HC Deb 11 June 1806 vol 7 cc1097-103
Mr. Whitbread

rose, pursuant to the notice which he had given on a former occasion, not with a view, in the present state of the house, and at this late period of the session, to move for leave to bring in a bill for the better regulation of the treasurership of the navy; but for the purpose of moving, that, early in the next session, the house should take into consideration the act of the 25th of the king, intitled, " An Act for the better regulation of the office of Treasurer of the Navy." Every member who now heard him, he apprehended, had read, with attention, the report made by the committee appointed to examine the journals of the house of lords, relative to the late impeachment; and, if they had read it, he trusted that they had taken it into their most serious consideration; as, according to what appeared in those journals, eleven of the judges of England had given it as their opinion, that the law gave no hold to the public on its officers ; that, without violation of the law, such officers might make use of the public money for their own private purposes, if they pleased; and, on proof being had of such application, that the officers were not punishable by information or indictment. If that opinion was called for, and if the majority of the peers, upon the opinions of the judges delivered to the above effect, had pronounced the acquittal in the late impeachment, then it was high time that this should be declared to be law, if it was law; or, that, if it was not law, it should be declared that it should become so in future. He regretted that, at this late period of the session; he could not propose, with propriety, to bring in a bill on that subject; but he hoped, that early next session this would be done. As to the act of the 25th of the king, it did now appear, from the opinions of the eleven judges, that the public had, from the moment it was passed, up to the present time, been under a most gross delusion, with respect to its provisions; and that large sums of public money, (as had lately happened, to the extent of 150,000l.,) might be drawn from the bank, and deposited in any place whatever, by the treasurer: and that not only he, but one deputed by him, might thus dispose of money, and lodge it in any place, even beyond the controul of the treasurer. He found not only that the assigned balances might be disposed of in this manner; but, also, when another object was in view, and when it appeared that the motive of the treasurer of the navy, or his deputy, was to make use of the public money for their own profit and advantage, we still found, from these decisions, that such practices were not cognizable by law, and that the parties were punishable on information or indictment. He wished that he could, even in this session, have brought forward a bill for the regulation of the office of treasurer of the navy, and the greater security of the public. As that, however, could not conveniently be done, he trusted, that early next session his right hon. friend near him (Mr. Sheridan) would introduce such a bill; or, if he did not, he himself would do it; and he sincerely hoped, that his right hon. friend would succeed better in a mea- sure for the regulation of his own office, than his noble predecessor had done. The great difficulty he should feel, he protested, would be, to find words more strong than those which had .been employed in the act of the 25th. He hoped, however, that his right hon. friend would make the words so strong and clear, the sense so conspicuous and defined, and the enactment so plain and obvious, that it would be impossible that the provisions of his bill could be misconceived, or mistaken. He concluded by moving, " that this house will, early in the next session, take into consideration the act of the 25th Geo. III. ch. 31, relative to the regulation of the office of treasure of the navy." On the suggestion of the speaker, he also moved, that the reprot of the committee appointed to inspect the lords' journals should be entered as read.

Mr. Leicester

rose, not with any intention to object to the motion of the hon .gent.; but, because some things which he said appeared to him so extraordinary that he could not pass them over without observation. He seemed to have supposed that the learned judges had determined that embezzling the public money was no offence cognizable by law. The judges had determined no such thing.—[Here Mr. Whitbread, by permission of the house rose, and read the following extract from the journals of the lords: "Whether it was lawful for the treasurer of the navy, before the passing of the act of 25 Geo. III. c. 31 (and more especially when, by warrant from his majesty, his salary, as such treasurer as aforesaid, was augmented, in full satisfaction for all wages, fees, and other profit and emoluments.) to apply any sum of money imprested to him for navy services to any other use whatsoever, public or private, without express authority. for so doing; and whether such application, by such treasurer, would have been a misdemeanour, or punishable by information or indictment? "The lord chief justice of the court of common pleas delivered the unanimous opinion of the judges upon the said question: "That it was not lawful for the treasurer of the navy, before .the 25 Geo. III. c.31, although after the warrant stated in the question, to apply any sum of money imprested to him for navy service, to other uses, public or private, without express authority for so doing, so as to constitute a misdemeanour punishable by information or indictment;" and gave his reasons,] Mr. Leicester, in continuation, observed, that he was perfectly aware of that; but then that was no embezzlement, The opinion only went so far as to say, that a temporary use of the public money, by individuals in office, was not an offence cognizable by law; and every one knew, who was at all acquainted with the course of business for these last thirty years, that this had never been considered as a public offence. Where was the difference between the case of the late lord Holland and such individuals? The hon. gent. had said, that the judges had given it as their opinion, that money might, by law, be drawn from the bank, and deposited elsewhere, for private purposes. They had said no such thing; they had only said, that it was not illegal to draw money from the bank bond fide for naval service.. Whether afterwards the trust should be abused, was a quite .different thing, and one which they considered themselves as having nothing to do with. The gentlemen on the other side, therefore, seemed to have misconceived them, and to blend the liberty of taking out the money, with the emoluments made by Trotter.

Mr. Whitbread

hoped, that he should be indulged with the liberty of saying a few words in reply. He had never mentioned the word " embezzlement " at all. The learned gentleman meant, he supposed, by embezzling, the making use of the public money, and not bringing it forward at the making up of the accounts. He did not say any thing about that; nor had he any such thing in contemplation. What he I meant was, the applying of the public money to private purposes for a time; and this, he and his friends had contended, was an offence punishable at common law. As to the construction of the act of the 25th of the king, if the treasurer, or his deputy, might take out the money from the bank for naval purposes, and afterwards apply it to purposes of private emolument, then, he repeated, that the public had, up to this time, been labouring under a most gross delusion; for it was utterly impossible to suppose, that the legislature had any other intention than, that the money drawn from the bank should be immediately applied to naval purposes, and to no other whatever. He again repeated, that his great difficulty would be, to find words more binding upon the treasurer, not to draw out the money for any other than naval purposes, and not to apply it to any other purpose when drawn. It was, that we blended the liberty allowed, with the use made of the money by Trotter. We did no such thing; but it was the learned gent. who blended the taking out of the money with the emoluments made by Trotter. Could his right hon. friend near him, then, allow Mr. Scott to take out the money; to deposit it at Coutts's, and make what use of it he pleased? If such a thing was done, he contended, that it would be, still impossible to permit such a thing to pass without, at least, an attempt to punish it. He was not, at present, enquiring what was the law, in opposition to the judges? but still they were fallible men, and liable to error, even in construing the law. This house and other, might act in opposition to their opinions, as they were not bound by them, unless they appeared well founded; and it was no longer ago than the preceding day, that the house of lords decided in direct opposition to the opinions of the judges, after they had been solemnly called upon to deliver them. As the judges, then, were not infallible, it became the legislature to consider, whether what they had delivered, on this point, was law or not. If it was law, then the law ought to be declared. If it was not law, then it was high time to have a new law, to render the point clear and certain.

Mr. R. Dundas

admitted that, according to the opinions of most persons, some new regulations were necessary, with regard to the law upon this subject. But, that the purpose for which he now rose was, to advert to something which had fallen from the hon. mover. That hon. gent. professed to think, that the house of lords grounded its judgment upon that opinion of the judges to which he appeared to object. But, he could not allow, that that hon. gent. or any other person, was competent to say, upon what the lords were induced to decide in the case alluded to; neither was the hon. gent. correct, in stating that that house should infer, from the admissions of lord Melville, that the noble lord connived at Mr. Trotter's application of the public money to his own profit.

Mr. Sheridan

thought that, after the opinion of the judges, it was absolutely necessary that the law, upon this subject, should be satisfactorily settled. But, notwithstanding these opinions, he should take care that, while he remained in his present office, the affairs of it should not be managed, in any respect, contrary to what the law prescribed; and his conception of that law was this, beyond all doubt, that neither pay-master, nor any other person, should take naval money from the bank, unless it should be. at the moment wanted for bond fide naval purposes. Indeed, according to the present arrangement, his pay-master had no concern with a single guinea of the public money; and it was somewhat curious, that this was the arrangement which Trotter suggested. Accounts are now opened at the bank in the name of each of the sub-accountants to which money was occasionally transferred by order of the pay-master. Such was his impression as to the nature of this plan, that he had recommended it to his hon. friend, and others, to introduce a bill at once to render it the law in future; but they, not conceiving several other provisions necessary to the safe custody of the public money, thought proper rather to postpone bringing forward any bill until next session. The pay-master, however, had now no connection with any of the public money; and he would hold him inimical, if he should attempt to draw a guinea from the bank for any purpose whatever. Such was the practice which the right hon. gent. declared his intention to maintain, while he had the honour to hold the office of treasurer of the navy, at least, until it was otherwise enacted by law.

Mr. Perceval

threw out, for the consideration of gentlemen who proposed to bring in a bill upon this subject, whether, if the arrangement were enacted, such as the right hon. gent. had just described, the sub-accountants might not be open to the same objections which were applied to the paymaster; that is, whether those sub-accountants might not be open to a similar abuse of the public money.

Mr. Whitbread

thought such a consequence improbable. It was to be recollected, that the sub-accountants, on the trial, refused to withdraw the public money from the bank at the particular instance of Trotter; and by no means in consequence of their own wish, for it appeared that inconveniences resulted to them from the transfer.

Mr. Sheridan

could not admit that the case, with regard to the sub-accountants, could ever be subject to the same objections as those which applied to the paymaster. It was obvious, that they could not be so to the same extent. Indeed, he thought it quite practicable so to watch the sub-accountants; so to establish a check between the. bank directors and the navy pay-office, as to detect any drawing of mo- ney not necessary for, and immediately applied to, a naval purpose; and, should such a thing appear, on the part of any sub-accountant, he had no hesitation in saying, that he should feel it his duty, on the instant, to dismiss him.

Mr. Fuller ,

adverting to a notice of a motion which he had given, relative to the expenses incurred by lord Melville during his late trial, stated, that in consequence of the declaration of the noble lord's son, that, as no delay had occurred in preparing for the the, or, in its subsequent conduct; no more expense had occurred to the noble lord, than if the trial had taken place in the chamber of parliament, he was induced to wave his intended motion.