prosecute further enquiry into that part of the 10th report, in which, as he said, the chancellor of the exchequer was implicated, and that, on a future day, he would propose that a civil suit should be instituted against lord Melville, for the purpose of recovering from him any profits arising from the use of the public money. By his subsequent motion for an address to his majesty to remove lord Melville from his presence and councils for ever, he evidently and avowedly looked for one punishment, and he would scarcely violate the constitution so grossly as at the same time to have another in his view. The object of the address was not confined to removal,pending any criminal proceedings against the noble lord. No: on cool deliberation, after an interval of three weeks from the passing of the resolutions, the hon. gent. proposed that motion which was to dismiss lord Melville from all places of trust and dignity for ever. Nothing could be more clear than that at that time all idea of criminal prosecution was banished from the hon. gent.'s mind.—Let us now consider the civil suit, and the circumstances under which the select committee had been appointed. Was it possible to imagine, that if the house had entertained the most distant conception of the probability of deriving from the researches of that committee matter on which it would be expedient to ground a criminal prosecution, they would have voted the institution of a civil suit, and have debarred the committee from investigating those points in the 10th report, on which alone the expediency of such criminal prosecution could rest? Up to the appointment of that committee, therefore, it was evident that nothing could be farther from the contemplation of the house than the institution of any criminal proceeding against the noble lord. A new case must therefore be shewn, and irrefragable arguments adduced to incline the house now to adopt that from which they so recently abstained; otherwise the option between a civil and a criminal prosecution was no longer in their possession. Were this principle not to be adhered to, lord Melville would be treated in a manner to which never had a British subject been before exposed; and his fate would remain on record as a monument of the inconsistent severity of parliament. Was there any new matter in the report of the select committee, and what was its import and value? In considering this part of the subject he wished to establish a distinction material to all accurate judgment. It was between the charge of profit obtained from the public money actually proved against lord Melville, and that of which only suspicion existed. He intreated the house to recollect the circumstances known to them prior to the appointment of the committee, and those with which they had subsequently become acquainted. It was known in the former period, that considerable sums of the public money issued for naval services had been appropriated to purposes not naval. Nay, the impression was stronger than it was now, for the house then knew that 60,000l. had been diverted in this manner, but they did not know that 40,000l. of it had been applied in a way which did infinite credit to those concerned in the application; and yet. having negatived a proposition to enter into criminal proceedings at that time, they were now called on to accede to it when the circumstances were so much less flagrant, nor was the house ignorant at the time he alluded to,that the public money had been withdrawn by Trotter from the bank with lord Melville's knowledge. The hon. gent. had laid much stress on the refusal of the noble lord to explain what was done with the 10,00l. for which he was in advance prior to the paymastership of Trotter, and had insisted that because he would not explain that transaction, it must necessarily have been one from which he had derived personal advantage; but, surely it must occur to that hon. gent. and to the house, that in times like those through which we have lately passed, money might be applied in secret services, the disclosure of which to a single individual, might endanger the life and honour of those who had placed implicit confidence in the good faith of a minister. His hon. friend bad expressed a doubt Whether or not this money bad been ever repaid; but if he would examine the evidence of Trotter, he would find that point completely ascertained. He says, that not only that sum, but every sum since advanced to lord Melville had been punctually replaced. With regard to the extent of the danger with which the constitution was threatened by this species of transaction, let it be considered, that if any one does apply the public money to any object not immediately regular, he expects to be repaid from some legal quarter; if not, he must lose the money; and the house surely need be under no alarm that any individual would thus dispose of his private property for the purposes of corruption. Now, though the noble lord at the time when he withdrew this sum of 10,000l. was not in any official situation as a minister, yet, with respect to Scotland, he was, to all intents, a confidential servant of the crown. It had been supposed that this money was devoted to his own emolument, but of this the mode in which he described his apprehensions to Trotter on his first coming into the pay mastership, was a sufficient refutation. It was the language of a man who had advanced public money for public services, and who was fearful that the result would be detrimental to himself. With regard to the other sum, with. time employment of which for private advantage before his acquaintance with Mr. Trotter, lord Mel- ville had been charged, it was precisely the sum on which no indictment could possibly be framed. What was the situation of lord Melvill at that time? This sum was part of the balances of his first,and the first part of his second treasurership, to which the act of parliament did not apply. He allowed that the noble lord was bound not to derive any advantage from those balances, but he was by no means restrained by the resolutions of the commissioners of accounts, or by the recent increase of salary, from keeping them where he chose. Besides, if lord Melville had been so dead to all sense of honour, or so willing to risk the shipwreck of his character as he had been represented, would he have been satisfied with keeping this 10,000l. in his hands? Would he not rather have retained the whole of the balances, amounting to 56,000l.? If the noble lord had allowed himself to make use with such facility of the public money, or if he had connived, in the way in which he had been accused of doing, in the free use of such money by Trotter, is it credible that he would have borrowed from him the sum of ten thousand pounds on interest? Would he not rather, if his relations with Trotter were such as had been described, have felt entitled to demand that he should feed his wants? It was far from his intention to say, that lord Melville had not permitted a breach of the law, or that he had not, in his opinion, allowed considerable mismanagement to exist in his office; but there was a wide difference between this accusation of irregular and not perfectly warrantable conduct, and a delinquency of the most sordid and base nature that could attach to man.—With respect to the money drawn from the mixed fund, be allowed it was a fair object of jealousy, and he thought a civil procedure necessary to ascertain the composition of that fund. But surely his hon. friend, versed as he was in the laws and constitution of the country, would not contend that a criminal court could take cognizance of this money, until it was proved to be public property, which could only be done by a civil suit. At present it could only be argued upon a matter of suspicion, and not established by proof. Deducting 10,000l. which was, under other circumstances, the sum on which suspicion arises, leaves 46,000l. He allowed, that previous to the report of the select committee, with the exception of Trotter's account current, the house was not in possession of any evidence explanatory of the application of that sum, but on looking at it, the sum of 22 or 23 thousand pounds borrowed for lord Melville by Trotter, on interest, must be deducted. It was not until he was hard pressed, that Trotter acknowledged in the committee, that he was himself the lender of this sum. The hon. gent. had urged against the noble lord, that in his statement the preceding evening he had not mentioned either the lender of this money or the security on which it was deposited. The reason that he had not done so was obvious. He considered the whole as a private transaction, but it did not follow that there was no ostensible lender. It was not a sum from which lord Melville had derived any personal advantage, but for which he paid to Mr. Trotter the same interest that he would have done to any other member of the community. The sum was thus brought down to less than 25,000l.; of this the subscription to the loyalty loan amounted to 10,000l. the security for which remained in the hands of Trotter, and the interest of which discharged the interest of the sum advanced for it. Thus was this gross sum for which lord Melville stood accountable, reduced to that at which it was on the last vote of the house of commons on the subject, namely, between 10 and 15,000l. In the whole of this transaction therefore, as developed by the select committee, nothing new, or more culpable than what was formerly known, had been discovered; and was it within the sphere of possibility that lord Melville should sacrifice even his self-estimation, supposing that the affair should never be unveiled, for such a trifling consideration? It was not probable that at any one period he was in possession of more than 5 or 6000l. But stating it at the utmost, supposing it to be 15,000l. the annual value of which was 750l. what motive could such a man, possessed of such a character, vested with such power as that noble lord, have to embark in such a wicked and barefaced transaction, for so paltry a sum? With respect to the payment of navy bills at Coutts's, it was a subject of general notoriety; no attempt whatever was made to conceal it. Had there been any wish to derive from this practice illicit advantages, would drafts on that banking-house have been given to every man who walked the streets? In this country, which had to boast that the purity of its ministers had been unpolluted for centuries, was it possible to suppose that the noble lord would sell himself to perdition for such a price, and in so stupid a manner? And to crown the whole, after the commissioners of naval enquiry had been appointed, and after they had issued their tremendous precepts, he is supposed, by way of concealing his connection with Trotter, to go to a man of business for the purpose of enabling him to do that which, had he been guilty of that which was laid to his charge, he could have done more effectually himself! Not satisfied with this confidence in Spottiswoode, he had confided in the register of Scotland! And to what purpose was all this confidence? According to his accusers it must have been for the purpose of self-destruction! he owned, after the most anxious attention that perhaps he had ever paid to a subject in the whole course of his life, he could not impute any serious guilt to the noble lord, although he could not but admit that nothing could be more unfortunate than his situation. But that any new or strong additional facts against him had been produced in the report of the select committee he positively denied. On the contrary, that report extenuated rather than aggravated the circumstances of the case. He intreated the house now for the last time to consider the subject with the solemnity which its importance demanded, and to come to a deliberate decision, which they should not hereafter feel compelled to view with regret. Without meaning to derogate from the talents of the hon. gent. who was the original prosecutor of this affair, or to utter any thing in the least disrespectful to his character, he conjured the house to ask themselves whether or not he had been a prudent or successful adviser in the measures hitherto adopted by them, and whether or not he was likely to be so in those, which were to follow? He thought that hon. gent. must feel in his own breast, that the proceedings recommended by him had not been altogether satisfactory; that to come to a vote of conviction, without any proof of guilt, without hearing the accused, without possessing one ground on which an English mind could reconcile to itself the condemnation of any individual, however obscure and contemptible, much less one who bore the high character for talents, and who enjoyed the brilliant distinctions of the noble lord, was not entirely consonant to the dictates of liberality or justice. To the charge of preci- pitation, he had to add that of subsequent indecision. The hon. gent. gave notice of a motion, which after the lapse of a week he suddenly abandoned. By his measures he had involved the house of commons in a situation of much embarrassment; he had given to their proceedings the appearance of a desire to punish lord Melville by piecemeal; to put him to the torture, and to do that with pleasure and exultation at which the feelings of every true Briton revolted. It had been said, "why does not lord Melville wish to submit himself to the judgment of his peers?" For his own part, nothing could induce him to negative the question for bringing the noble lord to that tribunal, did he conceive that it would afford him a fair opportunity of exculpation. But this could not be the case. What evidence could be adduced? His own must be rejected. There was no other but that of Mr. Trotter; and he had declared, that, although he knew of the 20,000l. being in the hands of the noble lord, he was ignorant of its application, and it was on the application that the merits of the case rested. How then could the house of lords decide? If they convicted him of holding 10,000l. of the public money in his hands antecedent to the paymastership of Trotter (which was scarcely possible, as lord Melville's acknowledgment seemed to be the only evidence, and this was inadmissible in a court of justice), it would be only a conviction of legal guilt, and not guilt of that dark complexion with which it had been painted by the hon. gent. and his coadjutors. But if the house of peers declared lord Melville innocent, were the commons Prepared to rescind the vote by which they had expelled from the service of his sovereign, and from the service of his country, a man, whose loss at such a time as the present was most sincerely to be deplored? Feeling, therefore, that he might be considered as morally guilty, under the mask of legal guilt and that if he were proclaimed innocent, he could not recover the advantages of innocence, was it wonderful that the noble lord was desirous to avoid the fruitless ordeal? What mode of procedure then was left for the house to pursue? That on which they formerly decided, a decision which nothing new had occurred to change. A civil suit was the best adapted to the ends of public justice. In a civil suit the judges would not be prevented from availing themselves of the testimony of the noble lord himself. The proceedings in a civil suit would be more likely to be attended with fairness and impartiality than in a criminal prosecution. Should the guilt of the noble lord be found as great as it was described to be by his accusers, would the country think the transaction badly or incompletely wound up by compelling him to refund his pecuniary gains, after the other severe punishment which had already been inflicted on him, a punishment the most bitter to the feelings of man; and in consideration of the disgrace and ignominy that must attend him through the remainder of his existence? Under all these circumstances, he felt that the house had arrived at a point at which it was indispensable to the execution of their public duty to press no further the punishment of the accused. Would any man say that the punishment lord Melville had already undergone was not sufficient to make every member of government look with the utmost strictness to the execution of the laws with which they were separately entrusted? Public justice was appeased, and it might surely be now allowed to look back on the public life of the noble lord, and to examine whether or not that life had been devoted to the service of the country, the resentment of which had been so strongly excited against him. From his earliest acquaintance with lord Melville he had watched his actions, with the utmost attention, and he had ever found him discharging the various and important duties in which he was engaged with the utmost integrity and ability. He had fought manfully by his side in the defence of our happy constitution, at a time when it was surrounded by the most perilous circumstances. In the peculiar department in which he had so unworthily succeeded that noble lord, he had daily opportunities of witnessing the effects of his brilliant talents and indefatigable assiduity. Feeling most strongly the sentiments which he had endeavoured to convey to the house, he was firmly convinced not only that he should best fulfil his duty to the house and to the public by opposing the motion of the hon. gent., but that he should be guilty of infringing the most valuable privileges of the English constitution, and the most sacred principles of justice, if he could be induced to accede to that motion.

Mr. Grey said, he could not allow the question to go to a decision after the speech of the. noble lord, without expressing his opinion on the attack that had been made by him on his hon. friend, he might say on the house itself. The noble lord accused his hon. friend of having misled the house into proceedings discreditable to them. How was it that his hon. friend enjoyed so much influence with the house? That he possessed great abilities and great industry was true, but would that industry or those abilities have prevailed on the house to adopt any unjust and improper measure? Besides, what share had his hon. friend in the proceedings complained of? The only one proposed by him was the censure contained in the resolutions of the 8th of to April. He afterwards moved for an unlimited committee on the other parts of the tenth report, particularly on those which regarded the question of lord Melville's participation in the profits arising from the use of the public money, 'but with all the influence with which he was supposed to be invested, did he persuade the house to agree with him? No. And because on a committee of limited authority having been appointed, on the motion of the chancellor of the exchequer, his hon. friend had abandoned his intended proposition for instituting a civil suit, now rendered nugatory, he had been accused of indecision. It was afterwards proposed, and carried,not by his hon. friend, but by an hon. gent. opposite, who had voted in favour of lord Melville on a preceding occasion, and who had never since voted against him. He put it to the house therefore to say, whether or not it was commonly fair or commonly decent, to accuse his hon. friend of having been the cause of the embarrassments in which the house was said to be involved by the adoption of the proposal for instituting a civil suit against lord Melville. By some singular perversion of reasoning, the resolutions passed by that house, expressive of their sentiments on the conduct of the noble delinquent, had been considered by many, and amongst the rest by the noble lord who had preceded him, as punishment. That they operated severely on the feelings of lord Melville he had no doubt, but he denied that they produced any substantial punishment. It was generally the practice to originate impeachments in resolutions of a similar nature. As to the objection that the resolutions had been voted without enquiry, he must repeat what had been so frequently said, that they were founded on facts; they rested on the acknowledgments of lord Melville and Mr. Trotter themselves, which to the house seemed to require no further enquiry. But, then, says the noble lord, a measure of punishment was after, wards taken. What? The , resignation. by lord Melville of his seat at the head of the admiralty board, followed up by a notion in the house for an address to his majesty to expel him front his councils, which was not agreed to. Was this punishment? was this retributive justice? Would a false steward be considered as sufficiently punished by being dismissed from his situation? For his part, he thought the house had done right in voting for the resolutions of the 8th of April, the necessary consequence of which was, the retiring of lord Melville front office; and he thought they had done right in laying those resolutions before the king, to apprize his majesty, that he had a person in his service unfit for any place of trust and emolument. In the event his majesty ordered lord Melville's name to be erased from the list of privy counsellors. If the noble lord thought this punishment utterly disproportionate to the offence (which he had asserted), he should allege this against the right hon. chancellor of the exchequer, who had recommended his royal master to take this step. In his opinion, nothing in the proceedings that had already been adopted by the house, could operate as a bar against any further, proceedings that might be judged necessary. Did the noble lord mean to say that any punishment was too great? or that had any very heinous transactions been discovered by the select committee, the house would have been precluded from instituting a criminal prosecution of the perpetrators? The proceedings of the house had been hitherto confined to the subject of lord Melville's allowing the law to be violated by his agent. Why not, on that part of the subject yet untouched, the participation of lord Melville in illicit profits, institute a criminal prosecution? What could be urged against such a step? It could scarcely be maintained that other parts of the transaction were subject to criminal prosecution, but that this was sacred. The question then arose, whether or not lord Melville had enjoyed such participation? This the noble lord did not affect entirely to deny. He contended indeed, that the participation was not so extensive as it was asserted to be by lord Melville's accusers; but he admitted that from such participation it was possible he might derive an income of 750l. a year. If so much were admitted, the house might easily conjecture what was the fact. The noble lord expressed his opinion, that the drawing of money from the bank for the purpose of facilitating the details of the navy office, was a violation rather of the letter than of the spirit of the act of parliament. If it were really and bonâ fide for the purpose of discharging these small sums, it would be so; and neither he, nor his hon. friend, nor any man in the house would, he was convinced, be so vindictive as to pursue such an infringement of the act to punishment. But, was this the charge? No; the charge was that lord Melville, under this specious pretext, did authorize Trotter to withdraw immense sums of money from the bank, to be afterwards employed by into to purposes of private emolument. The enquiry would resolve itself into two heads. Was this done with the concurrence of lord Melville? and if so, did he participate in the emolument of it? Into the discussion of these two points, the hon. gent. entered, and brought a variety of circumstances from the tenth report, and from the report of the select committee to establish them. By the act founded on the report of the commissioners of public accounts in 1785, lord Melville must have been aware that no additional perquisite or gratuity was to be made to the salary allotted by that act to the paymaster of the navy. The operation of that act with regard to the transfer of balances from the hands of the paymaster into the custody of the bank, Was deferred by the sole authority of lord Melville, from July 1785, when it ought to have taken place, to January 1785, when it actually did take place. On some of these balances positive proof existed of profit having been made by lord Melville; on two of these balances particularly, amounting in all to 5,000l. of which the country had never received a shilling. To conceal the false accounts of transfers, the documents, memorandums, &c. had been so cautiously destroyed. The noble lord asserted, that the practice of lodging money in the hands of private bankers was attended with much convenience, and that that convenience had been affirmed by the evidence of Trotter; but sine he had left the office a new arrangement had taken place without any recourse to this expedient, which had been found perfectly compatible with convenience. However painful to him, he must say that he could not possibly give credit to the assertion made by lord Melville in the house, that in 1797 he did not know,that money to a large amount had been drawn from the bank by Trotter. Lord Melville had been accommodated by Trotter with large sums of money, not bearing interest, and he must know, that Trotter had no means of raising this supply but by withdrawing it from the bank. Was he not aware that the 22,000l. advanced to Tweedie, had not been drawn from the bank, merely for the details of public service? It was impossible that he should not be so. When therefore we find him assuring the chancellor of the exchequer that any reports of such proceedings were unfounded rumours, this was an additional circumstance to prove the necesssity of a criminal prosecution. Then, as to the famous transaction of the release, containing a positive engagement to destroy not only the vouchers and memorandums, but even the books of accounts. The time at which this agreement was entered into, was enough to prove the real cause of it. As to registration, it was no publicity. In his letter to the commissioners of naval enquiry, why did not lord Melville state that the burning of his papers was in consequence of that release? The articles by which lord Melville was suspected of making profit, he denied separately, but the charge was not on particulars, but that he had generally known of, and participated in the speculations of Trotter. The sums advanced by Trotter to lord Melville, increasing gradually from eight hundred pounds to nineteen thousand pounds, could not proceed from any but public funds. Of the ten thousand pounds in the hands of lord Melville previous to the paymastership of Trotter, we should never have heard but for the committee. This, therefore, was a new circumstance, and a most material one. It was contrary to law that he should be in possession of that sum; and when he comes and tells you he will never disclose the application of it to any man, he affords the strongest presumption that the application was as illegal as the possession. If parliament passes over such a declaration as this unpunished, there is an end of all responsibility in the public officers. Of what use are all the acts restraining such transac- tions? Of what use are the regulations respecting secret service money, if a treasurer of the navy, or a paymaster, or a lord of the treasury, can divert the public money to any purpose he pleases; and then boldly say, he will not only refuse to account to the house for the application of such money, but that he will refuse to communicate it to those who ought to be completely in his confidence, in all public measures? A licence would thus be given to malversation. The noble lord says, punishment is only for the sake of example, and that the example has already been rendered sufficiently striking to deter any imitators. This is certainly the principal, but not the sole end of punishment. Punishment was sometimes inflicted for the purpose of reforming the offender, sometimes to remove him from the possibility of a repetition of his crime. A variety of circumstances concurred to modify it. But in the present instance, had lord Melville done any thing much less than what he has done, what punishment could be inflicted less than that which he has suffered? If the noble lord had been detected in forgery, the degradation that would have followed would have been intolerable to a man of feeling; but no new would say, it would have been enough to satisfy the justice of the country. The severity of justice was not designed for the reformation of the individual, but to deter others from similar crimes. It was on this principle, that the privacy of the crime was, in our law, a ground for the aggravation of the punishment. The crime principally complained of in the present instance, had continued 14. years undiscovered and unsuspected, and was at length discovered only by accident. A rigorous prosecution was necessary to prevent the example of the long secrecy, the detection merely by accident, and the insufficiency of the punishment on the detection being drawn into an example to encourage future malversation. The proceeding by impeachment afforded the noble lord more ample means of defence, for it would comprehend the whole consideration of the circumstances of the case. The noble lord stated, that it was impossible lord Melville could defend himself against a criminal prosecution, having. destroyed his papers. That, however,was lord Melville's own act, and ought not to prevent his trials. If, on the trial, the court should be opinion that he had not participated in the profits, and that his crime was merely having inadvertently suffered the abuse, he would be acquitted and restored to his station. For these reasons, and for those so ably enforced by his noble friend near him, (lord Henry Petty,) who, every time he spoke, raised himself higher in the opinion of the house, he was for the original motion, for proceeding by impeachment. Next to impeachment he approved of the criminal prosecution, and if the original motion should not be agreed, to, he would vote for the amendment, and move the insertion into it of the words. "that the attorney-general be directed to prosecute." He had no personal ill will to lord Melville. On the contrary, he would rejoice if the noble lord could be proved innocent. He supposed the noble lord alluded to him, when he stated that the lashes inflicted on him were rendered more severe by the consideration of the hands from which they came. He understood this to apply to him from a former allusion. But he denied that any obligation had been conferred on him in the matter referred to, which should prevent him from doing his duty. It was merely an act of justice that was done, certainly to persons who were most dear to him (lord Grey, and earl St. Vincent). He had himself most earnestly pressed for the enquiry, in opposition to those who were supposed to have acquired some right over resisting it. How did it happen that this ingratitude, which was now so liberally charged upon him, was never once mentioned during his constant opposition to the right hon. gent. opposite (the chancellor of the exchequer), who was equally active in conferring the supposed favour, and against whom he had moved decided resolutions of a criminal nature? The magnanimity of employing in the service of the country persons of opposite political sentiments had been much insisted upon; but the fact was, that the noble earl whose services had so much benefited the country, had always taken a very different course of politics from him. The noble lord who was the subject of the present debate had less right than any man to complain of the possibility of the persons by whom he may be tried having been present at the meetings where resolutions had been entered into against him. If any hardship could arise to the noble lord in this respect, it was a hardship inseparable from the constitution. The persons who had attended these meetings had not done any thing to prejudice the noble lord's case; but no man Was less entitled to complain of hard ship in this respect than the noble lore Every one would recollect the proceeding held with respect to the state trials in 1792 and 1793, and how active the noble for had been in promoting all these proceedings. Taking the two reports together, he thought there was an irresistible mass of evidence to show the criminality of the noble lord. If the impeachment should not be agreed to, he hoped the house would vote that he be proceeded against criminal.

Lord Castlereagh explained: he had stated that if the fifteen thousand pound lent to lord Melville, should be proved to be public money, even then the advantage enjoyed from the use of it would amount to no more than seven hundred and fifty pounds a year, for which a man in lord Melville's situation could hardly be supposed to hazard his character.

Mr. Robert Dundas (son of lord Melville), adverting to some allusions that had been made to the observations of lord Melville in his address to the house, declared his conviction that nothing could be further from the mind of that noble lord than to impeach the right of any member to deliver his opinion fully upon any public topic. However, he could not help justifying the complaint of the noble lord as to the manner in which the right of public discussion had been exercised elsewhere. The noble lord was entitled to complain of the conduct of those gentlemen who had made statements and delivered opinions upon his ease before persons who were not competent to forth a correct decision; before assemblies which were not qualified from Capacity to investigate and determine upon the question. This conduct was the more deserving of complaint and censure, because many of the statements that had been made were the very reverse of the truth. It was understood that at one of the late public meetings, in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, a person of high rank and consideration was heard to say, that high loans and burthensome taxes proceeded from the speculations of lord Melville and Trotter. Now,in point of fact, nothing could be more untrue, and yet could any thing be more particularly calculated to mislead persons incapable of judging, and to inflame popular prejudices? There were other points to which he was not disposed to allude, and to which, indeed, froze the able manner in which they had been treated in the course of the debate by some gentlemen who concurred wits him in sentiment, he did not think it necessary on his part to call the attention of the house, although they appeared to him peculiarly delusive. Of these points, however, there were some which he could not persuade himself intirely to overlook. It was stated in the resolutions before the house, and the statement was frequently echoed by the gentlemen on the other side, that lord Melville postponed the execution of the act of the 25th of his majesty, for about half a year, and from this alledged postponement, several very injurious inferences were drawn. But, how did the case stand? the gentlemen who made the statement had not, it appeared, ever perused the act. For, in the very first clause it is prescribed, that the treasurer of the navy should make out annual accompts. Now, the act passed in July, 1785; the annual accompt was directed to close on the 31st of December, 1785; of course it could not commence before January; and from this proceeded the postponement complained of. Had the noble lord opened the accompt immediately on the passing of the act; he could have opened the first accompt only for six months, which he was not competent to do, as the nature, of the accompts and the time for the first accompt to close was expressly mentioned in the act. With this statement he left the house to conclude, whether the charge against lord Melville, in this instance, of delaying the execution of a statute for sinister purposes, was at all applicable. With regard to the allegation, that lord Melville had been guilty of practising a wilful and fraudulent deceit upon the public and individuals respecting the mode of withdrawing naval money from the bank and transfer, ring it to a private banking-house, he must observe, that notwithstanding all that had been urged on the other side, the natural and fair conclusion from the noble lord's conduct on being informed of the communication from Mr. Raikes was this, that he was entirely unconscious of any illegality so far as he knew of the proceedings, of Trotter. The impression on the noble lord's mind appeared to be, that no more money was drawn from the bank by Trotter than was necessary for the convenient dis charge of the business of the Navy Office. That large sums were transferred by Trotter to a private bank for his own private profit with the knowledge of lord Melville, really did not seem from this part of the case, upon which some gentlemen dwelt so much. An hon. gent. had taken notice of some sums of money which were in different descriptions of stock in the name of lord Melville, at the time the noble lord retired from office. But he could assure the house and that hon. gent. that if it were not that lord Melville wits unwilling to trespass on the attention of the house, when he was before it yesterday, by a disgusting detail of family transactions, he could have easily shewn that of these several sums there was not one which had the least connection with public money or public affairs, excepting that which related to the loyalty loan. There was, indeed, a part of the property alluded to, with which he had himself some connection, and that part the house might be assured was never purchased with public money. The hon. gent. therefore was not founded in the insinuations he threw out with respect to this stock.—Now, as to the release, of which so much had been said, he could state, that gentlemen were under a considerable mistake when they imagined that such an instrument could be registered without publicity. The fact was, that like all other deeds in Scotland, where there was a clause of registration, it might be inspected at the register office; and as to the omission of the names of the procurators in the body of the release, which a noble lord (II. Petty) had last night remarked upon, a similar omission was to be found in every Scotch deed, the names of the procurators never being known until the deed was about to be proceeded upon. It had been argued by the hon. gent. who moved the impeachment, that a concert between lord Melville and Trotter respecting this release was fairly to be presumed, because, as the hon. gent. stated it, a precept from the Naval Commissioners was issued on the 17th of Jaunary, 1803, requiring a return of the balances of public money, at several periods, in the hands of the treasurer of the navy, &c. to which precept a return was made early in February, just about the time of the execution of the release. In this statement he conceived that there must have been a mistake: for lord Melville being at that period in Scotland, it was impossible that the precept could have been served upon him and the return received within the time mentioned. Having made en- quiry upon this point, he was enabled to state positively that no such precept was ever served upon lord Melville, nor did he know of any precept whatever from the Naval Commissioners until that in July, 18O4, which was mentioned in the Tenth Report. The train of suspicious circumstances, therefore, which the hon. mover would deduce from the precept alledged to have been issued in January, 1803, was, with respect to lord Melville, totally un- founded.

Mr. Ellison contended that there were ample grounds for putting lord Melville on his trial. The country at large expected to have the matter before them, and the people had a right to know the truth; which could not be known without a trial. When he saw that the money of his constituents had been applied to improper purposes, he felt it his duty to support the impeachment, and he trusted the enquiry, which he was sorry to see so many gentlemen desirous to avoid, would carry the noble lord free and innocent through the business, and he wished to see him put in a situation, in which matters would be settled either to his honour or his punishment. It was at least the duty of the house not to let the business go without investigation.

Mr. G. Vansittart was for instituting a criminal prosecution; but the expence attendant on an impeachment was so enormous,that he wished it to be instituted by the attorney-general as a mode most cousistent with economy, and best calculated to promote the ends of public justice.

Mr. Bankes regretted that the house had not come at first to the resolution of a criminal prosecution, as he had recommended on a former occasion. It had always peared to him, he confessed, that a civil prosecution could be attended with no ultimate advantage, and that the only way to investigate and sift the matter, was by a criminal and not a civil suit. He was led, on various grounds, to prefer this mode of proceeding to an impeachment, though that he argued was still open. The inconveniency that the last impeachment had caused to many individuals must still be fresh in the recollection of the house, as well as the little honour that accrued to them from the result of that proceeding. This circumstance alone was sufficient to induce him to prefer almost any other mode of proceeding that was at all likely to meet the great ends of public justice. It had been asserted, however, by those who, he thought, ought to know better, that there were no precedents for this proceeding; but there was one to which he would call the attention of the house, and which agreed in almost every respect with the case in question. It corresponded particularly with the present case in the person being of superior rank. He meant the case of lord Halifax, who on the 27th of January 1702. by certain resolutions of the commissioners was found guilty of a breach of trust in not revising the quarterly accounts, as it was the duty of his office to do. It had been represented as irregular, and contrary to the principles of justice to find a person guilty before ordering a prosecution: but it was certainly the most natural way to find first the breach of the act of parliament, and then to order a prosecution on the ground of that breach of the act. This was exactly the practice adopted in regard to lord Halifax. He was first declared guilty of a breach of trust by the resolutions, and those resolutions were afterwards laid before her majesty, praying her majesty that she would be pleased to give directions to her attorney-general to prosecute lord Halifax for his offences. In this instance, therefore, there were three different steps observable, the resolutions of a breach of law, the vote to carry up those resolutions to the throne, and the address to her majesty to direct her attorney-general to institute a prosecution for the same, but it had been alledged by the friends of the noble lord, that his removal from his majesty's privy council was punishment enough in consequence of the resolutions they had carried up to the throne. But this removal was not in consequence of any motion of the house to that effect. It was the act of his majesty alone, which he had done, not by any address from them, but by the advice of his ministers; and it appeared to him that they had advised his majesty wisely, that a person, so accused, as his lordship was, should not be permitted to hold any official situation. But this was merely an act of expediency, and did not mark any positive degree of guilt, as such measures might with propriety be adopted in relation to persons in the least degree suspected, as well as to the most guilty.—But the case of lord Halifax was not the only instance that bore on the present question. In the year 1711, when the censure of the house was voted against the duke of Marlborough, who had done much for his country, and whose services cer- tainly could not be reckoned inferior to those of the noble lord in question, the resolutions were carried up to her majesty, and as it was customary for the crown, at that time, and not the house, to direct prosecutions, she ordered a prosecution in consequence of the address from the house, notwithstanding the duke was not then in the receipt of any emoluments from office. Those resolutions therefore, it appeared,were not considered of themselves, as sufficient punishment, nor yet the deprivation of emolument that might accompany them. But had the address been intended to operate as a sufficient punishment, it ought to have been presented in another shape, and to have prayed his majesty to have dismissed him from his presence and councils for ever, for as things now stood, the noble lord might be restored, at no distant period, to that situation from which he had been removed. The dignity of the house could not be preserved, nor the, satisfaction of the public ensured, without a fair and open trial. It had been argued that there were no new circumstances to justify any farther measures, but this assertion he totally denied. Was the discovery of the release not a new circumstance? Was not the 10,000l. due by lord Melville under paymastership of Mr. Douglas, a new circumstance? And was it not worthy of remark, that Mr. Douglas could not have advanced that sum to his lordship on the same ground as Mr. Trotter, as he, is not pretended to have been his private agent, and yet no memorandum of it seems to have existed in the office? If such then were the additional transactions that had come to their knowledge, what would the public say should they shut their eyes against these new discoveries, discoveries made, too, contrary to what had been asserted?

Mr. Canning rose and spoke as follows:—The hon. gent. who has just sat down seems to consider that he has found out an easy solution to all the difficulties and embarrassments that other gentlemen have conceived this question is involved in. He has undertaken to spew that there is nothing contrary to the established usage and custom of parliament in the proposition which has been made to you, and to prove this he has cited two instances, which he seems to consider perfectly applicable and similar to the present case, but which I conceive to be widely different from it in the most material circumstances. The first instance which he men- tions is the case of lord Halifax, in the year 1702, when it appears from the journals of parliament that the house of commons presented to the throne the resolutions which they had entered into with respect to that nobleman, and that queen Anne accordingly directed her attorney-general to prosecute; but the great difference between that case and the present is this, that the house of commons at that time announced to her majesty at once the grounds of their resolutions, and the object of them, and the prosecution was therefore immediately ordered. In the second instance, when the house of commons voted resolutions expressive of their displeasure of certain parts of the conduct of the great duke of Marlborough, the crown of itself ordered a prosecution, as conceiving the communication of the displeasure of the house did at that time imply a recommendation to the crown to commence a prosecution. But how did either of those cases resemble the present in any point that was material to the present discussion? In lord Melville's case, the commons had neither stated to the crown their wish that a criminal prosecution should be instituted, nor could the resolutions they had entered into be supposed to convey that idea. They could not be so understood when they were presented at the foot of the throne; they were not so understood when they were voted by the house. In the case before cited, the meaning and the wish of the commons were distinctly stated, and the natural consequences followed; but in the present instance, the resolutions which were first entered into by the house of commons, did not express or convey any ulterior object, they could not be understood to convey that which had not even been stated by those who proposed them. In this respect it appears to me that there is a wide difference between the present case, and those with which the hon. gent. has thought proper to compare it. There are some observations which have been made by another hon. gent. (Mr. Grey) to which I think it necessary to reply. He seems to consider it a most unusual, if not unparliamentary thing for the noble lord who spoke yesterday (lord Melville), and for the noble lord who has this day spoken (lord Castlereagh), to comment rather freely upon these resolutions of the house, and to appear not perfectly satisfied with them. I am not a very old member of this house, but I have sat long enough in it to know that it is not at all unusual in other cases to refer to the conduct of parliament both in former times and in the present, and to express fully the opinion that any member may entertain of the votes and proceedings of the house when that opinion is necessarily connected with the question under discussion. If this is a practice in all common cases, why should it not be permitted in cases where the legislature have acted in a judicial capacity? Why should not we be as much at liberty to speak with freedom of these resolutions as of other votes and proceedings of the house, especially when every one must acknowledge that they were brought forward after a hot debate, and adopted with more precipitancy than is usual in parliamentary proceedings. The hon. gent. (Mr. Grey) has said not only that the noble lord who sits near me (lord Castlereagh), but that lord Melville has complained of the resolutions of the house. When lord Melville was permitted to address this house, I cannot see why he should not have liberty of complaining, if he thought proper, of those resolutions form which he has suffered so severely. But the fact is, that lord Melville did not make any complaints as to the justice of your resolutions, he did not make any additional confessions which he had before refused to make, but he confined himself to explaining several circumstances, which, without his explanation, might have been completely misunderstood by the house, and in which he conceived he had been misunderstood. He contended that he had been misunderstood, if it was ever supposed that he had meant to admit that he knowingly permitted Mr. Trotter to draw the public money from the bank for his own gain, or that he had at all authorized those speculations which had been made in discounting bills and buying stock. If the house had been mistaken in their construction of his evidence, why should he not be at liberty to explain it, and to shew that they were mistaken in the conclusions they had drawn? If the house supposed that lord Melville had permitted or consented to the drawing money out of the bank of the private emolument of Mr. Trotter, or any other, at least that supposition could not rest on any admission of lord Melville, and could hardly be deduced from the tenth report; for by referring to the evidence of lord Melville, in page 142 of the report, it would be seen that what lord Melville admitted he had authorized Mr. Trotter to draw for, was merely So, much public money as was necessary for the payment of the assignments from the different offices, and for the small payments. The sense that those words would convey to any impartial and unprejudiced mind would certainly not be so construed as to be conceived an admission of an authority to Mr. Trotter to draw other money than what is so mentioned, and for other purposes; not for the objects expressly stated, but for his own private emolument. If from other circumstances you can infer, that a greater degree of guilt attaches to lord Melville, that may be a different question; but certainly it should be distinctly understood that there is nothing in lord Melville's admission from which it can be presumed that he either authorized or knew of any improper use being made by Mr. Trotter of the money drawn from the bank; or that he ever imagined that Mr. Trotter could have derived any other advantage, except that small premium, which, in some parts of the country, is given, on the deposit of large sums at a private banker's. From the evidence of lord Melville, it appears highly doubtful whether he could have conceived that he was at all violating either the letter or the spirit of the law. It appears highly doubtful whether, in fact, he did violate the law. It is my decided opinion, that if no other Money was drawn from the bank than what was necessary for the payment of the assignments, and for the smaller payments, there was no violation of the law. Upon this point many gentlemen, both in this house and out of it, are completely mistaken in their opinion, when they consider the question as merely drawing money from the bank of England, and putting it into a private bank. If the money was legally drawn out of the banks the question is not between the bank of England and Messrs. Coutts, it is not that the house of Messrs. Coutts has been substituted for the bank, but it has been substituted for the iron chest in the,office, where the money might have been kept in A manner more agreeable to official form but not with more security. The question of security is not between. the bank and, Messrs. Coutts, but it is between the iron chest at the office, (which is in some degree exposed to the various persons about the office), And the private banker; and, in this view of the subject, 1 do not hesitate to say, that I think the security of the private banker is greater than that of the iron,chest. If there would have been no violation of the law in leaving the money so drawn out in the iron chest, I will contend that it is no violation to leave it in the hands of a private banker. If, again, instead of the money so drawn from the bank being left by the paymaster in the hands of his private banker, it had been left in the hands of sub-accountants, that would have been more agreeable to the forms of the office, but certainly it would not be safer for the public. The question, therefore, appears to me to be, whether lord Melville authorized any other money to be drawn from the bank than what might legally be drawn? and it is my opinion the public has suffered nothing, the law has suffered nothing, not a hair of its head has been violated. If I was asked, whether I would prefer placing the balances in my hands in the iron chest of the office, or in the hands of a private banker, I should now certainly. prefer the iron chest; not that I think it more secure, nor yet as secure, but because, after the dreadful experience of the consequences which might result to me personally from lodging it at a private banker's, after seeing the misfortune which it has occasioned to lord Melville, I should not venture to do so, even if I were convinced in my own judgment that it was the safer and the better way. Without dwelling longer on the disgusting transactions of Mr. Trotter and his accounts, I should wish to ask gentlemen on the other side, do they believe the evidence of lord Melville, or do they not; or do they only believe such parts of it as makes fur them, and reject all that makes against them? If you. do believe the evidence of lord Melville, how can any person, in conscience or in sense, reject that account which he gave at first, without the least disguise, as to his knowledge of Mr. Trotter's gains, and which he has again distinctly explained in his speech last night? What could be more natural than for him to suppose that Trotter might derive some small emolument, in the nature of a per centage, on the money deposited by him in the hands of his private banker? Such is the universal custom in Scotland; and I have made particular enquiries, and find it is the custom also at many of the country bankers in this country, with, many of our principal merchants, and even with some bankers in London. It was natural for him to suppose that this was all the profit which Mr. Trotter made, and that a small and incidental advantage of that sort was not contrary to the law. It could not then be contrary to the custom of parliament, or to the respect due to this house, to speak freely on those topics upon which the resolutions may have been grounded. The time is now come when we most see that it is absolutely necessary for us to review the evdience upon which the resolutions were grounded. While we kept the business in our own hands, it was sufficient for us if we were satisfied with the evidence; but when we go farther, and propose prosecutions, we must consider whether we have any evidence that can legally support the Conclusions we would wish to draw. In our proceedings in this house, it is incumbent on the party accused to bring forward evidence to discharge himself; but if we are determined to send the matter to be tried before other tribunals, it is we that must bring forward legal evidence to support our prosecution, and, therefore, before we decide on a prosecution, it appears to me absolutely necessary to consider whether there has been any evidence winch would legally be sufficient to support it. It has been admitted by almost every gentleman who has spoken on this subject, that if there had appeared nothing more against lord Melville than what was on the face of the tenth report, it would be inconsistent with the former decisions of the house to propose any new measure of punishment. They allow that the loss of his situation as first lord of the admiralty, and his name being struck out of the list of privy counsellors, was as great punishment as the house of commons meant to inflict for the violation of law stated in the tenth report; and they say, that if nothing new had appeared in the present report, it would be unjust and inconsistent to propose now any thing more than what has been already proposed. I shall therefore consider, what it is that has now been disclosed which aggravates the Complexion of that guilt which appeared on the face of the tenth report. At the time that you passed those resolutions, it was confessed that sixty thousand pounds of the public money had been diverted to purposes not naval; but since that time forty thousand pounds have been accounted for in a manner that is perfectly satisfactory to many gentlemen, and certainly in a manner that cannot be considered by any body as an aggravation. Where then is your new fact? You passed those resolutions when sixty thousand pounds were unaccounted for, and now you are called upon to take much severer measures, when only twenty thou and pounds remain to be accounted for. On the resolutions you first passed, lord Melville has been punished--most severely punished. I cannot conceive what stiff that man's heart is made of, who can say he has not been punished. It now turns out, that the greater part of the money, which was then unaccounted for is now perfectly and satisfactorily accounted for; and that what at first appeared so illegal, will hardly now be called any thing more than irregular. The ten thousand pounds winch lord Melville confesses he borrowed from Mr. Trotter, for his subscription to the loyalty loan, and which he afterwards replaced, was not a circumstance, which, standing by itself, could at all induce such a degree of suspicion, as to be a ground for very vindictive proceedings. As to the great imprudence of lord Melville about his private affairs, I am perfectly ready to admit it. I consider that it was most highly imprudent in him to have employed the same man with whom he was connected in office to be his private agent. For this imprudence he has paid most dearly; and certainly, if, instead of employing Mr. Trotter as his agent, he had employed any other person of property or connections, it would have been no extraordinary demand for a person in his situation, and with his income, to apply to his agent to procure him the means of subscribing ten thousand pounds to the loyalty loan, which, as his lordship expressly stated yesterday, he intended to sell out immediately after the instalments were paid. This would certainly have been an accommodation no greater than he might have expected from any other agent, and it is only from the circumstance of Mr. Trotter being at that time paymaster of the navy, that this sum of ten thousand pounds makes so considerable a figure in that account. To this imprudence in appointing, Mr. Trotter his private agent was added, the imprudence of confiding too much in him, and a negligence in not watching him as he ought. His confidence was misplaced, and he was blameable in not sufficiently watching him; but surely that was not a sort of blame which would ever induce the house to add to the severity of the punishment they had already inflicted. As to the point of the releases, an hon. gent. (Mr. Bond) had stated them as if they had been locked up in a private box, and were intended to be carefully concealed from every eye. I think I have a right to complain of the hon. gent.'s stating such a thing as this, on an occasion of such great importance, when it is impossible for him to know the fact to be as he has stated, and when I firmly believe the fact to be entirely otherwise. He seems to speak with doubt of the registering, and considers the execution of that paper as proof of a conspiracy between lord Melville and Mr. Trotter. This circumstance has already been explained, and it can hardly be imagined that lord Melville could be so foolish as to contrive so weak a plan for executing a deed, to do that which could be done as effectually without a deed, and without admitting any other person into the secret. It has been urged as an aggravation to the criminality of violating the law, that he himself was the maker of it; on the other hand it might full as well be argued, that in a case of the doubtful construction of an act of parliament, he who made the act was most likely to understand the meaning of it. It would be hard that his authority should be counted as nothing the construction of the act, but that it should be reckoned as a great aggravation of his offence in violating not his construction of the act but yours. It has been said, that lord Melville's bill was exactly the same as that for regulating the paymaster of the army, and that the cases were precisely similar. There, however, was a very marked distinction between them. In the army the detailed payments were made by the different army agents, and the payments made at the paymaster's office were so few and so simple, that there could be no occasion for drawing money from the bank. The reason of lord Melville's bill was, however, very different; before that time almost every successive treasurer of the navy, on quitting the office, carried with him large balances of the public money, and was responsible for the payments due in his time; the consequence of which was, that there were at the same time no less than three ex-treasurers of the navy, all having large balances in their hands. To remedy these inconveniences, lord Mel- ville's act provided that, in fact, there should be in future but one treasurer of the navy; that each, at his departure from office, should hand over his balances to his successor, and that those different balances should be formed into an aggregate sum, which should be deposited in the bank, and only drawn out under certain circumstances. Could any thing be more absurd than to suppose, that when lord Melville framed this law he had it in his contemplation to break it, and to break it for a consideration so very trifling and paltry as those sums are which he is supposed to have gained from the employment of the public money? I have also been informed, from enquiries I lately made at the bank, that the original power given by lord Melville to Mr. Trotter was very strictly drawn up and worded, and perfectly agreeable to the act. The reason I can speak positively on that fact is this: I called at the bank lately to know what was the proper form of an authority to give to a paymaster whom I lately appointed. I was then given the form of lord Melville's power to Mr. Trotter, as being much more strictly drawn than any of the preceding powers. I mention this circumstance, to shew that lord Melville could not at that time have had any deliberate intention of violating his own act, and if he almost immediately did allow Mr. Trotter to draw money from the bank in a manner that appears to this house a violation of the law, it could only have been that he construed the law upon this point differently from the manner in which the house has since construed it. I must again ask, where are the new facts which should now induce the house to inflict new and severer punishment? We all recollect the impression that was on the public mind at the time those resolutions were passed; we then heard of the immense profits, of the enormous gains which lord Melville must have made of the public money, and now those enormous profits are diminished so far that by the highest statement they do not exceed two thousand pounds per annum. I must confess I was astonished at this falling off, and nothing can appear clearer to me than that the supposed injury, which it was thought the public had received, has now dwindled into almost nothing. It certainly will not be said that this sum of two thousand pounds was the occasion of fresh loans and taxes. I agree most perfectly with the observation of lord Melville yesterday, "that the time is not far distant when the unnatural magnitude to which the offence (if offence it was) has been swelled would subside, and his character be rescued from the obloquy which now attends it." Under the circumstance of the great confusion and mixture in Mr. Trotter's accounts, was it possible for lord Melville to say positively whether he had or had not received some profit from the public money? No man can say positively whether or not he has received public money. If a man sells his horse, it is impossible for him to say, whether what he receives as the price of it is or is not public money. The circumstances under which the examination of lord Melville took place were somewhat extraordinary. He received a very polite note from the commissioners of naval enquiry, requesting his attendance to explain to them the manner of doing business in the office of the treasurer of the navy. He attended the invitation without in the least suspecting that the examination was to be pointed against him. A few questions were asked him, to which he replied. They then printed their report, and this was what was called his trial. If a man, without any notice that any charge was intended against him, should be requested by a judge's letter to come to the Old Bailey, and should there be asked a few questions, would that be considered as a trial? The questions in this case were all prepared and concerted, the answers were given without suspicion and without time for much consideration. There is a sum of five thousand pounds, which, it appears, was but lately replaced, but until lately there was no one authorized to receive it. As to the business of Jellicoe, it is confessed on all hands, that the debt was contracted before lord Melville's treasurership, and the only blame attempted to be laid to his charge in this respect is, that having it in his power to ruin Mr. Jellicoe at once, he preferred making some arrangement, by which some part of the debt was recovered for the public. The very circumstance of the great default of Mr. Jellicoe serves to prove, that it was safer that the balances of public money should be left in the hands of the paymaster or his private banker, than that it should continue, as it had done before, in the hands of failing sub-accountants, of other Mr. Jellicoes. I have now gone through the principal grounds on which those resolutions appear to me to have been founded, and I will put it to the feelings of every man who hears me, whether it ever could have been the intention of the house to inflict their punishments at different times, to wait, as it were, until his stripes were healed, in order to give additional torment, and to prolong the pain? This would not be suitable to the genius or disposition of the people of this country, it would not be the road to public favour; on the contrary, the way to public favour in this country would be by that of justice, to hear all, to enquire into all, and to punish once for all; but even this severity is not equal to some other people's mercy. The hon. member, who has recommended what he has called the lenient course, wishes to deprive him even of the privilege of being tried by his peers. It should be considered, that men in high situations are much exposed to the envy of men comparatively little, who would have pleasure in trampling on those who once were high and great. On this account, I think he ought to be tried by his peers, if there should be any occasion to try him at all. I must confess that I feel, however, much astonished that there should be gentlemen who seem to wish that the civil suit should be stopped, merely in hopes a greater punishment might be obtained by the criminal prosecution; but that if that failed, they would like to have recourse to the civil suit again. I hope that such a sentiment as this will never be generally felt in this country, and that such a conduct will never be adopted by this house.

Mr. Bragge Bathurst said, that if the right hon. gent. who had just sat down (Mr. Canning) thought sincerely that it would conduce to the interest of viscount Melville in the minds of the members of that house, that it would add to the honour and character of that noble lord, either with the house or the country, to mention in the manner he had done the motion made by his right hon. friend (Mr. Bond), he was certainly right in doing so; but in this he differed intirely from the right hon. gent.; and thought, therefore, it was his particular duty to give his reasons for supporting the motion of amendment brought forward by his right hon. friend, being conscious that it did not merit those sarcastic epithets which had been applied to it. He thought the right hon. gent. who spoke last, had been very much mistaken relative to an article, namely, the release. It had been vauntingly said, by more than one hon. member, that his right hon. friend was ignorant of the laws of Scotland, and al- together wrong in having asserted that deeds in Scotland need not be registered. He was certain this must proceed upon a most palpable mistake. His right hon. friend had not maintained any such position. He had only said, that a deed in Scotland might be recorded, and very often was so, without the contents being at all known, the title and date, with the names of the parties, being the whole that was recorded. It now turned out, however, that this deed, instead of being recorded, was in such a state as that it would not perhaps ever be recorded. The names of the procurators were not put to it, and without these it never could be recorded. With respect to the motion itself, as brought forward by his right hon. friend, it had, in order to avoid all objections, been drawn up in the same form as those motions have generally been. It had always, he believed, been usual to leave to the attorney-general the mode of commencing the prosecution, and of applying every circumstance that might tend to render it effectual. As such, the motion was generally worded, so as to leave the whole to his conduct., discretion, and superior legal knowledge. With regard to the particular situation of the house relative to the proceedings which had already taken place, he, for his own part, saw no difficulties but such as were of their own creating. If it could be shewn they had done any thing which was actually done, or which it would be better not to have done; there was a plan and obvious track for the house to pursue, they might retrace their own steps. The other house of parliament, in a case of a similar tendency. to the present, had for weeks past been doing the same, and he was confident that house might proceed in the way proposed, without any disgrace or merited censure. The question was not whether there should be any investigation at all, but whether the investigation should take place through the medium of a civil suit, or a criminal prosecution. It was for the house to consider and determine that point, and to proceed accordingly. In his opinion new matter had certainly arisen out of the last report. Thence arose the question on which so much had already been said, relative to the 10,000l. and to the 23,000l. which had not before been at all explained. These facts, he would allow, were not new in allegation, but they were so in point of proof, and unquestionably new facts would warrant new pro- ceedings. If no criminal proceeding was instituted, the justice to the country, which was its due, and which was at present so loudly and universally called for in consequence of these very transactions, could only be obtained by a civil suit. In his opinion, it was perfectly fruitless to hope or expect any such thing. It was, therefore, for the house to decide, whether they would try viscount Melville by civil suit, which could produce nothing in favour of the public, for that strongest of all reasons that had been so often mentioned, namely, that the papers and vouchers which could alone furnish the necessary proof against him, were all destroyed; or, whether they would call the noble viscount to account by prosecuting him in a criminal way, and thereby endeavouring to obtain justice, and a due degree of punishment for the connivance he had been guilty of, and the share he had taken in the illegal disposition of the public money which had come to his hands, and of which he had repeatedly avowed he would give no account. He thought, therefore, there was very good ground to proceed, and that it was absolutely necessary they should do so. If viscount Melville was innocent, the house had done too much, and justice would require they should retrace ther steps. If the noble lord was guilty, the house had not done enough; and the duty they owed themselves, as well as that they owed the country, demanded they should proceed, and bring him to that punishment which it might on a fair trial be found he deserved.—The right hon. gent. then adverted to what had been said relative to the evidence which he had given before the commissioners of naval enquiry, as to the reason for his altering the mode of drawing money from the bank, during the time he was in the office of treasurer of the navy. He thought the best way he could pursue, in order to put the house into the real possession of it, was, to read it from the printed evidence; which he accordingly did, and it appeared thereby, that on the commissioners of naval enquiry asking him, "what was his reason for altering the mode of drawing money out of the bank to be used for naval purposes?" He answered, "because he thought it inconsistent with the act of parliament, and that it was his duty to remedy immediately that irregularity." The house would see that he had mentioned it as an irregularity only. He thought, however, that money drawn from the bank in order to be employed in private purposes, or for any other that were not naval, Was a direct violation of the spirit of the act. He then adverted to the 10,000l. as matter of criminal charge, and said, it was asserted it could not be so, because it was used before the act passed. Of that, however, there was no certainty. And where money was granted for public purposes, to apply it to private, was undoubtedly gross malversation, as many recent cases would plainly chew. There were some ministers, and many persons in public offices, who had their salaries very considerably increased, in consideration of their relinquishing their right of taking fees. Now, if any of those ministers, persons in public offices, police magistrates, and others, were to receive the salary and the fees also, he should think they were guilty of a direct breach of the law, and ought to be punished accordingly. The right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt) had admitted on a former occasion, that the sum of 10,000l. was not satisfactorily accounted for. How then was the house to obtain that satisfaction? He had already said, it could not be had by a civil suit. It must, therefore, be by some other. He did not wish for any harsh measures; but the country expected, and was entitled to satisfaction. If the .punishment the noble lord had already suffered, should be found, on a trial, to be too great, it. would be the duty of the house to address his majesty to have him restored .to the honours of which he had been deprived. If he was found deserving that punishment, the judgment of the court would confirm it, and the country would have justice. At all events, he thought the noble lord's innocence, which was now loaded with so dark a cloud of suspicion, never could be fairly proved to the satisfaction of the public, but by a fair and impartial trial. The question, therefore, for the house to determine at present was, whether it would be proper, after the steps they had already taken, to sit down and content themselves with a civil suit, which could not affect the new matter? or whether they would adopt one of the two motions proposed by way of accomplishing a proper punishment, if guilt should be proved, or of convincing the world of the noble lord's innocence, should be acquitted of the matters laid to his charge? He was sorry to have troubled the house so long; but he thought it necessary to give his reasons for voting for the motion of his right hon. friend.

Mr. Ryder contended that the course now proposed was contrary to all the principles and the analogy of the law of England, namely, that after a man had received a sentence, and that sentence was inflicted on him, for any thing, he was not to be punished further for what might be called the aggravation of his offence. The house had passed a resolution declaring that the noble lord had misapplied the public money, that was the corpus delicti; what had since been discovered in the last report was only an aggravation of that offence.

The Attorney-General observed, on the course of the proceeding as far as the house had gone already, that as to the question which had been put to him in the course of the debate, whether the civil suit already instituted in this case would occasion any impediment, he had to answer, that the proceeding in that matter would be as effectual as if the bill had been filed in the court of exchequer on the last day of the last term, although as yet it had not been filed; and this he had abstained from because he thought it his duty to wait the event of the report of the committee sitting on that subject, to see how far new might be let in on the subject; and so far was he from agreeing with his learned friend behind him, that nothing which had arisen from the last report could be made part of a civil proceeding, that he entertained a different view of the point, and some part of that report made a substantial ground of charge. Another question had been put to him, whether or not he could state to the house, that the civil proceedings that had been instituted could form any bar to a criminal proceeding? He could only say, that as to bar, they unquestionably formed none; but he submitted to the discretion of the house, that if it wished to be governed by analogy, and to proceed as in any other place than that house would be absolutely of course, those civil proceedings would form a complete and invincible obstacle; and he trusted the house would not do that which in the hands of any other prosecutor would be a proceeding reflecting great disgrace on him. The house could not, consistently with justice, go on with two proceedings at once. With respect to the amendment of his right hon. friend, if carried, he, as attorney-general, would be put into an exceedingly disagreeable situation; because, if the house should direct the attorney-general to proceed for all the matters contained in the tenth report, he would take the liberty of asking whether he was to run the risk of a failure, by omitting to state that which might be important to ensure conviction, and by adopting only that which might appear to him to be matter of aggravation? Now, on that part of the subject which related to Mr. Jellicoe, he knew not how to make that matter of charge against the noble viscount without a specific vote for that purpose. He apprehended that he should require a direction of the house in many other particulars before he could exhibit them as matters of charge against the noble viscount, in the event of the house agreeing to come to a criminal proceeding against him. He should require directions from the house in a distinct statement what the points were which he was to make the subject of charge. If the house, said he, should order me to prosecute my lord Melville on the legal guilt, my lord Melville must be convicted either on an impeachment or indictment; but on his legal guilt he has already been condemned, for that legal guilt is constituted by the misapplication of the public money; the aggravation of that offence is in the course which that proceeding took, and it does appear to me to be quite a novel proceeding for the house to go on the corpus delicti, and after having bad the effect of a criminal proceeding, that is, after it has produced punishment for the offence, to proceed to a new prosecution on the aggravation of that charge. This is quite inconsistent with the rules of law, and repugnant to the principles of justice. If an indictment was found against a person for an assault, and he was convicted of a common assault, and it was afterwards discovered that the assault was committed with intent to kill, or to commit a robbery, that would be a great aggravation of the crime; but if the party were acquitted of that part of the charge, and found guilty of the common assault, and it was proposed to try him again on account of a subsequent discovery, he could plead in bar to the charge that he had been already convicted; but, in prosecution at the instance of this house, a defendant has not that advantage, because you have no technical record of the trial to which you could refer. You have not that form of a criminal court of justice, but you are in substance and effect a criminal court of justice, and you should therefore not ren- der it impossible for a person accused before you to obtain substantial justice, by charging him with the aggravation of an offence after you have proceeded to punish him for the corpus delicti; that would be absolutely unjust, and by which you would be availing yourselves of your own want of rules, by which the accused may protect himself in any other court appropriated to the administration of justice. You are not in a situation in which you can proceed justly to ulterior punishment, for what appears to you to be what is called aggravation of an offence. How would the charges be constituted? What makes the misapplication of the public money the principle of an offence, and what aggravates it, would perhaps be difficult even for a lawyer to state correctly. The aggravation of the crime is no distinct part of the crime itself, and it is inconsistent with the principles of the criminal justice of the country to proceed for the aggravation after punishment is inflicted for the crime itself; and, therefore, I trust the house will not adopt that mode of proceeding. You have brought yourselves into this difficulty, and gentlemen now candidly confess they feel the force of it. It is an embarrassment which the house ought to feel, for you cannot proceed now without interfering with the merciful administration of justice, which I trust will always be the British administration of justice; and therefore I hope, on the best reflection I can make on the subject, that gentlemen (however they may regret the circumstance) will feel that they have now no option. I know that this has the same effect as if lord Melville was to be pronounced not guilty on a criminal charge; but I will go no farther; if the house had not proceeded as it did, the case would now be necessarily presented in a different point of view, because, as it stands, there would be no answer as to the, misapplication in point of law of the ten thousand pounds; it would be a misapplication of the public money, for which he might have been liable to punishment if he had not been punished already. The misapplication of the public money in his hands, for which he did not account, would be a case, which the constitutional jealousy of this house would entertain as a serious charge. I therefore am prepared to say, so far from being of opinion there is no legal guilt in the case of my lord Melville, that I am by no means assured,if the house had not proceeded as it has done already, that I should not have voted for the impeachment; but I am now prepared to say, that gentlemen on the other side would have had my vote to-night, if they had taken my advice to wait until they had discovered, as far as they have been enabled to discover, what the nature was of the particular charges against my lord Melville. If they had proceeded more quietly, more slowly, but not the less surely for the attainment of justice, the case would have stood very differently from what it now does. The hon. gent. says, that the majority of the public has been greatly with him; but on the subject on which we are now debating, there is a prevailing and a growing sentiment in the public opinion. I say, I do believe that at this moment there is a prevailing and a growing sentiment in the public mind, that the hon. gent. would have given fairer advice to the house, and acted in a safer and better way for the attainment of his object (which was, I have no doubt, the object of justice), if he had abstained from proceeding to a vote on any part of the case, before he knew the whole of it. If the house should now adopt the mode proposed it would be to deliver over the noble lord to the certainty of a conviction of an offence for which he has been already punished; for it is impossible that he should obtain an acquittal, and, therefore, it must be in reality pursuing that system which I pressed the house to resist; instead of which I take the liberty to recommend to the house that which is the true character of the British administration of justice, by which this rule is established, that after punishment is inflicted for any crime, you shall not add another punishment on account of your having afterwards discovered some new circumstance which constitutes an aggravation of the guilt. Gentlemen say the noble lord does not desire or covet a trial, which they say he ought to do. It is impossible that he should be acquitted; every body admits there is legal guilt; it is quite clear there is legal guilt. Why then, what opportunity can the noble lord wish for to go to trial, in order to be acquitted? He cannot be acquitted; and those who wish him to appear on his trial for what they have already punished grim for, forget the principles of British justice, moderation, and mercy, and I hope the house Will not proceed in a way by which an ordinary prosecutor would disgrace himself.

Mr. Whitbread then rose to reply, and spoke in substance as follows:--sir; in the course of the long debates which have taken place on this most interesting and important subject, I have been arraigned as acting from feelings of vengeance and cruelty. It has been said that I have placed lord Melville in a situation more humiliating and more degrading than ever British subject was placed before. I have been accused too of entrapping the house into a particular form of proceedings which have created the utmost degree of embarrassment. To charges of such a nature as this, I can by no means plead guilty, nor can I contentedly hear assertions so confidently advanced which have no foundation in truth. Whatever a right hon. gent. (Mr. Canning) may chuse to think of the stupid and desultory manner in which I have managed this business, whatever the hon. and learned gent. who spoke last may conceive of the growing and prevailing sentiment of the country as to the imprudencies of the vote of the 8th of April, I feel myself called on to defend my character against a charge so foul as the supposition that I have ever uttered one expression, or supported one sentiment from feelings of vengeance against any individual. I trust that on the, contrary, I can appeal to my own heart for the purity of my motives. I am conscious on all occasions of having been actuated by principles of honesty and views of public advantage. As to what has fallen this evening from a right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. R. Dundas) who naturally feels the warmest interest in every thing which concerns the character of the noble lord whose conduct in the exercise of one of the most considerable offices in the state I have thought it my duty to arraign, I must beg leave to make one or two observations. I am sensible that when speaking of the noble lord's conduct I have been under the necessity of making use of very strong language. I have expressed myself strongly because, undoubtedly, I have felt strongly on the subject. I beg leave, however, to assure the hon. gent. that I have advanced nothing which was calculated to give him personal offence, that I have urged nothing which could give unnecessary pain to his feelings. While I say this I think it due to the hon. gent. to add, that the manner in which he has this evening addressed the house was highly becoming and respectful. It would, indeed, have been well for the noble lord if he had entrusted his defence to the hon. gent. rather than have undertaken it himself. Sure I am that if this course had been pursued, the character of the noble lord would have stood higher both in this house and in this country, than it did after his own defence was closed. Equally, certain I am, that if this course had been followed, the noble lord would have had more votes on his side this night. I confess I was astonished to hear an hon. gent. (Mr. Isaac Hawkins Browne) gravely stating that the defence of the noble lord greatly extenuated his criminality, and that if I had been wise, I would, as soon as that defence was finished, have consented to withdraw my motion. I may not, perhaps be so wise as the hon. gent.; but this I must say, that I am rather too nice to be satisfied with a defence which neither supplied what is defective, explained what is mysterious, nor removed what is ground of the strongest suspicion of an ignominious participation of profits derived from the illegal use of the public money. if the conduct of the noble lord was reprehensible before, I think his own defence placed it in still mote odious colours. A great deal has been said in the course of the debates, of the difficulties in which the proceedings of the house are now involved. I do not pretend to deny, sir, that difficulties do exist, but of this I am quite sensible, that the greater part of them are difficulties which the gentlemen on the other side of the house have knowingly and wilfully created. I am sensible that all which ingenuity, eloquence, and dexterity could accomplish, has been exerted for the sole purpose of embarrassing and retarding our proceedings. But, sir, the grand difficulty which, once removed, every other Would become trifling, is simply this, that gentlemen on the other side will not proceed on the evidence which the report of the committee contains. They will not come to that direct vote which the whole of the evidence so clearly points out to be necessary. The hon. and learned gent. who spoke last has stated in answer to a question from me, whether the civil suit and criminal charge were consistent with each other, that they are riot incompatible. Here, then, one material legal difficulty is, by the hon. gent.'s own admission, removed. But, sir, even it this difficulty ,had been insurmountable, if it had been found that the civil suit and ,the criminal charge could not go on at the same time, an easy remedy could have been obtained. If I could not resolve the diffi- culty, I should have been obliged to cut the Gordian knot and suffer the civil suit to be suspended for ever. The gentlemen on the other side, however, charge all our proceedings with violence and precipitation. It would have been somewhat satisfactory if those who brought forward such a charge had condescended to bring some evidence to support their assertion. I feel that so far from acting with precipitation, the house has acted on the gravest consideration of the subject. If in my humble life, I have ever been proud of the share which I have taken in public affairs, it has been in that share which I have taken in those proceedings which, however they may be arraigned by the gentlemen on the other side, have diffused the utmost satisfaction through every part of the country, If ever the house had reason to be proud of any of its proceedings, it has ground of just exultation at those resolutions which have been followed by the approbation and gratitude of a whole people. Gentlemen on the other side are loud in condemning the resolutions of the 8th of April. I dare them to propose to rescind those resolutions. I shall be ready to meet such a proposition if any member of this, house were to bring it forward. But, how is it that the charge of violence and precipitation is supported? It will surely not be denied that to come to certain criminating resolutions is no very unreasonable way of proceeding previous to a motion of impeachment. In this case, however, we. find 60,000l, of naval money illegally applied, and still we have come to no eliminating resolutions. I maintain, then, that I, in common with the house, am left perfectly unfettered in any course of proceedings which we may think proper to adopt. With respect to the case of Jellicoe, which. gentlemen on the other side are in the habit of considering as a matter altogether trilling, I, for my part, never viewed it in this light. On the contrary, I had prepared resolutions on the subject, to be submitted to the house, which I withdrew merely because it was thought proper to refer this, together with the other matters of delinquency, to a select committee.—It has been very unjustly insinuated that undue means have been taken to inflame the prejudices, and to rouse the passions of the people. If, sir, the public mind is inflamed, it has been solely created by the conduct of lord Melville, and let me assure the gentlemen on the other side, that this in. flamed feeling is not likely to subside till convicted delinquency meets with adequate punishment.—As to the county meetings which have taken place in different parts of the kingdom, I must say that I have never attended one of them, that I never Signed even one requisition. I am ready to confess, however, that the approbation expressed of my conduct at many of those meetings, has been highly gratifying to my feelings. To me these marks of the good opinion of my fellow-subjects are the more gratifying, because I am conscious that they wore by me never meanly courted. But, as so much has been said of inflammatory language, it may not be improper for me to recall to the recollection of some gentlemen the sort of language which was employed at the time by lord Melville, then a member of this house of parliament, previous to the impeachment of sir Thomas Rumbold. Before sir Thomas Rumbold was put on his defence, the charges against him were published and industriously circulated over the country. No art was left untried to inflame the passions of the people against him as a criminal of the first magnitude. I myself can recollect the counsel of sir Thomas Rumbold making a formal complaint of these exertions to inflame the public mind, at the bar of this house. This counsel is now, sir, at the head of the law department of this country, and is doubtless a man of great talents and wonderful acquirements. Not only is he able to discharge the arduous duties of judge in the court of Chancery and speaker of the house of lords, but he. finds leisure for not a little political manoeuvre and intrigue. If report does not sadly belie him, no long time has elapsed since he was successfully employed in turning out one administration, and perhaps no long time will elapse before he has an opportunity of, exerting his talents in the same way with similar success. This distinguished person was at the bar when sir Thomas Rumbold's impeachment was proposed, and, as I have already noticed, was employed as counsel. I remember, after noticing the violence exerted against his client, he addressed lord Melville, the accuser, in the same language in which king James addressed his favourite Buckingham. when he was pressing for the impeachment of earl Middleton; "Stenny, Stenny, you are a fool; if you go on thus, you'll have your belly-full of impeachments before you die." Such was the language addressed to the noble lord on the occasion I have referred to, and it is not a little singular, that the prediction has been so exactly fulfilled.—But, sir, after all that has taken place, I protest I was quite astonished at the language of the noble lord when conducting his defence. He very gravely informs us, that there are many imperfections in the present management of the office of treasurer of the navy; and even went so far as to say, that he was perfectly master of a plan by which all these abuses might be remedied. To have heard the noble lord, one would have thought that he was actually endeavouring to persuade the house to call him back to his old favourite employment, that the country might once more enjoy the benefit of his services. I am aware, sir, that his friends are ready to exclaim, that it is I who have prevented this so desirable event; that it is I who have completely extinguished him as a political character for ever. To such a charge as this, it is quite impossible for me to plead guilty, because I am conscious it is altogether undeserved. If the noble lord is rendered incapable of returning to consequence or to power, he owes this to himself, and not to any efforts of mine. He is now, sir, in the strictest sense of the word, felo-de-se. He is a political suicide. No more can he hope again to enter the political Elysium. All his expectations of future honours are fled; all his schemes of future ambition are blasted. He must now wander on the banks of the Styx, with kindred spirits employed in useless penitence, and forming unavailing schemes of reformation. Gladly now would the noble lord endeavour to persuade us, that once more returned to power, all his former delinquencies would be abandoned. No more would he suffer his agent, Mr. Trotter, scandalously to misapply the public money. No more would he form even the idea of participating in such dishonourable spoils. Nothing would then be too humble for him; nothing could be presented to him which he would not readily undertake: —Quam vellent æthere in alto Nunc et pauperiem, et duros perferre labores! Fata obstant, tristique palus inamabilis unda Alligat, et novies Styx interfusa c[...]ercet. Let not then the noble lord's friends impute to me the blame of the fall of their patron from his once high estate.--But, sir, passing from this point, what shall we say of the destruction of papers, which forms so striking a feature in this interesting business. It is a well known maxim, that every thing,may be fairly presumed against a man who comes into a court of law, and on his first entrance is forced to confess that he has taken the precaution of destroying all his memorandums, documents, and records, though they all referred to matters of the highest importance. I put it to any legal gentleman within these walls, what would be thought of a suitor who should go into the court of chancery under such circumstances? Would he not instantly be suspected of gross fraud; and instead of obtaining a full hearing, would he not rather be handed over to a court of criminal jurisdiction, where he would receive the reward due to his villainy? There are, in this case, too, of the destruction of papers, circumstances of peculiar aggravation. Lord Melville and Mr. Trotter, not satisfied with destroying their own accounts, memorandums, and records, consign, at the same time, to the flames, the documents and memorandums of others. This,I declare, seriously strikes my mind as one of the most suspicious circumstances in the whole of this mysterious business. The only object of the destruction of the papers, must have been concealment, and the only purpose of concealment must have been consciousness of guilt.—After all this, however, I am told, that, allowing the guilt of lord Melville to be as great as represented, still he has been sufficiently punished. I have on former occasions troubled the house so much at length on, this subject, that I cannot think at present of occupying much of your time, and therefore shall content myself with one or two observations. I wish, then, to call the attention of the gentlemen who hold the opinion that lord Melville has been already sufficiently punished, to the case of lord Macclesfield, a case by no means equal in point of atrocity to that now under consideration. In that case, lord Macclesfield was declared guilty of a gross offence: the resolutions were carried up to the throne, and he was struck out of the list of privy counsellors. Yet all this did not satisfy the ends of public justice. He was impeached, be was severely fined, and he was irretrievably disgraced and degraded. But, says the right hon. gent. will you first afflict the noble lord with stripes, then cast him into a dungeon, and when his wounds are nearly healed up again, drag him forth, and renew all his tortures? This sort of metaphorical language may be all very fine, but I confess I cannot, for the soul of Me, see its application. Cruelty I bate in every form; and sooner would endure the severest tortures than that any human being should, by my means, be subjected to unnecessary cruelty. As, however, the right hon. ,gent. has talked so much of metaphorical tortures, I must beg leave to refer him to his noble friend neat him. (lord Castlereagh) who can give him abundant information of the tortures exercised on the bare backs of the unfortunate inhabitants of Ireland, With the view of extorting confession of crimes of which many had neither knowledge nor participation. That noble lord does understand the nature of torture better than I can pretend to do, and therefore I shall leave the right hon. gent. and him to settle the matter together. I shall only say, that what I want, is not cruelty to any individual. It is substantial justice to the noble lord who is accused; to this house who have heard the accusation; to the country, which expects this justice at our hands. When the investigation was going forward before the committee, it was my ill fortune to have several of the members decidedly hostile to any propositions on my part: these were the hon. chairman, the right hon. and learned gent. opposite (the master of the rolls) and the noble lord who sits near him. But though certainly my task was difficult, I was too much in earnest to be deterred from following what I conceived to be my duty. As I was not to be deterred then, so shall I not be intimidated now. Some gentlemen on the other side have insisted, very triumphantly, that the public has sustained no loss, because all the sums of money advanced have been fairly and honourably repaid. On this part of the subject I differ so materially from these hon. gent. that I must take the liberty of offering a few strictures on this supposed repayment. It must be kept in view, that the fact of this repayment rests entirely on the evidence of Trotter, who, by the way, is a person possessed of a most curious kind of recollection. Why, sir, he seems to have either a frail recollection or a clear recollection precisely as it suits his purpose at the time he is examined. I may state to the house his answers when first examined, as to the replacing of the ten thousand pounds, the application of which the noble lord so peremptorily refuses to disclose. He was asked, "do you know whether this ten thousand pounds were ever repaid?" His answer was, "no, I do not." Reflecting, perhaps, on the nature of this answer, and finding it would not prove satisfactory, he afterwards added, that from the balances in his hands being correct, it must have been repaid, though he could not recollect the precise period when the repayment, took place. Is it not then extraordinary, that neither he nor lord Melville can condescend to inform us, on even one period, when any part of the sums advanced, from time to time, for the use of lord Melville, were replaced. Both were desired to specify even a solitary case when a repayment took place, and both profess their inability to satisfy this so reasonable request. Trotter's recollection is obscure and confused, and the memory of his noble patron and associate is equally frail and inefficient. Now, sir, speaking gravely on this most grave subject, what are we to think of such conduct? Are we not naturally led to think that there has been foul villainy practised by men who profess total ignorance on subjects on which men in general, however negligent in other matters, endeavour to cultivate a certain degree of accuracy. I am sensible, that I have not the means of proving my assertion, and therefore I will not positively assert it; but this I will say, that there is the strongest presumption that no bonâ fide re-payment of the different sums advanced ever did take place. I can easily conceive, though I cannot prove it, that lord Melville should say to Mr. Trotter, "I want ten thousand pounds; you know I cannot repay you, but make good use of your time and opportunities. Replace the sum by degrees keep the balances regular, and no one will be the wiser for this transaction!" I am not prepared to say that this language, or language of a similar nature was actually used by lord Melville; but no man has a right to deprive me of ray suspicion, that in this or some similar way has the only repayment of the sums withdrawn taken place. True it is, I have no direct proof of this, but neither can its possibility or probability be denied. Now come we to the twenty thousand pounds of which his lordship refuses to give even the slighest explanation. He tells you, that for many years, he was not minister, but governor for Scotland: that is, in other words, though not employed by the crown in any office that referred to that country, he tells you in the face of the house, [...] he disregards your power of enquiring into the expenditure of the public money, that he is resolved to keep the whole secret to himself, and that nothing on earth shall ever extort the secret from his bosom. Now, sir, let us see in what sort of a situation the noble lord would be placed, if the persons among whom the money has been distributed should by any chance come to a serious disagreement, and that some of them should disclose the whole transaction. What would come of the noble lord's secrecy then, or what would his convenient concealment avail him? This, let it be recollected, is no ideal case. A pamphlet is now in print, and generally circulated, in which all the circumstances of the advance of 40,000l. to Boyd and Benfield are fully detailed. What security has the noble lord that a similar event will not take place, and how can he then stand up and say, that he defies the house of commons to compel him to account for his expenditure of the public money? But, sir, it is worth while to consider, under what circumstances this secret-service money, drawn from the money appropriated to naval purposes was applied in Scotland. Were there any insurrections to be put down, were there any dangerous persons to be watched? Was there the least symptom of a design to violate the peace, or to interfere with the regular details of his majesty's government? Not a single tittle of any thing like this existed. The only insurrection I believe that the noble lord had to fear, was an insurrection against his own scandalous monopoly of power. The house have not forgotten the conspiracy formed against the noble lord's influence in 1784, and it is not at all unlikely, that part of this money, about which the noble lord is so extremely delicate, might have been very usefully employed in softening down certain obdurate spirits. At that period, the noble lord was called on to destroy a combination, not against the crown, but his own influence; not against the best interests of the country, but against the tyranny of an individual, who was not satisfied without such an absolute monopoly of power, as completely excluded independence, talent, and virtue. When the noble lord talks of this mysterious concealment of his distribution of secret-service money in Scotland, I am sure the indignation of every member from that part of the kingdom must be roused. I am sure I need not press on all of them the peculiar obligation under which they a e placed, to come forward and see this seadalous business fully investigated. Can these gentlemen endure to have it said, that their country has been bought, sold, and ruled, just according to the caprice or the prejudice of any individual. As in honour, therefore, they are bound to come forward and vindicate the insulted honour of their country, and to assist in breaking those dishonourable chains under which they have so long ignominiously groaned. The noble lord opposite (Castlereagh) is very anxious to impress on the house. the impropriety of listening to my representations. He says, " don't trust him, he is a dangerous man; he will certainly lead you into some serious embarrassment." In answer to this I say, I do not desire the house to trust me, but to trust to my arguments, supported by some of the ablest heads in this country. The noble lord may wish to give me some very salutary advice on this interesting subject. I declare, giving the noble lord all possible credit for the purity of his motives, he is exactly the last man in the world I should choose for my political judge; and if he did come to me with his advice. I should frankly tell him, "truly, my lord, I am obliged to you for the trouble you have taken in this matter, but as my mind is quite made up, I cannot follow your counsel."We are told that this attack on lord Melville is at this time extremely imprudent, as it has deprived the state of the services of a man of great talents, at a crisis when his exertions are peculiarly required. I am sorry at any time, when talent is lost to the empire, and more especially when there is occasion for the best exertion of all the energy which the empire comprehends. But, in the disgrace of lord Melville, we have in return effected a great national object, we have detected scandalous corruption, and given a solemn and striking example of punishment to all future offenders.--But, say the gentlemen on the other side, if even lord Melville were guilty, impeachment would be nugatory. Look, say they, to the impeachment of Mr. Hastings,and see how unsatisfactory was the result. If this sort of argument be good for any thing, it goes to a total renunciation of this most important power that ever was lodged in a representative assembly, the power of impeaching great criminals before the most awful tribunal on the face of the earth. Inconveniences, I confess, there are attending all impeachments, but on that account are they to be totally abandoned? In many cases the trial by jury is attended with inconveniences, but for these inconsiderable evils, are all the blessings of the highest privilege of our free constitution to be renounced? The argument from the trial of Mr. Hastings against the impeachment of lord Melville derives the greatest part of its force from the extraordinary length of time which that trial consumed. But what right have gentlemen to presume, that because the trial of Mr. Hastings occupied ten years, that lord Melville's will occupy a similar period? As well might they argue, that because the trial of lord Macclesfield occupied only 25 days, the trial of lord Melville would occupy probably the same space of time. Here again, comes the right hon. gent. (the attorney general) with his objection about the embarrassment of our proceedings. "Here you are," says he, "up to your necks in mud. But I won't assist you. I won't tell you how to extricate yourselves. I will have you to suffer all the consequences of your own obstinacy in refusing formerly to take my advice." Thus it is that the right hon. gent. is continually descanting on the difficulties in which we are placed, and will give us the aid of no part of his great talents in setting us on the way to proper and regular proceedings. I am sensible too, that the right hon. gent. employs a very sharp sword, but I am not by any means afraid of his thrusts. I know that before he reaches me, he must pierce through the sides of this house and yours. I know it is said, that if the resolutions of the 8th of April had not been unfortunately come to, the whole business would have beers clear and explicit. We should have been enabled to proceed regularly with the impeachment, and to ascertain in tact, whether lord Melville did participate in any illegal profits, and to what extent this participation took place. This is all very plausible, but the only defect is, that it is not founded in truth. Those who were conscious of delinquency hugged themselves in their power to elude all enquiry, but the resolutions of the 8th of April, sheaved, that such expectations were illusory, and that the strong arm of the law was able to reach any delinquent, however high his rank or extensive his influence. If such a vote had not passed, to have brought lord Melville to punishment would have been altogether impossible. What is the case even now that this vote is passed? We find even now the present treasurer of the navy (Mr. Canning) gravely labouring for the defence of his patron the culprit. We find it seriously maintained, that to withdraw naval money from the bank, and to lodge it in the hands of a private banker, is neither contrary to the letter nor the spirit of the act of parliament. It is at least very clear, that if you once admit the, practice, it is quite impossible to say to what dangerous length it may be carried. The house will recollect, that in the tenth report notice is taken of no less a sum than a million being drawn out of the bank, and lodged in the hands of a private banker in one day. Now, sir, let me put a case which is neither impossible nor improbable. Let me suppose, that betwixt the interval the money is deposited and the time it is wanted for the use of the public service, the treasurer of the navy were to die. What would here be the consequence? It is quite clear the next treasurer would have no power to draw it out, since it was not vested in his name. Trotter, and Trotter only, could empower any person to receive it. I ask, then, is it fit, is it decent that the public money should thus be sported with, should thus be exposed to the most imminent danger? Let me suppose a still stronger case, where a large balance is in the hand of a private banker. Let me take it for granted, which is by no means an impossible case, that both the treasurer of the navy and his paymaster, stout healthy men, were in one day to be cut off from the land of the living, what, in this case, would become of the sums of money which either of them had vested? The fact is simply this, that the private banker might appropriate it, to whatever amount, to his use, and there could be no means to compel him to refund it, because there existed no vouchers of its ever being placed in his hands. The right hon. gent. however tells us, that the balances are never kept in the hands of the private bankers above ten days at one time. This, sir, is a miserable, wretched evasion. Even if the sum is only kept for ten days, is there not a continual succession of balances, and may not these successive balances be one after the other applied to purposes of private emolument? Do we not know, too, that of the 40,000l. lent to Boyd and Benfield, a considerable part was not repaid for several months, and that one part was not replaced till after a lapse of two years? The right hon. gent. talks of the disgusting details of the tenth report. They are indeed disgusting, but not in the same sense in which the right hon. .gent. employs the expression. The public feel this disgust, in full force; and never, I believe, will the nausea be discharged from the stomach of the public, till the authors of these disgusting scenes are brought to condign punishment. But it is said, "will you for these trifling defalcations continue to persecute an unfortunate individual, whom you have already sufficiently punished?" My answer is simply this; I will punish the authors of such peculations, because I am convinced, that from what is already discovered, much more atrocious proceedings are yet to be disclosed. I wish the noble lord to go fairly, to his trial. If he is acquitted, then justice is satisfied. If, on the contrary, he is convicted, it will be in the power of his friends to plead what circumstances appear to them most worthy of notice, in mitigation of punishment. It has been argued, however, against the motion for the impeachment, that a number of peers have at county meetings expressed their opinions, and therefore cannot be supposed to be impartial judges. I challenge any gentleman to come forward and say, that any peer in the realm has not a constitutional right to deliver his sentiments on a public question, to express his indignation respecting a case of notorious delinquency in the execution of one of the highest offices in the state. But, sir, even supposing that all these peers who have expressed such sentiments were to be present at the trial, surely the noble lord would have no fair ground of complaint. Considering the number of peers created since his colleague, the right hon. gent. opposite, came into power, he surely has a sufficient number of personal friends, to counterbalance the number of his political enemies. I have another reason for preferring the impeachment to the criminal prosecution. My reason is, that I cannot place confidence in the hon, and learned gent. who is to conduct it. I do not say this from any doubt in his honour and integrity. I know, however, that he has a strong prejudice on his mind in favour of the culprit. I do not think that a person labouring under such impressions is a fit person to conduct a prosecution specially ordered by the commons of England. Such being my views, I call on those who are favourable to the criminal prosecution, to give up their slight shade of difference, and to vote for the impeachment. I conjure them, as they have acted with the purest honour,to preserve it uncontaminated. I caution them from embarking in the same crazy bark with the pilot, not "the pilot who weathered the Storm," as he has been called in a sang written by the right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Canning), but the pilot who forsook the vessel at the period of her utmost distress. I trust they will contiune in the path of honour and safety, and permit the pilot and his poet to encounter the storm together. I remind them that disunion may ruin all, and therefore earnestly solicit them to persevere in that harmony, which will enable us to carry through with triumph,the glorious struggle which we have so honourably commenced.

The motion on the amendment was then put in the following manner "that the original words, viz. that lord viscount Melville be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanours, stand, part of this motion." The ayes on this question went forth; and when in the lobby, Mr. Fox addressed the members, and said, that upon this question it was probable that they should be in a minority. But as, after this question, the amended motion would be put for a criminal prosecution, he would certainly concur in that mode, though he did not think it so desirable as the mode of impeachment. He intreated those gentlemen, therefore, who thought with him on this point, not to quit the house. The house then divided on the original motion, when the numbers were;

For the Impeachment	195
Against it	272
Majority against the Impeachment	77

This motion being therefore lost, the house again divided on Mr. Bond's amendment, for a criminal prosecution against lord Melville, when the numbers were;

For the Criminal Prosecution	238
Against it	229
Majority for the criminal prosecution	9

[...]adjourned at 6 o'clock on Friday morning.

Let of the Majority on the motion for order [...] a Criminal Prosecution against Henry [...] viscount Melville.

Ada R.	Antonie, W. Lee
Ad[...], J.	Atkins, John
Adan C.	Aubrey, Sir J.
Addition, H.	Astley, Sir J.
Althon[...], Lord	Babington, T.
Amyat J.	Bagenal, Walter
Anders[...] sir j.	Baker, J.
Andover Lord	Baker, Peter Win.
Annesle, F.	Bankes, H.

Anson, Thos.	Bamfylde, Sir C.
Barclay, George	Goddard, A.
Barclay, Sir R.	Grattan, H
Bastard, J. P.	Grenfel, P
Bathurst, C.	Grenville, R. Hon. T.
Beach, M. H.	Grey, C.
Bennet, R. H. A.	Grimston, Hon. J.[...] W
Benyon, R.	Harvey, E.
Bernard, T.	Hamilton, Lord A.
Bligh,.Thos.	Harrison, John
Bond, N.	Hawthorne, C S.
Bouverie, E.	Heathcote, J.
Brogden, J.	Heatcote, Sir W.
Browne, F. John	Hilliard, E
Bullock, John	Hobhouse, B.
Bunbury, Sir J. C.	Holland, Henry
Byng, G.	Honywood, Sir J.
Baker, W.	Horrocks, S.
Calcraft, J.	Howard, H.
Calvert, N.	Hughes, Wm. Lewis
Cavendish, Lord G. H.	Hughes, James
Cavendish, W.	Hume, W. H.
Caulfield, H.	Hurst, R.
Chute, W.	Hessey, W.
Cockerill, C.	Hutchin[...], H. C. H.
Cocks, J. S.	Hudleston, J.
Coke, Thos.	Jeffery, John
Coke, Edward	Jervas, T.
Combe, H.	Jekyll, J.
Cornwall, Sir G.	Johnstone, George
Courtenay, John	Jervoise, C. J.
Crawford, R.	Kensington, Lord
Creevey, T.	Ker, R. G.
Curtis, Sir W.	King, Sir J. D.
Cumming, G.	Kinnaird, C.
Curwen, J. C.	Ladbrooke, Robert
Cockburne, R.	Lambton, Ralph
Cowper, Hon. S.	Langton, W. G.
Dawson, R.	Latouche, D.
Denison, John	Latouche, J.
Deverell, R.	Latouche, R.
Dickens, F.	Laurence, French
Dillon, H. A.	Lawley, Sir R.
Douglas, Marquis	Lemon, J.
Dugdale, S. D.	Lemon, Sir W.
Dundas, Hon. G. H. L.	Lloyd, J. M.
Dundas, Hon. L.	Loveden, E. L.
Duncannon, Lord	Lubbock, J.
Daniel, F.	M'Mahon, John
Ebrington, Lord	Manners, John
Eliot, Wm.	Markham, J.
Ellison, R.	Marsham, Lord
Estcourt, T.	Martin, R.
Eyre, A. H.	Middleton, Sir W.
Estcourt, T.	Milford, Lord
Fellowes, N.	Mills, C.
Fellowes, R.	Milner, Sir W.
Fitzgerald, R. Hon. J.	Moore, G. P.
Fitzpatrick, R.	Moore, Peter
Foley, Hon. A.	Mordaunt, C.
Foljambe, F. F.	Morpeth, Lord
Folkes, Sir M.	Morris, Edward
Folkestone, Lord	Mostyn, Sir T.
Fonblanque, J.	Mills, W.
Fox, C. J.	Metcalfe, Sir T.
Francis, P.	Mellish, W.
Fuller, J.	Newport, Sir J.
Fydell, T	Norman, R.
Foley, Thomas	North, Dudley
Frankland, W.	Northey, W.
Garland, G.	Neville, R.
Garrard, C. D.	Orchard, Paul
Geary, Sir William	Ord, William
Giles, D.	Ossulston, Lord
Golding, E.	Palk, Sir Lawrence

Palmer, John.	Symondes, T. P.
Palmer, John.	St. John, Hon. St. A.
Patton, Peter	Smith, Charts
Patteson, John	Stewart, Hon. M.
Paxton, Sir W.	Talbot, Sir Charles
Pedley John	Tarleton, B.
Peirse, Henry	Taylor, C. W.
Pelham, Hon. C. A.	Temple, Earl
Petty, Lord Henry	Thornton, H.
Pitt, W. M.	Tierney, Right Hon. G.
Plumer, William	Townshend, Lord J.
Pole, Sir C. M.	Turner, Edward
Ponsonby, W. B.	Tyrrwhitt, T. D.
Porchester, Lord	Tyrrwhitt, Thomas
Portman, E. B.	Thornton, R.
Poyntz, William S.	Vansittart, George
Price, Sir C.	Vansittart, N.
Price, Richard	Walpole, George
Prinsep, J.	Walpole, Hor.
Pytches, John	Walsh, Sir J. B.
Paul, J.	Watson, G.
Pierepoint, C.	Western, C. C.
Raine, Jonathan	Wharton, J.
Russell, Lord Wm.	Whitbread, Samuel
Salisbury, Sir R.	Whitmore, John
Sargeant, John	Wiberforce, W.
Scott, Joseph	Williams, J. H.
Scudamore, J.	Williams, Owen
Shaftoe, R. E. D.	Williams, Robert
Shakespeare, A.	Windham, W.
Shelly, Henry	Wood, George
Sheridan, R. B.	Wrottesley, Sir J.
Smith, Wm.	Wynne, Charles
Somerville, Sir M.	Wyndham, P.
Spencer, Lord. R.	Wright, A.
Stanley, Lord	Young, Sir W.
Stewart, James
Paired off on the same Side.
Sir W. W. Wynne	Sir Ralph Milbanke
Sir G. Heathcote	Serjeant Best
Hon. Mr. Warde	J. Foster Barham