Commons Sitting of 31 May 1808

BANK OF IRELAND BILL.
Mr. Fosterpresented a bill for regulating and prolonging the Charter of the Bank of Ireland, and for enabling the governor and company of the said bank to advance a loan of one million and a quarter for the service of his majesty.
Sir J. Newportcomplained of the precipitancy with which this bill was forced upon the house. It was, in his mind, a measure of too much importance to be thus hurried forward; and, for one, he had strong objections to it altogether. First, because he thought it was founded on the worst bargain that ever was made for the public, namely, a loan of a certain sum of money to be advanced by the Irish bank to the government of the country, at 5 per cent, the highest rate of interest which the law allowed them to charge upon discounts on any tradesman's bills in this country. Secondly, because, as the Finance Committee had suggested regulations with respect to the bank of England highly advantageous to the public, he wished them to have an opportunity of considering and recommending similar regulations with respect to the bank of Ireland, before the charter was renewed or prolonged. Overtures had been made to himself, while chancellor of the Irish exchequer, for a renewal of the charter; but he had set his face against it, and the only bonus he could see that the right hon. gent, had obtained for the public by this bargain, was, that the bank agreed to forego any claims they might have had for managing the public debt; but surely the government of Ireland was not at so low an ebb of credit as not to be able to borrow this loan of so large a sum, on better terms than the humblest trader paid for discount of his bills at their counter.
Mr. Fostersaid, that, so far from precipitating this measure without allowing time to consider it, the documents had been on the table of the house above three weeks.—The bill was read the first time.

CONDUCT OF SIR HOME POPHAM.
Mr. S. Lushington(member for Yarmouth) rose and spoke as follows:—Before I proceed, sir, to state the grounds of the motion which I shall shortly have the honour of proposing to the house. I wish in a few words to call to their recollection, those circumstances which originally induced me to bring this transaction to their notice. I am the more anxious to do this, because it has very unfairly been said, that I made a personal attack on the hon. captain without giving him any notice of my intention of so doing. It will be in the recollection of the house that an hon. baronet (sir Francis Burdett) some months since made a motion for an account of the Droits of Admiralty without any previous notice, and the chancellor of the exchequer requested him to postpone it to the following day for the purpose of having time to consider of it. At that time I had not the honour of the slightest personal acquaintance with the hon. baronet, but being apprehensive that the motion, as it was then worded, would not attain his object, I followed him out of the house, and suggested some alterations, which might comprehend the Droits to the Crown as well as the Admiralty Droits, as the former much exceeded the latter in amount, and added, that I myself knew an instance of gross misapplication of that fund The case of the Etrusco occurred to me, but distrusting the accuracy of my memory, I went the next day to Doctor's Commons for the purpose of ascertaining whether my recollection of the case was correct. On this head I was soon quite satisfied. Being unavoidably delayed till rather late, on my entrance into the house, I found the hon. baronet on his legs making his motion. I immediately inquired of a noble lord (Ossulston) and an hon. gent, near me (Mr. Brand), if sir Home Popham was in the house, as I did not know him by sight. Being answered in the affirmative, I determined to state the case, if any objection should be made to the hon. baronet's motion. To my great surprize the chancellor of the exchequer positively asserted that no instance of the misapplication of these funds had ever taken place. In reply to this statement, I mentioned the leading features of the case of the Etrusco; and, sir, I shall ever consider it my duty to make known to this house every misapplication of public money, which may come within my knowledge; and in this instance I was more particularly called
722
upon by the assertion of the right hon. gent.—It will not be necessary for me to go into any long discussion as to the illegality of the trade in which the hon. captain was engaged, or to dwell upon the circumstances, which induced the legislature to enact such strong provisions against any British subject engaging in a trade to the East Indies without the licence of the East India company. It will be sufficient to observe, that one of the principal objects they had in view, was to protect the East India company against the traffic which was carried on from Ostend, a port which possessed singular advantages for this commerce, because no duties were payable either inwards or outwards. The law therefore not only prohibited British subjects from trading themselves, but also from lending money to any foreigners whatever for the purpose of carrying it on. I say, sir, that when the legislature made these enactments they had Ostend particularly in view.—It may perhaps, sir, be said, that I am reviving a transaction antiquated from the length of time which has elapsed since its commencement. It is true that the origin of the transaction is old, but the end of it is recent; the grant was made in 1805, and though the hon. captain has received 18,000 l. out of the proceeds, admiral Robinson has not yet been reimbursed his expences. In 1787, the hon. captain, then a lieutenant in the navy, applied to the Admiralty for leave of absence to go to the East Indies, and was at first refused on the ground that the Admiralty could not give him leave to go to the East Indies without consent of the East India Company. These letters are so short, and so clearly explain the origin of this transaction, and prove the hon. captain's knowledge of its illegality, that I shall read them to the house.—Copy of a letter from lieutenant Home Popham to Philip Stephens, esq. Secretary to the Admiralty: 'Dover-street, Feb. '12, 1787.—Sir; Having had the permis'sion of lord Howe to apply for leave of 'absence to go to the East Indies to follow 'my private affairs, I beg you will do me 'the favour to move their lordships to 'grant me two years leave of absence for 'that purpose from the date hereof. I 'have, &c. HOME POPHAM.'—Copy of a letter from P. Stephens, esq. to lieutenant Home Popham.—Admiraity-office, 19th 'February, 1787.—Sir; In return to your 'letter of the 16th inst. requesting two 'years leave to go to the East Indies to

723
transact some private affairs, I am commanded by my lords commissioners of the admiralty to acquaint you, that they cannot give you leave to go into any of the East India Companys settlements without your first obtaining the companys permission to go thither. I am, &c. P. STEPHENS.—Copy of a letter from P. Stephens, esq. to lieut. Home Popham: Admiralty-office, 22nd Feb. 1787.—Sir; Having communicated to my lords commissioners of the admiralty your letter of the 20th inst. * informing them, that you have no intention to go to any of the East India companys settlements, your private affairs requiring you at the Danish settlement of Fredericknagore, and requesting two years leave of absence for that purpose; I am commanded by their lordships to acquaint you that they do not think fit to give leave to any officers on half-pay to go to the East Indies, unless they are employed in the service of the East India company. I am, &c. PHILIP STEPHENS.—Copy of a letter from P. Stephens, esq. to lieut. Popham: Admiralty-office, 28th March, 1787 —Sir; Having read to my lords commissioners of the Admiralty your letter of † yesterdays date, desiring you may be indulged with two years leave to reside in the Danish settlement of Fredericknagore, in the East Indies, on your private affairs, upon your relinquishing your half-pay till you return to England; I am to acquaint you that their lordships are pleased to give you two years leave for that purpose upon your relinquishing your half-pay accordingly. I am, &c. P. STEPHENS'.—One would have supposed, sir, that even a less observing man than the hon. captain, who is by no means deficient in penetration, would have suspected that all this caution on the part of the Admiralty was not entirely without, cause. One would have thought that it must have occurred to him, that there was something illegal, something not quite correct in the traffic, in which he proposed to engage. But I have no occasion to have recourse to reasoning or supposition; I will prove that the hon. captain was perfectly aware of the illegality of this trade, though he has thought proper in his Me-
* Here there is a memorandum in the papers that this letter from lieut. Popham could not be found in the Admiralty.
† Here is a memorandum that this letter also could not be found.
724
morial to assert his ignorance of it. The hon. captain, having obtained this leave, immediately went to Ostend, where he entered into a commercial connection with the house of Charnock and Co. a house of all others the most notorious for smuggling and illicit trade. It was this house that used to fit out cutters, which contended even with British vessels, and it is recollected in the navy how obstinately the British hon. a cutter fitted out by Messrs. Charnock, defended herself against the Hyœna, commanded by admiral, then captain Thornborough. From this port of Ostend, the hon. captain sailed in the Ville de Vienne, a vessel of from 400 to 500 tons burthen, under Imperial colours; and would it be believed went first to Bombay, and afterwards to almost every other settlement of the East India company, though his leave of absence was obtained to reside at Fredericknagore. In 1789 we find him at Calcutta, engaged in illicit traffic: of this there can be no doubt, because the record from the Court of King's Bench is on the table, and the hon. captain has actually pleaded the illegality of the trade to prevent paying a debt contracted there; so far therefore he has acknowledged himself guilty. In 1790, a second voyage in the same ship was meditated, and on this voyage he sailed without asking any leave of the Admiralty at all. The precautions used on this occasion will prove past doubt his knowledge of the illegality of the trade. In the first place the character of the vessel was changed from Imperial to Tuscan, and the manner in which this was done is not be passed by. If gentlemen will turn to the 100th page of the papers, they will see a most curious agreement between Messrs. Valle and Borghini, of Leghorn, and sir Home Popham: 'By this present, though private charter party, which the parties agree to be of full force and vigour, as an agreement made by a Notary Public in due form, it is agreed to procure papers which Mr. Popham will make use to cover a ship to undertake the voyage to the East Indies and back to Leghorn. Again, Notwithstanding the said ship is to be navigated in appearance, on account of the said Valle and Borghini, it is however covenanted and agreed, that every profit, loss and event of the said ship, her navigation, freight, &c. is and shall be on account and risk of the said Mr. Popham. And in page 101, Mr. Hornbeck, who is to be deputed as be-

725
fore-mentioned procurator to the said effects of Messrs. Valle and Borghini, shall sign the present agreement, in virtue whereof shall guarantee them from every exception, which might be promoted from Mr. Popham against this declaration of bonâ fide.' For these false and fictitious papers one and a quarter per cent, upon the estimated value of the ship (5000 l.) was paid; yet after all this, after these false documents, so procured, after neglecting to renew his application to the Admiralty for leave of absence, sir Home Popham has stated in his Memorial to the Treasury, that he believed the trade to be innocent and legal. In June 1790, then, the honourable captain sailed; in what character it is difficult to discover, for in some of the papers he is designated as captain, in others as supercargo; but in fact he had the real command of the concern. I shall here, sir, mention a circumtance, not with a view to accusation, or making it a charge, but because it has been frequently insinuated, and generally circulated out of doors, I shall therefore give the hon. gentleman an opportunity of explaining it. It appears by the Bill of Lading that on board this vessel there were shipped 40 cast iron guns, and some cases of small arms, but it no where appears how they were disposed of; and it has been said they were sold to the native powers, some of whom were at that period engaged in hostility with us. I repeat, sir, that I have no proof of this, but the hon. captain may clear up every suspicion by giving an account how these military stores were disposed of.—After a voyage, in which he touched at several ports in the East Indies, but which it is not material to trace, we find him at Calcutta setting out on a voyage for Bombay, in which he was prevented, by his own account in his affidavit, by distress of weather; but it appears by a letter amongst the papers, that he had quarrelled with his master of the colours, who threatened to bring an information against him for bringing out British property in a foreign vessel; that he sailed without any ship's papers, or documents to insure his admission into any port, where there was a regular customhouse; and that had he gone to Bombay his vessel must inevitably have been seized; all pretty good proofs that he was aware the traffic he was carrying on was illicit. From the Prince of Wales's Island, the hon. captain proceeded to Calcutta, where he sold his vessel of 500 tons, and pur-
726
chased a ship called the President Washington, of 950 tons, which he immediately christened by the name of his old ship the Etrusco, and without any scruple or remorse transferred the papers of the smaller vessel to this nearly double its size. The mode of purchase too should not pass by entirely unnoticed. It was sold by Messrs. T. and W. Francis to one Giacomo Pons, and by him transferred to Giorgi by an in-dorsement on the bill of sale; but, strange to say, the indorsement does not bear date till the 24-th of November 1792; this Giorgi signs himself in the charter-party of freight with Mr. De Constant, master and owner on the 5th of November preceding. The hon. captain, indeed, in his affidavit, accounts for these extraordinary transfers by stating that it was done for greater caution: for what purpose this greater caution was used I leave the house to judge. Having reached Canton, an agreement was there entered into beginning thus: 'It is agreed between Home 'Popham, owner of the L'Etrusco, Tuscan 'ship, on the one part, and Charles De 'Constant and Jean Baptiste Piron, supercargoes of the French East India Company, at Canton, on the other part.' There are several other parts of this agreement which it will be necessary to advert to before I sit down, but at present it is sufficient to observe, that a large cargo was taken in in consequence, and also a considerable quantity of goods on the hon. captain's own account. The vessel then set sail for Europe, and in the Cove of Cork was taken by his majesty's ship the Diadem, capt. Sutherland, and afterwards released by him, on the assurance of sir Home Popham that the property on board was all neutral, and that he himself had no share either in the ship or cargo. I state this fact, sir, on the authority of lieut. Cranford, who then served as a lieutenant on board the Diadem, and if it is disputed I am ready to call him to the bar to prove it. Indeed it is corrobated by the evidence of William Banens, who states that the ship was troubled three times before she was seized by capt. Robinson, once by the Diadem ship of war, at the Cove of Cork. On the voyage from Cork to Ostend some goods were smuggled on shore near Hastings, with the knowledge and by the order of sir Home Popham. This fact is proved by the evidence of several witnesses, but the testimony of the last is conclusive. Gilbert Brice, then first mate of the Etrusco, and

727
who has since been in his majesty's naval service as a lieutenant, states 'that about 'four chests of tea were delivered out of 'the ship, while in the English Channel, 'and before she arrived of Calais; that 'the said goods were so delivered by order 'of Mr. Popham, and took place about '12 o'clock at night.' Several other witnesses depose to the same fact, and also that 4 or 5 boats were round the ship at the time. I will also tell the hon. officer who were his companions in that transaction. He will perhaps recollect the name of Mr. Wenham, whose father was partner with Mr. Charnock, and lived at Hastings.—There are others also whom if necessary I can produce to verify this statement, and to a much greater extent than appears by the papers. The Etrusco was afterwards captured by the Brilliant frigate, capt. Robinson, and brought to the river Thames. There was a suit commenced in the Admiralty Court, and a variety of proceedings, which it is unnecessary to enumerate to the house, took place. Amongst other claims there was one preferred by the hon. capt. for the ship and cargo, supported by a most extraordinary affidavit, to which I shall have occasion presently to advert; remarking only in the first place, that he had not appeared to be examined, which is usual in such cases, though a compulsory process was issued against him. The excuse of employment abroad cannot be pleaded, because it appears by his affidavit, that he was in London in August 1793. In this affidavit the hon. capt. described himself as formerly of Ostend, merchant, but now an officer in the navy: He admitted that he had gone to the East Indies and carried on trade there, though the leave had been obtained expressly with a view to his residing at the Danish settle-met of Fredericknagore. It was further stated that he had been on terms of intimacy with lord Cornwallis, and Mr. Stuart who acted as governor in the absence of lord Cornwallis; that he dined with them; and thence he inferred that they knew of the illicit traffic he was carrying on, and connived at it. But I must intreat the attention of the house to the concluding part of the affidavit; after claiming the ship and the whole, or at least one third of certain goods, it proceeds to say, that no person or persons being subjects of 'France, Spain, or the united provinces, or inhabiting within any of those territories, their factors or agents, or any other
728
enemies of the crown of G. Britain, have, hath, or had directly or indirectly any right, title or interest in or to the said ship and goods or any part thereof at the said several periods of time (viz. at the time of lading and the time of capture) nor will have until the same shall be sold or disposed of, for the sole account and benefit of this deponent. Now, sir, what is the agreement made at Canton, how does it agree with this declaration on oath? Sir, it begins thus: It is agreed between Home Popham, owner of the LEtrusco, Tuscan ship, on the one part, and Charles de Constant, and Jean Baptiste Piron, super-cargoes of the French East India Company at Canton, on the other part, that a joint concern shall take place. Again, they do further agree that all profit or loss upon the said expedition is to be borne or suffered share and share alike between the said Home Popham, Charles de Constant and Jean Baptiste Piron'. Sir, this requires no comment; it is too glaring.—In 1797, the vessel was condemned in the court below as prize to the king, together with the cargo; from this sentence there was an appeal; and five years afterwards the lords commissioners reversed the decree as to Mr. Constants share, which they restored, condemned Mr. Pirons as prize to the captors, being French property, and the ship and that part of the cargo claimed by sir Home Popham they determined to be prize to the king as the property of a British subject engaged in illicit traffic. After this sentence several memorials were presented to the treasury, and amongst others one by sir Home Popham. This memorial stated, that the vessel had been condemned on account of the illegality of the traffic, of which he, sir Home Popham, was not aware when he engaged in it, but that he believed it to be innocent and legal; that he was well known to lord Cornwallis and received at his table; and that he was in habits of intimacy with Mr. Stuart, who acted as governor in lord Cornwallis's absence; that the trade was carried on with the knowledge and under the apparent sanction of the servants of the Company.—Of the testimony of that revered nobleman here alluded to, we are deprived by his much to be lamented death; but, sir, I cannot without indignation see his name aspersed. [Here Mr. Lushington was called to order by Mr. Dent, but desired by the Speaker to proceed.] Amongst all the great and eminent qualities which adorned his cha-

729
racter, none were mote conspicuous than his spotless and unblemished integrity. Sir, had the marquis Cornwallis had the inclination, he had not the power to sanction this trade. The king himself cannot dispense with the laws of the land, and who will say, that any inferior authority shall possess that power. But, sir, I leave the question to the house, which shall have the greater weight, the assertion of the hon. capt. after the facts I have proved, after his statements in his affidavit, or the character of marquis Cornwallis? If, however, sir, we cannot have the testimony of marquis Cornwallis, Mr. Stuart is still alive. He was in habits of intimacy with the hon. capt.: he no doubt will come forward and corroborate all his assertions: he will vindicate the character of sir Home Popham, and clearly prove the sanction of the servants of the Company to this trade. I have the honour of some acquaintance with Mr. Stuart, and with the leave of the house will read a letter, which I received from him in answer to my inquiries on this head, which I accompanied with a copy of the papers which have been laid before the house.—' My dear sir, I have been favoured with your letter of the 20th. Sir Home Popham and his supporters, it is to be hoped, will be able to establish some better grounds of defence than that the acts of mere civility to him as a stranger are to be perverted into an apparent sanction of an illegal traffic! I knew capt. Popham in India merely as a naval officer who not chusing to be idle in the time of peace had obtained permission from the Admiralty to sail to India, with a view, it was understood, of improving himself in his profession. I know that he commanded the ship Etrusco, which sailed under Imperial colours, and from his having made some useful surveys in the Bay of Bengal and the Ganges, it is very probable that I did sometimes invite him to dine with me; but I cannot boast, of any intimacy ever having subsisted between us; and as to his commercial concerns, I know nothing at all of them. There is no occasion, my dear sir, for any apology; for as I am not conscious of having given any sanction to illegal traffic in India by the civilities shewn to capt. Popham, I cannot suppose that he or his friends will attempt, to rest his defence upon so baseless a structure. I remain yours, &c. Charles STUART'.—Now, sir, I will undertake to prove, that though the hon. capt. has as-
730
serted that he was ignorant of the illegality of the trade in which he was engage, that he was not aware that he was violating any of the laws of his country, but that on the contrary he believed the traffic to be innocent and legal; I will undertake to prove, if indeed the house is not convinced already, by documents upon the table, that he knew, past all possibility of doubt, that all his proceedings were contrary to law. I will say nothing of his procuring ship's papers which were all false and fictitious, of the bill of sale of the ship being made out in the names of other persons, as stated in his affidavit, for greater caution; of the bill of lading being signed by Giorgi as captain and owner of the ship: I will pass by these collateral proofs, though pretty convincing, and request the attention of the house to some of the letters contained in the documents, and found in the possession of the hon. capt. In letters bearing date, and in the common course of things received antecedent, to the last voyage, the fact will clearly appear. Mr. Wm. Popham writes, in a letter addressed to sir Home, 'Your ship will be particularly marked;' again, 'No insurance can be made.' 'The renewal of your time must not be for India, as they will require a certificate from the India house, that you have their permission to proceed thither; you may make it for Africa, or the West Indies and America. Another letter informs him, That the laws of this country are very full for the support of the India Company against British subjects adventuring to that quarter. There are several other passages of the same nature; but Mr. Pendergast speaks in very plain language. He says, Do not be offended at my proposing illicit commerce to you.' Thus, sir, the house will perceive that the hon. capt. was forewarned of the illegality of the trade, of which illegal conduct he was afterwards proved guilty in a court of justice, and yet he has the effrontery in his memorial to declare, that he believed it to be innocent and legal. Am I not justified then in saying that this was a gross imposition upon the lords of the treasury? There are other parts of this memorial deserving observation, as that the freight, amounting to 27,000 l. (though the ship only cost 20,000 l.) might have been received at Canton, though there is an express clause in the agreement, that it should not be paid till after the sale of the cargo in Europe; but I think I have said enough to convince

731
the house that there was nothing in this I memorial to justify the grant.—I must now advert to the extreme hardship of admiral Robinson's case, who was the captor of this ship, which was detained and prosecuted under the directions and by the advice of the ablest counsellors in the profession. Admiral Robinson has not yet received his expences, though his share has been restored to the neutral claimant, Mr. Constant; and sir Home Popham has already received 18,000 l. It is not my intention to find any fault with the judicial decision; indeed it would be great presumption were I to do so; but there is a circumstance which considerably aggravates the hardship of this case. Since the commencement of the war in 1793 there were two instances in which vessels employed in this trade were proceeded against in the court of Admiralty, the Eliza and the Enterprize, and they were both condemned to the captors, who consequently received the whole benefit of the proceeds of the ship and cargo. Admiral Robinson had therefore two recent precedents in his favour, and must naturally have expected that he and his ship's company would have received the same advantage.—The lords commissioners of appeals however reversed the course of ail former decisions on this point, and after taking five years to deliberate, pronounced the ship and cargo to be lawful prize to the king, and not to the captors. By this decision admiral Robinson was deprived of all legal title and of all benefit except what he might receive from the bounty of the crown. He accordingly sent in a memorial to the treasury on behalf of himself and his ship's crew; and amongst other circumstances stated the very great expence he had been at in bringing the ship to condemnation; indeed so large were these expences that had the ship not been condemned, admiral Robinson must inevitably have been ruined. However, notwithstanding all these circumstances, the treasury thought proper to grant the whole of the proceeds of the ship and cargo, which had been condemned as employed in illicit trade, saddled with only part of the expences of the captors, to sir Home Popham, who had been detected in the prosecution of it. It is to this grant, sir, that I object, as being an act of injustice, contrary to all custom and precedent, and productive of the most mischievous consequences. I am not inclined to attribute corrupt motives to the advisers of it; I do not wish to enter into
732
that question, because the right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt), who must be considered as chiefly responsible, is now no more: I am willing to admit that the grant may have been made without due consideration, without knowledge of the circumstances; that the Treasury were deceived by the false statements in the hon. captain's memorial; but I do contend that it is an improper application of public money, and in no respect to be justified. It is not to be justified by the report of the king's Proctor (which is in fact the king's Advocate), because that report is precisely the same both on the memorial of sir H. Popham and admiral Robinson; it expresses no opinion, but declares that it is a matter entirely at the discretion of his majesty's government: so that the Treasury would have been equally justified, as far as that report can justify, in giving the proceeds to admiral Robinson. The report indeed states, that the capture was attended with no great exertion of courage or risk, but that considering the length of the litigation and danger which admiral Robinson incurred of being ruined if the suit did not succeed, his expences ought to be paid. But, sir, let us see what has been the custom in these cases, and whether it has been usual to grant some share of the proceeds condemned to the king as Droits to the Crown, only to captors, who have undergone great danger and displayed great exertions of valour in the capture. Sir, there is not a single instance whatever of any vessel having been condemned to the king jure coronœ, in which some part of the proceeds have not been granted to the captors. It has been the invariable rule to grant a part: the Etrusco is the only exception. The proportion, indeed, has differed; sometimes two-thirds, sometimes one-half, but never less, except when specie was found on board, in which case one-fourth has been given. But a few months ago a Russian frigate was captured in Portsmouth harbour, where there was not the smallest probability of danger, not the slightest risk incurred; the vessel and cargo, part of which was specie, was estimated at 200,000 l. and being condemned to the king jure coroœ:, one-fourth of the specie was given, and certainly one-half, if not two-thirds of all the other proceeds. The danger which was incurred, therefore, has never been made the criterion by which to distribute or not to distribute.—What peculiar circumstances are there

733
then to justify the departure from precedent in the present case? What demerit had admiral Robinson? what merit had sir Home Popham? Admiral Robinson was an old and experienced officer, who had served his country 40 years with zeal and activity. His father too had been an admiral in the service, and had, at an advanced age, lost a limb, when he commanded the Shrewsbury in an engagement off the Chesapeak. When the Etrusco was seized at Ostend, admiral Robinson was offered 40,000 l. to release her. [Here sir Home Popham observed, that he did not believe it.] Sir; admiral Robinson is in town; I will call him to the bar of the house to prove the fact, and leave it to the house to judge, who is most worthy of credit. In addition to his long services, admiral Robinson had to plead the length of the trial, which lasted ten years, the expence he had been at, and the risk of ruin which he saw had not the suit succeeded. All his fatigue and anxiety of mind has been considered as nothing worth.—Sir Home Popham had no naval services to plead: nor will the pretence of the Company having apparently sanctioned his trade avail him. I have proved that the Company's servants in India did not sanction it. At home when informed of the capture of the vessel by adm. Robinson, the court of directors, by their secretary, expressed their anxious desire to prevent illicit trade, and declined joining in the prosecution only because the case was so wrapped up in obscurity, that there did hot appear sufficient proof to insure a condemnation. Had they proceeded under the provisions of the act, the ship and double its value would have been the forfeiture. The consequences of grants of this nature are most pernicious; it is not only a waste of public money, but detrimental to the naval service. What hope has an officer but the uncertain chance of prize money in the navy, of acquiring a small property to enable him to pass the latter end of his days in comfort and competency? And shall he be deprived of this hope, of this only resource by which he can honourably acquire property, to bestow it upon one who had abandoned the service and been detected in the Violation of the laws of the country? Sir, this transaction began in fraud, continued in deceit, and ended in a gross imposition upon the then government. I regret the necessity of making such heavy accusations against a member of this house; I
734
am sorry to be obliged to word my resolution so strongly against a naval officer; but the case admits of no palliation. I therefore move you, sir, "That it appears to this house that by a decree of the Lords Commissioners of Appeal in Prize causes, dated the 11th day of August 1803, the ship Etrusco, and such parts of the cargo which were claimed by Home Riggs Popham, esq. now sir Home Popham, were condemned as good and lawful prize to the king, as the property of one of his majesty's subjects engaged in an illegal trade.—That, by a Treasury warrant dated the,24th Sept, 1805, the proceeds of the said ship and cargo, amounting to £.25,959. 9. 7, subject to certain expences not exceeding 6,000 l. were granted to sir Home Popham, who had been detected in prosecuting such illicit trade.—That this grant is a misapplication of public money, in-as-much as contrary to all custom and precedent, those funds which have in part always been appropriated to reward the exertions of captors, were bestowed wholly upon sir Home Popham, who, being a lieutenant in his majesty's navy, had been detected knowingly carrying on illicit trade in contempt of the laws of his country, contrary to his duty as a British subject, and to the disgrace of the character of a British officer; operating at the same time as a discouragement to his majesty's naval forces, by depriving them of the accustomed rewards of their zeal and activity; and as an incitement to the contempt and disregard of the laws of the land, by bestowing reward and impunity on those who had been detected in the violation of them."
Sir Home Popham.—Before I reply to the various charges brought forward against me by the hon. gentleman, I trust that the house will indulge me with a patient hearing, while I offer a few preliminary observations, which are the more necessary to the vindication of my character, as they relate to circumstances immediately arising from the original question, or brought forward in this house since its, first discussion. I wish not to detain the house by frivolous and irrelevant platter, but to oppose facts to calumny, and to combat prejudices and falsehoods with no other weapons than truth and plain dealing. The persecution which has been exercised against me for several years past must be strong in the recollection of every member of this house; but of all the exertions which have been

735
used on former occasions to traduce me, and to render me odious to the country, none have been equal to those exercised on the present occasion. No pains have been spared, no means scrupled at, to lower and vilify my character: the poisoned arrows of mine enemies have been aimed at me both as a public man and a private individual; they have raked into every part of my life to find out some personal weakness, in order to use it as a calumny against me: the follies of my youth, and any attendant foibles, have been held out to the public as the most enormous crimes: all the private transactions of my life have, been gone into; and such an effect has it had, that unless I yield in all cases to what I consider an imposition, a threat of impeachment is held out against me, and this by the house entertaining discussions on private transactions.—Having, sir, mentioned the unprecedented pains that have been taken to hunt me down, I cannot help observing, that before another court of honour the accused, in the preamble of his defence, very highly complimented the editors of the newspapers for the strict silence they had observed from the moment of its being publicly known that the officer alluded to was to be tried; whereas the instant the honourable gentleman opened his masked battery upon me, the literary assailants began in every way to take me in flank and rear, with a view of raising the whole country against me. Sir, I will take the liberty of reading one paragraph which accuses me of being a traitor to my country, and carrying gunpowder in the enemy, which is the highest crime in the mind of a British public, lam sorry that lowering me in the public esteem should be an object of such high importance, that such unworthy means are resorted to against me. I did think the liberal constitution of this country considered every person arraigned for an offence, as under the protection of the court before which he was arraigned; and above all do I still think, that in my peculiar situation, I am under the protection of the dignity of this house. Good God, sir! is it possible that one of its members could have been guilty of carrying arms and ammunition to the enemies of his country? Such a person surely ought to be tied to a stake in Palace-yard. With the house, however, it will rest to say, what ought to be the fate of any man who falsely and flagitiously brings such a charge against one of its members. I do
736
think the documents on your table will satisfy the house that I am little calculated to carry into effect so treasonable a project. I was not on that side of India during my last voyage, and I never, directly or indirectly, had any intercourse whatever with any enemy of my country. Various other instances of similar conduct on the part of the newspapers have occurred; advertisements have been inserted for evidence or information against me; and a pamphlet published, called A Discourse, foisted on the public as a discussion on Copenhagen, but evidently meant as an attack upon me; the preface and appendix constituting more than two thirds of the book, full of the grossest scurrilities, evidently meant to prepare the country for the present attack on me, although it so happened, the honourable gentleman never heard of the Etrusco till the morning he first presented himself to the house on the subject! This author has also endeavoured to administer another species of poison to the public, by insidiously stating that I had only been so many years afloat after my promotion; that, sir, was my misfortune; I had not interest enough to get a frigate, nor could I, without a dereliction of my bounden duty, refuse to be employed by his majesty's government in the various manners in which they have chosen for the last fifteen years to direct my exertions.—Nothing, sir, can more thoroughly mark the rancour exercised against me, than an attack which an hon. gentleman made upon me, with so becoming and well-timed a liberality, at the moment the safety of my life was a questionable point in the opinions of my physicians; not as a relevant topic of debate, but to make an impression against me while I was arraigned under a most serious charge; for I am certain my appointment as captain of the Baltic fleet, could have no reference whatever to the provisioning of the Rochfort squadron; and yet the hon. gentleman, in a most unqualified manner, while arraigning the noble lord's conduct who has no successfully president at the head of the board of admiralty, says, 'his appointment of sir Home 'Popham to be captain of the Baltic fleet 'was an outrage, and disgusted every officer in the fleet.' Now, sir, I will tell that hon. gentleman that the appointment he alluded to was not what he has been pleased so describe it. This house shall choose between that hon. gentleman's high, authority, and the opinions of two officers of the first rank and character in the ser-

737
vice, (whose letters happened not, like several others on the same subject, to be destroyed:) the senior, an admiral nearly related to a noble lord sitting on the opposite bench; and the junior, a vice admiral, sir Thomas Graves, who has had the honour of receiving the thanks of this house, and the highest mark of his sovereign's approbation, added to what is equally dear to him, the most unequivocal testimony of that illustrious hero lord Nelson, of his meritorious conduct on the occasion for which these honours were given.—'July 17th, 1807. My dear sir; I was very happy to find from admiral Gambier that you have absolutely received your appointment as captain of the fleet; I rejoice in it, in this instance, more than I should probably in any other, because you are so well acquainted with the Baltic, where the fleet is supposed to be going. I think from your great professional knowledge, resource, and activity, lord Mulgrave could not have made a more judicious choice for the appointment. I have long known your admiral: he is a most honourable man; and although you have never been on service with him, I am certain your assiduity will gain his good opinion wish my flag had been hoisted; I should have rejoiced in acting hand in hand with you: much success attend you, and believe me, my dear sir, very truly yours, C. P. HAMILTON.—Extract of a letter from vice admiral sir Thomas Graves. July 22nd, 1807. It does not appear that they are certain who are to be your flag officers, though doubtless long since appointed; all agree that you are captain of the fleet, which, it is said, will consist of twenty or thirty sail of the line; an invincible force, in which your genius and talents will have ample scope: and I think the situation you hold in the expedition is as creditable to those who appointed you, as I am persuaded it will be advantageous to the public, and honour able to yourself and the service.' I will submit to the house, whether the opinion of these officers, written at a moment when they little expected I should take the liberty of making it public, added to the opinion of three very respectable officers who were then at the board of admiralty, ought not to have more weight in the decision of the noble lord, than the extraordinary acquirements upon those topics of the hon. gentleman. I will also, if the house will allow me to read a few more
738
letters, give most unanswerable proof that the other allegation is the reverse of true, 'that every officer was disgusted with my 'appointment.' I am really quite ashamed to trespass so much on the house; but really, sir, the hon. gentleman did so forcibly press the unpopularity of my appointment, that I cannot refrain from attempting to remove such an impression.—'April 9th, 1808. My dear sir; having observed in the newspapers an assertion made in the house of commons, that your late appointment as captain of the fleet gave disgust to every officer in the expedition to Copenhagen, I feel it my duty, as one of the captains employed on that service, to assure you, that so far from being disgusted or displeased, it gave me most sincere pleasure to see you in a situation I conceived you so perfectly calculated to fill with credit to yourself and to your country; an opinion most fully confirmed by my observations on your zeal and unwearie desertions at Copenhagen; and I have much satisfaction in saying, I express not my own sentiments, but those of all nay brother officers I was in the habits of intimacy with, which I believe includes the greater proportion of the fleet. I have only to add, that I shall rejoice most heartily to see you again in a situation to call forth your talents for the good of the service. I am, my dear sir, &c.—Extract of a letter from a captain in the Baltic fleet: April 18th, 1808. Our friends here inform me you are about to be employed again; I, who witnessed your unremitting exertions and abilities at Copenhagen, with the general satisfaction you gave both army and navy, should be better pleased that you were in the same situation again, rather than in command of a single ship.—Extract, March 10th, 1808. I observe by the debates of the 4th instant, on the subject of sir Richard Strachans squadron, that Mr. Calcraft has asserted, that lord Mulgrave has committed an outrage on the service by appointing you captain of the fleet, which gave universal dissatisfaction. I never had the pleasure of being introduced to you until your acceptance of that appointment; but previous to your arrival at Yarmouth, a report was in circulation that some officers intended to remonstrate against your appointment, and which very naturally from the novelty of such a proceeding, became the subject of conversation among the captains, and as far as I could learn in

739
the first instance, they viewed the report more as a squib than any serious intention to remonstrate. I have ever considered it to be the province of a commander in chief, to nominate officers who are to be in confidential situations about him, especially as in your case: that nomination came within precedents established, not only at home but abroad, and I was sorry to find that the least difference of opinion should have existed on the propriety of your appointment. It is impossible for a captain of a fleet to give universal satisfaction to those under his direction; but from your unremitting zeal for the service, the perfect arrangement of your plans, your exertion in the execution of them, and your personal attention to the officers of the fleet, I heard you spoken of by the captains with whom I was in the habits of intimacy, in the fleet, in terms which reflect the highest honour on your character and conduct; and I really feel myself called upon to communicate those my sentiments to you. I must beg leave at the same time to say, I totally disclaim attaching myself to any party: I only come forward to assure you my name cannot be enrolled among those who are represented by Mr. Calcraft as disgusted with your appointment under lord Gambier; and I am convinced that many of my brother officers who are now at sea would, if they were in England, be glad to avail themselves of an opportunity to do you similar justice.—April 9th, 1808. Dear sir, I was astonished to see reported in a newspaper in a late debate in the house of commons, an assertion made use of by Mr. Calcraft expressing that my lord Mulgrave had committed an outrage to the service in appointing you captain of the fleet, on the late Baltic expedition; and if my memory does not fail me, he said disgusting to his brother officers. Such an assertion calls on the captains of that fleet to express their mind; and I, who had opportunity of seeing your great and zealous exertions, both in the fleet and on shore, and of hearing the sentiments of navy and army, feel that an outrage has been committed against lord Mulgrave and yourself, and against the sentiments of the captains of that fleet. It is true, I read in a newspaper when off Copenhagen, that some disapprobation had been expressed by the captains at your appointment; but I do affirm that I never heard an expression, direct or indi-
740
rect, tending to insinuate such a sentiment by any of my brother officers; on the contrary, there appeared to me but one opinion, that of the greatest confidence in your abilities, and approbation at your being selected to fill so honourable and arduous a situation on an expedition so big with great events. I can only lament that your being now appointed to the command of a ship will, in a great degree, cramp your exertions, but I sincerely hope the time is not far distant when the country will reap the benefit of your great abilities on a greater and wider scale. With every sentiment, &c.—Extract: March 12th, 1808. Although Mr. Calcraft has taken upon himself to assert in the house of commons that your appointment as captain of the Baltic fleet gave universal disgust, I do assure you it is not a fact. Some few officers made some objections, but I am certain four-fifths were decidedly in your favour; and as to your conduct after your appointment, it was such, in personal attention, arrangement, promptitude, unceasing exertion, and zeal in the faithful discharge of your duty, as obtained you the highest credit with every officer I conversed with on the subject. I am, &c.—Extract: May 10th, 1808. I want words to express my astonishment at the observations (respecting your appointment as captain of the Baltic fleet) made by Mr. Calcraft; as the fact is, that so far from an outrage, it was conformable to several precedents, and so popular in the fleet, that I never heard one dissenting voice; and on the conclusion of the service, every officer in the fleet, in their general conversation, bore the highest testimony to the impartiality, unremitted zeal, promptitude, spirit, activity, most gentlemanlike and congenial deportment, with which you conducted yourself, and thereby gave such cheerful and universal satisfaction. As to myself, who have served upwards of thirty years in the navy, I can only observe, that I think the country highly indebted to lord Mulgrave for his discernment and judicious selection, in appointing you captain of the Baltic fleet.'—These letters are written by officers, who either commanded line of battle ships in the expedition to Copenhagen, or do command them now; many of them I never saw before that expedition, and probably it will be well not to read their names, as it may tend to some party irritation; but that

741
will rest with the honourable gentleman. I trust the house will excuse me for taking tip so much of its time, but I must ask the honourable gentleman whether, if any prejudices existed to my appointment, any had manifested themselves to my conduct in that appointment? I shall feel the greatest obligation to that honourable gentleman if he will produce any three officers, and I will give him the wide range of an extensive army to go to, who have any fault to find with my conduct, personal or public, in the different duties entrusted to my care. And I shall now ask any candid mind, whether entering on a department under the disadvantages of personal prejudice, and retiring under the approbation of his general conduct, is not more meritorious than entering on a department without any adverse prejudice, and retiring without the least approbation.—It will ill become me to enter upon my immediate answers to the different points which the hon. gent, has urged with so much ingenuity, before I offer to you, sir, and to this house, my most sincere thanks for the patience and indulgence with which I have already been honoured. The house, however, will observe, that the transactions now under discussion originated twenty years ago; and as all other efforts have failed to abase me in the estimation of my country, these have been resorted to. The Cape, Buenos Ayres, and Copenhagen, have been worked threadbare; no more is expected to result from them, and as little I trust will result from this; for whatever length the examination may go to, it can never alter the principal feature of the case, that I preferred active employment to the dissipation of every description which at that time I might have entered into. The charges which the hon. gent. has brought forward, I shall class under four heads; that I went to India without the consent of the East India Company, contrary to their exclusive charter; that I had smuggled part of the cargo of the Etrusco into Ireland and England; that I had absconded from India; and had escaped from the ship in Ostend roads. If I was disposed, sir, to contend that the last letter from the admiralty was the only one which was binding on me, I might certainly do so, and in that letter it has been seen that no restriction whatever was imposed on me in regard to the Company's settlements: it gave me unrestricted leave to go to India, and to reside two years at Fredericknagore, on the express condition
742
of my resigning my half pay: but I will not separate the inference which might be drawn from the first application, which was rejected, and in which application I stated I had no intention of going to the Company's settlements with a view of remaining there. I will state the fact to the house exactly as it stood. When I sailed from Europe it was my intention to domicile myself at Serampour. I do not mean to say I should not have stopped at Calcutta on passing, but my fixed residence would certainly have been in the former place. In my voyage out, however, the ship struck on an unknown rock in the Mozambique channel: I was obliged to go to Bombay, and on my arrival there I found several English ships under foreign colours, commanded by Englishmen, and who had sailed from the port of Ostend in the same manner I had done. The treatment which these ships had experienced from the government of Bombay, certainly changed my view of the subject; no restrictions were enforced on them, no law put in force against them, and the policy of encouraging this trade was an obvious feature in the general conduct of the government and the servants of the company. Under these circumstances was it not, sir, natural that I should avail myself of the same attention, and the same advantages, which were held out to others at the time it was supposed they were offending against a prohibitory law of the company? From Bombay I went to Madras; from Madras to Calcutta, though not in nay ship; and on the moment of my arrival there, I was applied to by the governor-general to assist on a particular service ordered by the court of directors; I in course acceded to the proposition; and having now occasion to state that I was so employed by lord Cornwallis, I beg to disclaim the slightest intention of aspersing the character of that illustrious nobleman by any thing I could ever have said on the subject of his conduct towards me. All I meant to state was, that the governor-general knew I was a British subject, and that I was in the command of a foreign ship; and although the hon. gent, has stated that the government of India had not the power of prosecuting the ship, yet he had the power of seizing me, as an individual, and sending me under an arrest to England; a power, I believe, equally possessed by all the presidencies of India: but, on the contrary, the government not only abstained from noticing the trade in

743
which I had been engaged, but, conceiving I had performed some services to the Company by gratuitously applying my professional exertions in various instances, wrote in the strongest terms to the court of directors; which letter, page 45, I will take the liberty of reading, and by which it will be seen that the court of directors was particularly solicited to recommend me to the lords of the admiralty. Extract of the public letter from the governor-general in council of Bengal, dated Nov. 25th, 1791, to the court of directors: 'You 'will observe, in his letter dated the 8th of 'September, that Mr. Popham, a lieutenant in his majesty's navy, has rendered 'a very important service to your settlement of the Prince of Wales's Island, 'and to the navigation of that part of India, 'by effecting a survey of the south channel; and ascertaining that vessels of any 'depth of water not exceeding twenty four feet, may now make their passage, 'and thus avoid a great loss of time, to 'which, previous to the survey, they were 'obliged to submit in working out of the 'harbour of Pulo Penang to the northward, when bound to the southward. 'Mr. Popham his been desired to deliver 'to us a chart of his survey upon this occasion, and we shall transmit it to you 'when we receive it, reserving a copy to 'be kept in this country. The present instance is not the first, of a liberal exertion 'made by Mr. Popham in the line of his 'profession for the service of the Company 'in India. At the request of government 'he assisted in the year 1788 in the survey 'of New Harbour and the adjacent channel; and to the merit thus acquired, he 'has now added that arising from the performance of a service likely to prove 'highly advantageous to your commercial 'interests. Unemployed as Mr. Popham 'is under the Company, his zeal, and gratuitous direction of his professional talents 'to the advancement of the public good, 'on the two occasions we have mentioned, 'and especially the last, claimed more 'than common notice, and we have accordingly expressed to him our sense of 'the readiness he has manifested to promote the interests of your service. We 'have also directed that a piece of plate 'may be prepared, bearing an inscription 'expressive of the occasion upon which it 'is given; and we have instructed our 'secretary to present it to him in the name 'of the governor-general in council. Permit us to request that the services per-
744
'formed by Mr. Popham may be represented in the terms they merit by your 'honourable court to the lords commissioners of the admiralty in England.' In consequence of this recommendation I was reinstated in his majesty's service which, but for the war of 1793, I never should have had the honour of being. In this transaction, sir, I must therefore be considered as a private individual, and could not, in the words of the honourable gentleman's resolution, have "disgraced the character of a British officer." The papers on your table prove that I was struck off the list of lieutenants in April 1791, I heard of it in October; and believe the Etrusco, which was taken by admiral Robinson in Ostend road, was purchased by me in December of the same year; and however I might have erred as a lieutenant by going to India on a mercantile speculation, I certainly had a right, when I was no longer in the service, to pursue that speculation, with every exertion I possessed, for the sake of my family. And here, sir, I cannot help asking, against whom was I offending? Was I offending against any general law of the country? No, but against the protecting law of the monopoly of the East India Company. Did the Company prosecute me? No; but they rewarded me by recommending me, after my sins, to the notice of his majesty's government. In short, sir, it was the policy of the Company at that time, if not to encourage, certainly to countenance, the trade of English capitals under foreign flags; and every body considered, the relaxation of the governments in India, in enforcing their protecting law against the foreign trade, as amounting almost to an abrogation of it. With respect, sir, to the expences of captain Robinson, it was not owing to any fault of mine, or any neglect oil my part, that they have not been paid long ago. On my return from the Cape of Good Hope my proctor presented me with the accounts; and seeing upwards of 900 l. for travelling and incidental charges from 1793, when the ship was taken, till 1803, when the captor had no occasion to travel any more, and an interest on that sum of near 300 l. making in all 1200 l., I do confess I hesitated to pay it; and am certain every person will feel that the charge is a little extraordinary for travelling to Deptford, where the ship lay, or to London, for a few opinions on the mode of prosecuting her; and was it not a little extraordinary during the last

745
five years, not a stroke of law was struck? These accounts are now before the register of the court of admiralty, and merchants of the city of London, duly appointed; and I am happy to say, as a proof of the propriety of my objection, that they struck oil the interest the moment they saw it. The agent of admiral Robinson refused the arbitration of gentlemen, whom I proposed, as I consider it on all occasions the best reference for points in dispute; and which, as I before had the honour of mentioning in this house, was the course I pursued towards Messrs. Paxton, antecedent to this case being tried; and which I have again done by my solicitor, although the issue of that trial was against them.—Now, as to the honourable gentleman's charge of absconding from justice, how does that stand? A coarser observation was never applied to any individual; in the same way I felt many of the honourable gentleman's observations; but as he has not been called to order by the house, I must rest satisfied the language he used was completely within its rules. In one month after the capture of the Etrusco, I was reinstated on the list of lieutenants, and appointed to act with the army in Holland, and I do not believe any officer in that army will accuse me of absconding from the various and fatiguing duties which my situation in it imposed upon me; I did not return to England till 1796, nor did I even hear of the compulsory process till it was mentioned in this house by the honourable gentleman. The honourable member has stated too, that just before the Etrusco was seized, a person had escaped from her with a boat-load of goods; that person, sir, was myself: I had an undoubted right to act as I pleased; to hoist my boats out when I pleased, and to go, where it was very natural I should go, to see my family, after an absence of twenty months. That I did take such articles as I thought would be acceptable presents to my family, is most true; I wish I had taken twenty boat-loads; and if I could have taken the ship into Ostend harbour, then, I apprehend, the honourable and learned gentleman would not have had this opportunity of making his liberal practise on my character. But if there was any impropriety in my going on shore, why did not the gallant officer whose conduct has been so highly extolled by the honourable gentleman, prevent me? The reason, I conclude, may be easily inferred by reading admiral Wole's deposi-
746
tion, therefore on this point I shall make no further comment. The honourable gentleman has asserted that a bribe had been offered to admiral Robinson to relinquish the capture; I can only say, I never heard of this extraordinary circumstance till this night; nor can I imagine that any person was so much interested in the ship and cargo as myself, or could possibly have been justified in advancing so extravagant a proposition; and this was my reason for not denying it.—I now, sir, come to the charge of smuggling, so unwarrantably asserted by the hon. gent.: and I must deny, in the most unqualified manner, that the least article of the cargo was landed in Ireland. I trust the house will allow me to read a letter from the reverend Mr. Tisdale, the magistrate of Crookhaven, who has also written in similar terms to the hon. member for Cork. I referred to Mr. Tisdale for all the information he could procure, on the subject of the charge of smuggling in Ireland, and this was his reply:—'My 'dear sir; my being absent from home 'these five weeks past prevented me from 'receiving your favour of the 18th ultimo 'till this morning, and I lose not one moment in answering it, as well to comply 'with your request, as to gratify my own 'feelings in rendering you every service '(if it is any) in my power. The charge 'brought against you as far as relates to 'Ireland has surprised me very much. If 'any thing of the kind had occurred, I 'must, most assuredly, have known it, from 'the close intimacy that subsisted at the 'time between us; but so far from your 'having disposed of any thing in Ireland, 'I have known you to reject several considerable offers made to you by different 'persons to induce you to dispose of teas, 'or any other article you might have had 'on board; nay so very cautious were 'you, that I confess I found myself disappointed in being refused by you as much 'as one or two boxes of tea for Mrs. 'Tisdale. I was present when, immediately on your arrival here, you issued 'the most positive orders both to the 'officers and crew of the L'Etrusco, on no 'account whatever to attempt to dispose 'of any article, even of their private property; which order was, I believe, most 'rigidly observed. I went round to Cork 'with you in the ship, and staid with you 'until the vessel had cleared that harbour; 'during the whole of which time I can safely and conscientiously, I think, assert

747
'that not one pound of tea or any other 'article was taken out of her. Your innocence of the charge brought against you 'here, appears so clear to me, that I should 'feel great satisfaction, as far in me lies, 'in any act of mine that would tend to 'your justification in the opinion of the 'public, as well as that of your friends; 'and should you think that any other 'light can be thrown on the business by 'me, I have to request you may command 'my services, I am, dear sir, with great 'regard, very truly yours, Fitzgerald Tisdale. Crookhaven, March 8th, 1808. I 'write by this post to my friend, colonel 'Longfield, one of the representatives for 'the city of Cork, on this subject.' Now, sir, if there was any thing in the character of the voyage which led to a suspicion that smuggling was its object, I do submit to the house, whether Crookhaven, where there was no custom house officer for a considerable time, and where such offers were made as would tempt any man to sin, was not the place to have effected this purpose? Besides, I remained long enough in Ireland to have entered into a systematic arrangement with my correspondents in England for vessels to meet me off Scilly, which was the position where the English Indiamen discharged their teas when that was a usage which generally obtained in the service. On the contrary, when I sailed from Ireland, I sailed under the convoy of the Diadem; and as captain Sutherland wished to be ready to chase on all occasions, he directed me to wear a pendant and lead the convoy. The instructions I issued are in papers on your table; and it will be there seen, that hoisting a Tuscan jack at the mizen topmast head was the signal for the convoy to proceed to the Downs, while the Etrusco prosecuted her voyage to Ostend. The contradictory depositions in the printed exhibits of men of all nations, and which were taken by captain Robinson's proctor, do certainly assert, that from two to five boxes of tea were delivered from the ship between Hastings and Dungeness. By reference, however, to the marshal's sales, and the schedule of the teas which I claimed, it will be seen, that all the teas belonging to me were sold in London, except one box, and is it not natural to suppose that the one box was used in the voyage home? I have taken much pains to ascertain to whom these teas belonged; I have not succeeded; but it is universally allowed that they were given to the Hast-
748
ings pilot, and when the ship was beyond the limits of the hovering act, and consequently there was no law to prevent my having unloaded the whole ship. It might as well be said, that if I was accessary to the smuggling, I might have been equally so in selling the whole of the cargo at. Ostend. But, sir, to strip this transaction of all the elegant and ingenious decoration in which the hon. gent, has involved it, the naked fact is, that a pilot, about to take charge of a very valuable ship over shoals which would shake the strongest nerves, had importuned, as was the custom with every ship passing up the Channel, for a few boxes of teas; and when the Etrusco had near four thousand chests on board, could the granting this, in the mind of any just or liberal man, be called smuggling? That this was the extent of the leas which went out of the ship, although there were boats enough to have laden the whole cargo, must be seen by the following letter from the master of a revenue cutter; 'Tyger, revenue cutter, 'Guernsey, 24th February, 1808. Sir, 'seeing by the papers, one of the members wishes to prove, that you run your 'cargo off Dungeness, I beg you will remember, that I boarded your ship to the 'westward of the Ness, supposing her to 'be one of his majesty's ships bound up 'the river, and might want a pilot, at 'which time I was one; at same time, 'you must recollect we towed alongside 'your ship, nearly up to Dover, where 'we left you proceeding for Ostend. 'Likewise beg to inform you what passed 'in the boat after we left the ship, between 'the boat's crew and myself. I asked them whether there was any thing to dispose of on board the ship; they answered 'me no, they might as well go on board 'a light collier; that captain Popham, 'would not suffer such a tiling to be done; 'at the same time they informed me they 'had heard on board the ship that you 'allowed your officers to let the Hastings 'pilot have three or four boxes of tea. I 'perfectly remember my boat's crew 'being very angry at being on board a 'ship from India, and could not purchase 'any thing. I am, sir, your most obedient 'humble servant, William Blake." In most situations, men's actions are guided by some motive; in a mercantile transaction, profit would be the leading feature. Now, I have endeavoured to trace who had received the money for these teas; the executors of Mr. Charnock can find no

749
entry in this book, from which I am induced to think it was considered for the pilotage. But what was the value of these tour boxes; 9l. a box; and the duty, as it was then rated, would not exceed 29 l. on the whole: consequently, the loss to the revenue, if the teas were ever landed, of which there is no proof whatever, could only be the duty, which must have been gained by the person who received the teas. Having stated fairly all I knew of this transaction, which had taken place so many years ago, was it, I ask, such as to merit the harsh expressions which have been applied to it? If the honourable gentleman had used half the exertion to prove the direct acts of smuggling while the ship was in possession of the captors, as he has to prove my being disinterestedly accessary to four boxes going out of the ship, he might have more decidedly succeeded; to what extent it was then going on, nobody can calculate; but the returns from the custom-house can prove, that goods were seized alongside her in the attempt to land, and the boats condemned; this prevented the account of the cargo ever being regularly balanced. I cannot, sir, but be convinced, and I am sure the same feeling must pervade this house and the country, that it is impossible to find any person who was more particularly fitted for this investigation than the hon. gentleman. It must be well known that one of his hon. relations has had a long and intimate connection with his majesty's proctor in Doctors' Commons; so extensive indeed, and so various, was the practice of that office, that it became a subject of discussion in this house; and as a branch of the same connection still remains, where could he better apply for the course of judicial I proceeding against the Etrusco, or against any ship, or for any ship? Nor could he have a more ample source of information of the commercial intercourse between I this country and Ostend, than by applying to another branch of his family, whose partner has been known (if I am not deceived by my information) to have remained for weeks together at Ostend, sorting his goods from India, and selecting those best calculated for an active importation into this country. (Mr. Lushington called out, 'Name, name.') Mr. Maver, sir, your uncle's partner. The hon. gentleman has commented much upon the affidavit, and the memorials presented by me to the treasury. The affidavit recapi-
750
tulated the joint concern of Constant, Piron, and myself; it really only claimed one-third of that joint concern; and it asserted that no Frenchman had an interest in that one-third, or in any part of the ship, or the rest of the cargo. But he might have gone further; for Piron never paid a shilling; and was only introduced by Constant to have an eventual profit, or to bear a similar loss: and it was in the time of perfect peace when this adventure commenced in China.—Now, as to the memorial, which only asserted that I unadvisedly entered upon these voyages to. India, and that I did not know I was infracting any general law of the country, but a law partially protecting the India company, who had countenanced and protected me in the very ultimatum of these speculations. I never went clandestinely to India; I kept no part of my transactions there a secret at home; all the papers which are upon your table were printed fourteen years ago, and were before the court of appeals, where some of the highest characters then in England sat, and were convened several times on this subject. They saw all the depositions, and must have been satisfied that no idea of smuggling, in the true acceptance of the word, could have existed. When the memorial was presented by me to the lords of the treasury, it was accompanied by all the documents which are before the house, and all that had been admitted at Doctor's Commons; it was presented in the administration preceding Mr. Pitt's last administration; and certainly under the most inauspicious circumstances, for I was at that moment acting in opposition. The papers were referred by Mr. Serjeant, one of the secretaries of the treasury, to the king's proctor, and his report was made before the close of that administration; the king's proctor had been the proctor of captain Robinson during the whole of his controversy; he had been his legal adviser from the moment he first seized the Etrusco till the suit was concluded; and therefore, I contend, that as an honest man, reporting in his official situation, as proctor to his majesty, he should have reported every circumstance which appeared to him derogatory or flagitious in my conduct; and in point of gratitude to captain Robinson, as his proctor, he should, as far as he conscientiously could, have reported in such a way as to have obtained the greatest remuneration for him and the least for me; his not having done so,

751
when my political conduct must have been so obnoxious to the then existing administration, is, I submit, a conclusive argument that my claim was just. As to Mr. Constant, he had received in the year 1768, 10,000 l. and in 1800, 2197 l. which sums, with the legal interest to which, in the hands of a merchant, it was justly entitled, would, before I received one farthing, have amounted to 16,000 l. and yet I never asked him for a halfpenny, nor did it strike him that it was right to offer me one, during the five years it was doubted whether I should receive a farthing. His plea that I did not pay thirty thousand dollars into the treasury is ridiculous; because we had more money offered than we could dispose of, as our remittance was so very superior to the public remittance at Canton. Grant all which Mr. Constant claimed, 52,000 dollars, in which is included Piron's bond, he had but an interest originally, even allowing the highest exchange on his dollars, of about 15,000 l.; and yet he received 16,000 l. before I received one farthing. My loss is the ship, which by the papers before the house, is valued at 20,000 l. the freight 27,000 l. the 19,000 dollars, which is between 5 and 6,000 l. and my individual property, schedule B, 10,000 l. making in all 63,000 l. and what I have received, with what I am to receive, will amount to about 19,000 l.; and as Mr. Charnock was the greatest sufferer by his respondent bonds, I went in 1794 to his executor, and wrote a letter to him, and my own solicitor, as trustees; agreeing, after all the expences I had been at in England, in pursuing this cause, were paid out of the grant, to divide the remainder, upon the principle of a general average; by which means I shall probably not retain more than two or three thousand pounds exclusive of the demands I have cancelled on this property. It has been erroneously stated that captain Robinson got no remuneration from the crown; that fact I deny; he received all his expences, which he stated at 6,000 l. Now if the treasury, instead of granting me a warrant for 25,000 l. with a lien upon it of captain Robinson's expences, had, independant of the one third share of the joint concern which was condemned to him, granted him a warrant for 6,000 l. cut of the sum which was forfeited to the crown, then not one word could have been said upon the subject. From this statement I hope the disposition of the treasury will be considered just; it restored
752
to me part of the remains of my wrecked fortune, all earned by my own exertion, and not taken from the fund or exertion of any individual whatever. To you, sir, and to the house, I return my most sincere thanks for the patient indulgence I have experienced; and I trust that, in retiring from this house, which I believe to be the invariable practice for members in my situation, the hon. gent. will not again accuse me of absconding from justice.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerasked the hon. mover, whether he meant to bring a charge against sir Home Popham or the government?
The Speakerput it to the house, 'whether there could be a doubt that the motion, as it was worded, conveyed a personal charge against, sir Home Popham.—Sir Home having retired,
Mr. Longcomplained of the manner in which the hon. gent, had brought forward this charge against the treasury. If the hon. gent, would prefer a distinct charge against himself, he should always be ready to meet it; if against his late right hon. friend (Mr. Pitt), there were others in the house much better qualified to defend that illustrious and lamented character than himself. Of many of the circumstances mentioned by the hon. gent. he was perfectly ignorant until the agitation of this subject. He was ignorant that any charge of smuggling had been imputed to the hon. captain, for no such charge had been made in captain Robinson's memorial; he was ignorant that the hon. captain had pleaded in bar to an action, the illegality of the transaction in which he had been concerned. The hon. gent, declared that this was a misapplication of the public money, and that his principal object was to prevent a recurrence of that misapplication in future. He then proceeded to state, that the hon. captain had deceived the treasury, and had acted under that delusion. This he positively denied. The treasury had not been deceived. He was willing to take the whole responsibility of the affair on himself; for on the closest re-examination which he had been able to make of the subject, he was satisfied that the treasury had acted on the soundest principles; that they must have done what they did, even to an indifferent person; how much more to a man so well known by the services he had rendered to the public! What was the case? After a litigation of ten years, a part of the property was restored to the neutral proprietors; a

753
part was allotted to the captors; apart was forfeited to the crown by the laws securing the monopoly of the East India Company having been violated. But who were the sufferers by this violation? the East India Company. Did they appear to feel much injury? No. Did they institute any prosecution in consequence? No. Did they present any memorial on the subject? No. Did they interfere in any way whatever respecting it? No. Was it not evident, then, that they were willing to allow a relaxation of the laws in which they alone were interested? Nor was this surprising: these laws were made at a time when a company was formed in the Austrian Netherlands, which the East India Company feared as a rival. This was at the commencement of the last century. In 1725, however, that company was suspended, and in 1731 totally abolished. Since that period, it was notorious that British subjects had been engaged in trade in the East Indies. What, in fairness, was to be inferred from the recommendation of the hon. captain, by the government of India, to the court or directors? Either that the government of India thought that they sustained no injury by the infraction of the law; or, if any injury had been sustained, that it was counterbalanced by the services rendered to the Company by the hon. captain. The only case at all analogous to that of the Etrnsco, was that of the Walsingham packet, and of the Prince of Wales. In the former, half was given to the captors, and half to the original proprietors; in the latter, a third was given to the captors, and the remainder to the original proprietors. If the treasury had acted otherwise than they had done to the hon. captain, they would have made his case an exception. What he had received was not a reward for a violation of the law; it was "a restitution of a small part of his depreciated property.—Adverting to the continuance of the hon. captain on the continent after the seizure of the Etrusco, of which circumstance such an unfair advantage had been taken by the hon. gent., he read the letter from the duke of York to lord Spencer, then at the head of the Admiralty, in which his royal highness described the extraordinary exertions of Mr. Popham when with the British army in Holland, and recommended him most strongly to be promoted to the rank of post-captain. He also read the answer of lord Spencer, who informed his royal highness, that he
754
would take the earliest opportunity of complying with his request, and that he should feel the greatest satisfaction in promoting an officer who had deserved so well of his country. The present was a most serious accusation against the treasury board; against that great man (Mr. Pitt), whose purity of character neither the voice of party nor the breath of calumny itself had ever attempted to sully. It was his pride and satisfaction to reflect that he had been publicly connected in the same administration, and that he had been honoured by the private intimacy of that illustrious character, who in the whole course of his splendid career had been distinguished by the most inflexible integrity, by the highest sense of honour, and by the most perfect devotion to the cause of his country. If the hon. gentlemen on the other side thought crimination and recrimination the best way of employing the time of the house, he could have no objection to it. If not, he could not see the object of the present motion. If they thought to gain a triumph over a former government, now that the right gent. who had been at the head of it was no more, he might regret that their defence had fallen into such weak hands as his, but he must at the same time say, that the triumph was not founded in justice. He could declare with truth, that the right hon. gentleman alluded to could never have been induced to accede to such a measure from unjust motives. He also should not do justice to the gallant officer if he did not declare, that he had seen him uniformly actuated by a strict sense of integrity, the highest honour, and the utmost devotion to the service of his country.
Mr. Calcraftdeclared that he should never be deterred by the dread of recrimination from submitting what he esteemed it to be his duly to offer to the house. He was sorry the gallant officer could not be present; but as what he had to say would depend on the documents alone, he could easily inform himself on the subject. He had stated on a former night, that the appointment of that officer to be captain of the fleet under admiral Gambier had created the utmost disgust throughout the nary. He did not state so without documents on which to ground his assertion; and he thought he could not do better than read a letter which he held in his hand, addressed to admiral Gambier on this occasion. The hon. gentleman then proceeded to read a remonstrance to lord

755
Gambier, from admirals Hood, Keates, and Stopford, on the subject of that appointment, and contended that this document fully justified the expressions he had used on the former occasion. The hon. gent, was proceeding to some observations respecting the question relative to the Rochfort squadron, when he was called to order by
Mr. Wellesley Pole,who contended that there was no connexion between the observations of the hon. gentleman and the question before the house; at the same time declaring, that he was perfectly ready to meet the hon. gent. upon the topic to which he had referred, whenever it should be brought regularly before the house.
The Speakerobserved, that as the expressions used by the hon. gentleman on a former occasion had been adverted to, he was perfectly in order in explaining these expressions, and the grounds upon which he had used them. It would be for the hon. gent, however, to decide how far his statement ought to be carried for the purpose of such explanation.
Mr. Calcraftwas not disposed to proceed further on the subject, as his object had only been to shew that the case he had urged was supported by undoubted authority. He should conclude by declaring that, as the case of his hon. friend seemed to him to be fully made out, he should vote in support of his resolutions.
The Advocate General(sir John Nicholls) would not discharge his duty to the house, nor to the memory of that illustrious individual who was now unfortunately no more (Mr. Pitt), if he did not state to the house the grounds of the opinion upon which he had recommended the grant. Ever since this subject had been first mentioned, he had felt personally embarrassed with respect to the matter. It had been said, that the grant had been made upon a reluctant report from the king's advocate; but so far from that having been the case, the report concluded without expressing any opinion, which, on so novel a case, the law officers who signed the report were not competent to give. On so grave a question as the exercise of the inquisitorial power of that house respecting the expenditure of the public money, it was important to keep in view the object of the motion. That object was a censure on the conduct of a late administration for an improvident grant of money, in order to prevent a similar act in future. It was unfortunate, for any individual to be the
756
object of accusation in that house, but it was particularly unfortunate for him to be incidentally or collaterally the subject of charge, when the merits of a charge against government were made to depend upon his merits or demerits. This was more particularly the case when the accusation was founded, in part, upon letter which had been that night first read to the house. It was not strictly correct to call the grant in this case a misapplication of public money; it, was the king's money; though he would not say that the house might not inquire into any improvident appropriation of such a fund. The grant was not a donation or a reward, but a remission of a forfeiture, and there had been many cases in which that house complained of the rigid enforcement of forfeitures. The exercise of justice with mercy, the prerogative of pardon, or remission of forfeiture, was one of the brightest jewels in the power of the crown, and which that house would be least disposed to interfere with.—Such was the character of the act: next was to be considered the character of the forfeiture. The Etrusco, on her return from Canton, had been detained and adjudged forfeit to the crown in the prize court, for a violation of the monopoly of the East India company. This had been the first case of the kind which had occurred; for, according to the laws respecting the East India company, the forfeitures are to that company and not the crown. And if ever there had been a case in which liberality should have been exercised with respect to the forfeiture, it was this. As judges, the house ought to take into its consideration what had been, at the time of this transaction, the state of the East India company. From the increase of their territory, they invited foreigners to engage in their trade, and even connived at British subjects embarking in it. The hon. officer who was the subject of this charge had been engaged in the trade in common with other British subjects and officers, and recognised as a British officer by the company's government in India, in the recommendation to the court of directors to apply for promotion for him to the admiralty, in consequence of his services. As to the charge of smuggling, it had never been urged in the whole progress of the cause by any of the advocates, nor even in capt. Robinson's memorial; the former had too much taste, and the latter was too much of a gentleman, to apply such a disgusting term to the cir-

757
cumstance of lour or five out of 3900 chests of tea being delivered out of the ship at Dungeness, whilst the captain had gone on shore. He contended that by the loss of 30,000 l. sir Home Popham had suffered suffered punishment for the illegality of the transaction. His whole property in the vessel amounted to 63,000 l. the government would give him back but 25,000 l. and had restored to him but 18 or 19,000 l.; so that he was a loser to the amount of 43,000 l. Besides, it ought to be considered how far he had expiated, by subsequent services, this offence. The India company, insensible of any injury, had not prosecuted him; and though the public might be interested in this question, it appeared by the papers, that he had, on the relief of Tournay and Ghent, contributed to save much public property, as also to facilitate the retreat of the army. In consequence of these services he had been recommended by the commander in chief for promotion, to lord Spencer, who had expressed his satisfaction at promoting an officer that had performed such service to this country. Looking to such services, he was sure the house would not think of the voyage to the East Indies; and therefore he had no hesitation to say, that the grant was an act of justice on the part of his majesty. But it had been said, that it was an act of injustice to capt. Robinson. That officer, however, had had the enemy's part of the property, condemned to the captors; but could have no right whatever to that, part of it, which, from belonging to a British subject, was forfeited to the king. Besides, the seizure of this vessel was not what ought to be called a capture, and the act itself, in the road of Ostend, had given rise to a question of territory which had not been decided for four years. The captors had their reward in the condemnation of M. De Piron's part of the legal property; and it was the fault of capt. Robinson, if he had not yet brought in a bill of costs that could be allowed, if he had not received them. On the whole, therefore, he thought the grant an act of justice to sir Home Popham, and that neither Mr. Pitt, nor his board of treasury, was deserving of censure for having advised his majesty to remit the forfeiture.
Mr. Windhamsaid, before he went into the general question, he would set aside some of those abstract topics which had been urged as a kind of stoppage to inquiry. These topics were two in number;
758
the first relating to sir Home Popham, the second to the treasury; casting blame upon both, he did not see how these two points could be separated; he could not see how the house could censure the application of the money, without at the same time censuring the hon. captain: it might as well attempt to separate the hon. captain from himself, as from the misapplication of which he was the cause. It was contended, however, that this went to cast blame upon a great man now no more; no person could so think who had either witnessed the progress of the transaction, or heard the way in which it had been opened that evening. It had been distinctly stated, that on the motion of an hon. baronet concerning the Droits of Admiralty, an objection had been made to the motion as not tending to instance any particular abuse which had existed; on which the hon. member who opened this debate, immediately instanced the case of sir H. Popham, and thus had the present motion originated. Now, surely, no person could say that any disrespect was meant to the late Mr. Pitt in this accidental occurrence. But even if it did cast any reflection on that great man's memory, it was. not on that account to be abstained from.—The question had been so ably and so fully discussed by the hon. member who had opened the debate, that there was little left for him to remark upon: he wished however to notice what had fallen from the learned gent, who had last sat down, just to examine a few of his broad general principles. He sat out by attempting to extenuate the abuse, which, however, he admitted was illegal. Indeed, it was no very great concession, after it had been proved so by a decision of the court: the question then was, what had ministers done with the public money? Had they disposed of it venially? No; they even admitted it had been given to a culprit; but then, indeed, they wanted to diminish his offence, to bring him just a little below the fact of smuggling, he had only innocently landed five chests of tea—for chess read boats—for boats to that number had been seen plying to and fro the whole night. He did not, however, wish to descend to minutiae; he would goat once on the broad principle of guilt, which was the illegal traffic. Of this there was substantial and tangible evidence—a deep, well-concerted, scheming, fraudulent system, such as never came more clearly before a court of justice! It was not, how-

759
ever, injurious to the country; at least the hon. captain did not think it was. What! was he, on his own self-sufficiency, to fly in the face of an existing charter, and judge, forsooth, what was or was not advantageous, contrary to the will and establishment of the legislature? Alas! we know what his self-willed course can lead the nation to already; we have fatally experienced as country plunged into unwished-for war, by the whim and caprice of his unrestrained and lawless direction. But one would think, on hearing the statement which had been made to-night, that capt. Robinson had been very well off to escape the sentence of a court-martial—for doing what?—merely his duty;—for catching the smuggler, as he had been ordered. Thus, the man who did his duty was ruined, while he who violated the law was enriched! But, says the advocate general, what has poor sir Home done?—Oh dear, luckless man, only a little innocent smuggling—only a little illicit traffic; that was all; and indeed, well did it deserve remuneration, while the conduct of the man who acted conscientiously was stigmatized! What, is that the way you deal with poor offenders? Is that the merciless rigour of your tyrannical revenue laws? Woe to the humble offender who comes under their cognizance! Woe to the mercy which will betide defenceless poverty! What was due to the hon. captain in this affair? Why, the most he could expect was mercy, indulgence, forbearance. And were those debts to be paid before the debt of justice due to capt. Robinson? Are we to give the guilty indulgence, while we punish the innocent. But it seems there is no precedent. Is there therefore to be no rule? The general plea of merit is then set up as a forlorn hope; and is this to be set up against capt. Robinson? Because there was no resistance made, is he to be punished, when we certainly know that to be the case as to him, which we as certainly know not to be the case as to sir Home—that he was innocent? It was, however, unfair to take the subsequent exploits of sir Home, and place them as a set-off against his antecedent guilt; and if we strip him of his subsequent honours, what shall we leave him? Oh! his achievements in Holland: these were of a mixed description—naval, military, and commercial; and in the commercial he was quite at home, standing on his own ground, too, near Ostend. Is it on account of these manœuvres, we are to reward him for his
760
smuggling with 18,000 l. and leave his captor destitute, without even sufficient to defray the sums which he expended in bringing the culprit to conviction? The East India Company, it seems, though, did not prosecute, and for a very good reason; because they saw him supported by men who had rendered them essential services, not on account of sir Home's personal merits—not because he chose to employ his leisure hours in an illegal trade—not on account of his ardent zeal, as it had been called by his friends, in the pursuit of gain. And here, he must remark, that this was not a very noble alternative for a naval officer to turn to—this generous thirst of making money even in a mercantile, honourable way, was not looked on very kind y by the navy as a resource for its officers: much less, he was sure, would it applaud downright and illicit smuggling.—As to the reference which had been made to Copenhagen, and the satisfaction his appointment gave—to all which had been said on that subject, the letters read by his hon. friend were as sufficient an overthrow as the fire of a line of battle ship would be to a cock boat. He deprecated the dreadful effects Which the naval character must experience, from the impression which must be made on it, by decking out in laurels the degraded object of a court martial's censure—by giving to sir Home Popham a pension of 600 l. per annum, while so many much more meritorous officers were left without distinction. He denied that lord Spencer's letter expressed any positive opinion of the hon. captain's merit, but merely stated his happiness that the duke of York had promoted so able an officer as he (the duke of York), conceived sir Home to be. This was, surely, no peremptory opinion of lord Spencer's, and it could not be expected that he was to fly in the duke of York's face, and tell him he was wrong. The right hon. gent. concluded, by declaring that he should vote this grant to be a misapplication of the public money; because it was degrading to the navy, setting a bad example to future treasuries, and giving fraud the retribution due to merit.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdid not feel it necessary to say much after the very able speeches of his right hon. and learned friends. He differed from the right hon. gent, who had spoke last, as to the propriety of separating the act of the treasury from the consideration of the merits of sir Home Popham, although he

761
would admit, that there was a connection between both so far as the board of treasury had cognizance of the circumstances. But, was it possible by any torture of ingenuity, to apply to the conduct of the treasury what the right hon. gent. had said respecting Buenos Ayres? The right hon. gent. might introduce such an extraneous topic, but was it not for the purpose of exciting a prejudice against an individual, whose, credit, honour, and character, were at issue? Was this justice, or was it candour? Though the hon. gent. who had brought forward this question, had declared, that he was actuated by a sense of duty in promoting an inquiry into the expenditure of the public money, and was reluctantly constrained to advert to the conduct of an individual, yet nine-tenths of his speech had been taken up with a personal attack upon that hon. officer He would now suppose, for the sake of the argument, what he should afterwards deny in fact, that the hon. officer had been convicted of the illicit trade; and that the delivery of five or six chests of tea at. Dungeness, 14 years ago, could be considered as an act of smuggling: was that a circumstance that could apply to a charge upon the government of Mr. Pitt? Or if a dilatory plea had been entered in the progress of an action upon the respondentia bond, was the house to feel so scrupulous, on the score of morality, as to take notice of it? Would it be considered criminal enough to attract the notice of that house, if a man were to turn round a coiner of a street to avoid meeting a creditor? Were they to be called upon to expel from among them a person who might, so long as 14 years since, have been concerned in a smuggling transaction? However highly he valued the feelings which the right hon. gent. had alluded to, he could not agree that, in a time of peace, when the lieutenants of the navy had only a naked subsistence upon half-pay, any of them who might enter into the merchant service should be consigned to dishonour. It was injustice to sir Home to introduce these topics, when the charge was brought against the government: and they could not proceed to a censure upon an individual without following it up by some vindictive consequence. The substance of the charge was against the conduct of the late treasury, though there were many weighty phrases affecting the hon. officer, which the house could not agree to, unless coupled with some substantive charge
762
against him. In the year 1795 the right honourable gent. did not think so lightly as he appeared at present to do of the services of the gallant officer in securing the retreat of the army; neither had the noble lord whose letter had been alluded to, and who had not forgotten those services so soon as the right hon. gent. It was not his intention to speak of capt. Robinson but with respect, yet the right hon. gent. seemed to exaggerate his services. The right hon. gent, had said, that that captain had been sent on with orders to detain the Etrusco. Had the right hon. gent, really read the papers upon which he was to decide as a judge? Could he say that any statement of such orders was to be found in these papers? [It was here said across the table, that the fact might be true though not in the papers.] Had, then, the right hon. gent, not only decided himself, but endeavoured to make the house decide upon a statement, which he did not know to be correct? Had he proceeded upon these grounds against an individual whose honour and character were at issue, and upon which he was to pronounce as judge? What had been done in this case, was every day done; and even, as his learned friend near him informed him, had taken place by a remission of forfeitures in nine different causes that day in the court of exchequer.—After stating the proportion condemned to capt. Robinson, and restored to sir Home Popham, the chancellor of the exchequer contended, that there never had been a case in which money was more properly assigned. If any gentleman could place his hand on his heart, and say, that he believed the government had acted from corrupt motives, he would vote for the censure. But he deprecated the general charge made by the right hon. gent. of the various instances of misapplication of these funds, as calculated to produce the most injurious consequences. After a few observations on the nature and circumstances of the traffic which had been charged as illicit, the right hon. gent. concluded by expressing his confidence, that the house would meet the Resolutions by a direct negative.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid, that the ground on which the misapplication of 18,000 l. was defended was, that large sums of money had been voted for other purposes; but extravagance in one respect was no vindication of prodigality in another. It was complained that the affair at Copenhagen

763
was introduced as a sort of episode to these charges; and yet so fond was the gallant officer of taking a voyage thither, that before he proceeded to the East Indies in his narrative, he paid a visit to that capital. The plain truth of the case was, that the gallant officer was not a proper object of the public generosity, and in the chastest sense of the term corrupt, this money distributed to him was imprudently, improperly, and corruptly applied; and in fact he was in the situation of a guilty person by his own confession. He said, that by distress he was driven into Bombay; that there meeting with other traders engaging in illicit commerce under the same flag, he followed their example. Supposing a man were forced into Hounslow by a storm, and he were there to meet with some highwaymen who had taken shelter, would it be any justification for him at his trial that he had followed their example? Yet, such was the vindication hazarded by the gallant officer. This was not the only curious proposition with which the house was amused. The gallant gentleman said that while he was a British officer he was all honour, when he was a mercantile adventurer he was all interest. Such was his ingenious distinction, and yet while he was thus engaged in mercenary pursuits, he asserted that he was a loser of 40,000 l. It might be a question, if the hon. gent. were worth 40,000 l. at the period to which he adverted. What had been his situation in 1792? He had leave of absence for two years, but not returning, he was struck oft the list. Afterwards he was restored to it, and introduced to a command which he held, he believed, contrary to the sense and inclination of the navy. Then he was tried; after his trial, he enjoyed a new and lucrative appointment, and now he had the honour of having the King's Advocate for his own. Besides all this, he had been complimented in the East Indies, welcomed at Lloyd's, distinguished by a foreign potentate, and had received a most flattering eulogy from his royal highness the duke of York. Notwithstanding all this weight and accumulation of honours, he must, persevere in the opinion, that the public money had been misapplied, and that these resolutions ought to receive the sanction of the house.
After a short reply from Mr. Lushington, the house divided,

For the Resolutions

57

Against them

126

Majority

—69