§ Lord Cochranerose, pursuant to notice, to move for several papers, with a view to expose abuses prevalent in the Admiralty Court. The proposition he was about to submit would be found worthy of the most serious attention of the House. Had the navy alone been concerned, he believed he should not have obtruded himself upon the House, as he might be considered as a person interested. The habits of his life would have prevented him from coming forward, except in cases where, he thought, the interests of his country were deeply involved; as there were many others more acquainted with the mode of conducting business in that House, to whom ordinary subjects might be left. But there were cases in which it was the duly of every man to come forward, and such a case he conceived the present to be. The interests, the dearest interests of his country, he considered as most materially involved in the event of the proposition he was about to bring forward. If the papers he intended to move for should be granted he would expose a system of abuse unparalleled in this country, beyond any thing that existed in Spain, under the administration of the Prince of Peace. Whether the subject was considered with a view to the saving of the sums of which the public was pilfered; or with a view to the better performance of the duty: whether with a view to the destruction of the commerce carried on to so large an extent on the enemy's coast; or with a view to the encouragement and security of our own trade: whether with a view to the termination of the war by distressing the enemy; or to the terms on which we should be enabled to conclude a peace. In all these points of view this was a matter of primary importance; for in all these repects were the abuses of the Admiralty of the most injurious description. His lordship complained heavily of the monopoly of practice, which was in itself a principal abuse, and the cause of others, and maintained, that an immense saving might be produced by the correction of this and other abuses in the Admiralty Court. There were other minor abuses, which called for the attention of the House, by which the seamen of Greenwich Hospital were defrauded of their just claims. The droits of the Admiralty had been sometimes compromised for comparatively 470 small sums; and he mentioned an instance in which 32,000l. was given up in this way to a person at Liverpool, for 1,053l. This must have been by open injustice, or by favouritism; for he did not know of any law which authorised the Admiralty to compromise in this manner, where the interests of Greenwich Hospital and the captors were concerned. There was another abuse, which called loudly for a remedy. The captors were absolutely compelled to pay sums for the condemnation of vessels. This was the way in which they were often rewarded for their vigilance and valour. These things might be denied by the gentlemen on the other side, but they could not be disproved. He promised to prove them true, if the documents should be granted. It was not by denials of this kind, that these things were to be got over. Every man in that House was bound to decide upon his own judgment, and not on that of another; and he saw no reason to believe that there would be any more difficulty in counting the ayes and noes, if every one were to decide for himself, than there would be if gentlemen were to follow a leader. Could it be considered as at all consistent with common justice, that the whole navy of England should be obliged to employ a single individual to carry on its business before the Admiralty Court? A person, perhaps, in whose competency they might have no confidence; but allowing ability and integrity to be unquestionable, still the thing was preposterous. How would the gentleman on one side like to be obliged to employ an attorney, who, at the same time did business for the other side? Was this consistent with equity or common sense? The personal liberty of the officers of the navy were answerable for some seizures, the produce of which went, notwithstanding, to the crown, and the most abominable compromises sometimes took place. Whether the profits of these compromises found their way into the pockets of any particular individual, he was not absolutely sure, but he thought he had evidence to shew this to be the fact. He could not conceive what could be the design of confining the captors to one proctor, except that the secrecy so suited to these transactions, might thereby be better preserved. Vessels were sometimes condemned for the captors, upon their paying a sum commanded by the Admiralty Court, which ought not to have been condemned. There were other papers of great conse- 471 quence, beyond those of which he had given notice; and, if he could get these, he thought he could lay open a system of corruption such as never had been heard of, nor even conceived in this country—a sink of abuse such as never existed in Spain, even under the infamous Godoy, who betrayed his king, and was the cause of his being dethroned, far less under the Supreme Junta, which ministers seemed to have no disinclination to vilify. He had been in habits of intimacy with some of the members of the Junta, and he could take upon himself to say, that they were, at least, equal in ability to the ministers who now governed this country, if government it might be called. (Hear, hear!) The documents which he would move for, would not rest the matter upon two or three blundering cases. His object was to expose the general system, and to prove that corruption was at the head of it. He pledged himself to prove that the navy was paralysed by this corrupt system. He would shew, that the most trifling vessels were condemned at an expence equal to that of the largest—that the condemnation of a fishing boat might be swelled up to the expence of condemning an Indiaman, and that, consequently, in many cases, the captors had no other immediate interest in condemning, except that of putting money into the pockets of the proctor. He adverted to an instance in which one Moses, Griffin, a Jew, an agent at one of the out-ports, had received two-thirds out of the produce of a vessel, the remaining third being the whole share distributed for admiral, captain, inferior officers, petty officers, seamen, and marines. He also adverted to a bill which had been brought in for establishing certain regulations in these proceedings, which was of no use whatever, but to bring more money into the Admiralty Court. Was it necessary to have 120 ships of the line in commission to blockade 23 ships of the enemy? Certainly not, if proper exertions were made. On this point an increase of pay would be of no use. To insure alacrity in harrassing the commerce and shipping of the enemy, the abuses of the Admiralty Court must be done away. Nothing else could be effectual. The navy ought to have the largest share of that which was produced by its vigilance and valour. This was the proper mode of proceeding, and no other would completely answer the purpose. His lordship 472 then mentioned, that he himself had captured 13 vessels laden with corn, for Barcelona, protected by two small ships of war, which were sunk. If he had taken these, and carried them into Malta, and got them condemned, he must have put his hand in his pocket and paid for it. Perhaps he spoke more warmly on this subject from the opportunities he had of being acquainted with these abuses—but not only the navy was injured by these abuses, but the country also. His lordship then adverted to a regulation, by which six privateers, if taken within three months of each other, were to be included in one libel for condemnation: a regulation perfectly futile, and a mere humbug upon the navy and the country. His lordship next stated, that the commerce of the enemy was carried on to an immense amount by our licences, which were an article of common sale in Hamburgh and other places. The enemy's ships were seen by hundreds, coasting along by means of these licences, in perfect security, and even filled the river Thames, contrary to the Navigation Act: thus raising sailors for Napoleon, to whose commerce and navy our ministers were the best friends. He concluded by moving for a Copy of the Agent's Accounts from the Registrar's Office, for a certain period, respecting a number of ships which his lordship specified; together with several other papers. He would call the attention of the House to the subject of Greenwich Hospital at another opportunity.
§ Sir W. Scottasked how the Court of Admiralty could possibly be answerable for such accounts of the agents? What ground could there be then for the indiscriminate charge made by the noble lord? And yet the contents of papers or accounts for which the Court of Admiralty could not be held responsible, had been the ground on which the noble lord founded all his invective. The noble lord was a prompt accuser. He had been an accuser not alone of individuals, but an accuser of courts of justice. He had, however, been an unfortunate accuser; and he (sir W. Scott) pledged himself, by all the credit which he might have obtained during the many years that he had sat in that House, that the noble lord would prove as unfortunate in this accusation as in any preceding one.
Mr. Rosewould assure the noble lord and the House, that no man was more dis- 473 posed than himself to agree to the production of any papers by which the interests of the Navy might be benefited. He was satisfied, however, that when the papers moved for should be produced, the conduct of the High Court of Admiralty would be found most unobjectionable. The noble lord had poured out a torrent of abuse most unprecedented on a motion for papers only, and before the House had the documents before them that could enable it to form a correct judgment upon the subject. This was a subject which he had investigated with a care and attention for which he supposed the noble lord would not give him credit. He had bestowed upon it many days and many nights, and he was convinced that if the noble lord were to succeed in throwing abroad into other hands the business which was now confined to the King's Proctor, he would extremely injure the interests of the Navy, depreciate the character of the country, unnecessarily annoy the neutral trader, and very much embarrass the British merchant. He defied the noble lord to find a single instance in which the charges made by the King's Proctor were higher than those which would have been made by any other Proctor in Doctors' Commons. As to Agents' accounts, it certainly did happen, that after those accounts were made up, Naval officers seldom took any trouble to examine them. Soon after he became Treasurer of the Navy, it had been strongly represented to him that many abuses existed in this respect. He had consequently inquired into the subject, and had had no less than 153 of these cases before him, nine of which were now before the Judge of the High Court of Admiralty, in consequence of the enormous charges which the accounts contained. In one case, the charges of an Agent at Portsmouth, who had 62,000l. to distribute, amounted to 9,462l. of which sum 1,200l. was stated to be for postage! In another instance, 1,250l. had been charged by an agent when not a shilling had been paid. Large sums too were kept in hand by these agents for many years, the accumulated interest of which was lost to the rightful owners. Feeling sensibly that the navy suffered deeply for want of somebody to look to their interests, he had after the last session of Parliament proposed that a person should be appointed for that purpose. He did not wish that a place should be created, 474 but a gentleman who had made the business his study having written to him, and having been very respectably recommended, particularly by two hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, he had accepted that gentleman's services, and he was now going through the cases in the most satisfactory manner. With respect to the seamen, he (Mr. Rose) had completely succeeded in getting justice secured to them. Since the Act of the last session only one complaint had been made to him by a sailor of his having been cheated by his agent. A suit was in consequence instituted against the agent, and out of the penalty the sailor had got his money. In the investigation of the cases to which he alluded, although there were many exceptionable charges, the law charges were lower than those of the Proctors employed by privateers. He had read a pamphlet on the subject of the noble lord's speech, and he declared, that after making all possible inquiry, he was satisfied that not a single statement in that pamphlet was founded in truth. He regretted that the noble lord, instead of making a desultory complaint of abuse, had not put his finger on a single case where he would have found him (Mr. R.) as ready as himself to bring it under the consideration of the House.
§ Mr. Stephenrose to enter his protest against the speech of the noble lord. He would ask of the House whether it was proper, upon a mere motion for papers, to enter into a wide and unrestricted animadversion upon public characters, as if they were actually under an impeachment, without the regular institution of any charge against them, or any evidence which the accuser himself had taken the trouble to examine. If the noble lord was desirous of preferring a charge against the Court of Admiralty, he should have first maturely considered the nature of the allegation he was about to make, and of the information he should ask for, in order to elucidate the facts he had to urge. The papers for which the noble lord moved, would contain more matter than the whole Report of the Committee of Inquiry on the Scheldt Expedition; and while these immense piles of information remained unread, the characters of public men might labour under the effects of this unprecedented attack. If he understood the noble lord right, he did not mean to pledge himself that the papers for which he had moved, would at all 475 bear him out in imputing any thing criminal to the Judge of the Admiralty Court, or any other person; yet if the papers were refused, in all probability their non-production would be quoted as a reason for his lordship being precluded from making good his assertions. The noble lord had allowed that he had not examined nor had time to examine them, and yet he built on them an accusation against the officers of the High Court of Admiralty of corruption, and a sacrifice of the interests of the navy. The papers were to be produced just to give a chance that there might, by extreme possibility, be something in them to justify the accusation. He (Mr. Stephen) would not affront the high characters so wantonly calumniated—characters respected, not alone by this country, but by the civilized world, for their talents and integrity—he would not affront such characters by becoming their apologist, in answer to such an attack as this. The noble lord was a distinguished ornament of his profession; for his part, he confessed that he would rather hear of him than hear him, and that he would rather read a report of his actions in his commander's letters in the gazette than a report of his speeches in the House of Commons or elsewhere in the columns of a newspaper. The House ought at all times to respect the liberty of speech; but the speech of the noble lord was completely an abuse of that liberty. He had got up, and in the most unqualified manner attacked the characters of individuals, declaring at the same time that he had not examined the sources which were to confirm his accusations. Much as the noble lord knew of the navy he could not believe that he appreciated the character of that gallant class of men justly, when he declared that if the fees of the Court of Admiralty were diminished the hundred sail of the line now employed might be reduced to forty, or when he intimated that they required any other stimulus to exertion than their sense of public duty. Adverting to the attack made by the noble lord upon a learned friend of his, who was judge of the Vice Court of Admiralty, at Malta, he defended the conduct of his learned friend, in the case alluded to, which Mr. S. was able from memory to explain. That judge had condemned the noble lord to pay costs, but under circumstances which justified such a sentence, and shewed the conduct of the learned judge to be as free from blame 476 as that of the other high and respectable characters who had incurred the censure of the noble lord.
§ Sir C. Polesaid, that amongst the charges promulgated in the book alluded to by the right hon. gent. on the opposite side of the House, it was positively asserted that 30 per cent. was charged for the condemnation of a prize; and also, that an officer commanding a frigate, who had taken a prize, and who had objected to pay this exorbitant demand, was told by the proctor, if he did not pay the sum demanded, the ship would be condemned as a droit of Admiralty to the King. When such charges as these went forth, it was highly important to the interests of the public, and he should therefore ask the House if it was not necessary the subject should be looked into, the papers produced, and the calumnies (if such they were) refuted? The King's proctor, in the case of Copenhagen, was first employed by the captors, who had sent in 200 sail of merchant vessels to the ports of England, previous to the commencement of hostilities, and in order to enable him to prove that the ships belonged to the enemy, all the necessary papers were transmitted. In the course of a few days however, hostilities commenced, and the property was declared to belong to the Danes, and in the course of three days, was given by the Admiralty Court to the King as a droit. Under such complicated circumstances, the argument that only one proctor should be employed, was ridiculous, as one man would be advocating the cause of two individuals, of opposite interests, at the same time. He hoped the noble lord would persevere in moving for the papers, but confine himself as much as possible to those documents which were most easily furnished, and most likely to attain the object he had in view.
Mr. Rosehad a proposition to make. Though he objected to the production of the papers relating to the whole of the ships named in the motion, if the noble lord would move for those relating to any one of them, he should have no objection to the motion, and he thought to bring forward any one case would be quite as fair, but less inconvenient, than the whole.
Sir J Nichols,alluding to the pamphlet that had been mentioned, said it contained gross and palpable misstatements. The emoluments of the King's advocate were therein stated to amount to from 25,000l. 477 to 30,000l. per annum. Such unfounded reports going abroad, could not fail to excite discontent among the people, and dissatisfaction in the navy. The whole of the emoluments of the King's advocate did not exceed 7,000l. per annum; and a large portion of that did not arise from the navy, but from business for the crown relating to the excise, customs, &c. So that he thought he should be pretty nearly correct if he were to state the amount of his emoluments arising from the navy at 4,000l. But if the income arising from matters relating to the navy were as great as the sum he had first named, it would hardly be thought too much, when it was considered that great abilities were necessary in the person holding the situation, when vigilance, assiduity, and method were requisite, and the most unremitting attention of mind, while at the same time a great responsibility was incurred. The gross misrepresentation in this instance contained in the book alluded to, was sufficient to enable them to form some judgment of the other parts of it and he could take upon himself to say, that in no instance did it approach so near to the truth as it did in that. The King's proctor received no emolument but what he officially received from the board. It was a singular circumstance, but not more singular than true, that his fees were actually less than they were in the American war. The charges of the King's proctor were not greater than those of any other proctor, and he did not think they ought to be; he ought to act with liberality; but, admitting his charges were exorbitant, the course the aggrieved party ought to pursue was obvious. Why not appeal to the judge? The omission to adopt this remedy was a pretty strong proof of the non-existence of the abuse. Government certainly ought at all events to indemnify those who captured the vessels.—He then went into a detail of the circumstances under which 30 per cent. was granted from the captors for the condemnation of prizes. A number of vessels had been detained. They were under Prussian colours, and no means were possessed of proving they belonged to the enemy, when a person abroad offered to prove that they did. The party was directed to appear with his documents to prove the fact. He did so, his proofs were satisfactory, and the vessels were condemned. He claimed an allowance of 30 per cent. for his services. It was thought advisable to keep on good terms with him, 478 at all events, as otherwise no further information could be expected fróm that quarter, his demand was complied with. How could they do better for the captors? had they not availed themselves of his services, they could not have gained for the captors the 70 per cent. they received, as they could not have proved that the vessels in question were not neutral bat enemy's property. Nothing could be more injurious to the interests of the navy itself, than permission to the captors of ships to choose their own proctor, and nothing could be more fatal to the commercial interests of the country. The judge advocate on such occasions had not the power of influencing or of keeping back evidence, nor had he an interest either way, It was no matter to him to whom the prizes were condemned. Lest the court should have an improper bias in favour of the Crown, the papers were given to the junior advocate, who, if his interference became necessary, spoke in behalf of the captors. He concluded by desiring the noble lord to look carefully over the documents relating to the subject, before he preferred a charge so serious against any one, as after being accused (however honourably the party might be acquitted) no character stood so high as before accusation.
§ Lord Cochrane,in reply, said he only wished the act of parliament on the subject to be complied with. If other proctors were as exorbitant in their demands as the king's, it was because their situation, in consequence of what the other exclusively enjoyed, obliged them to be so. The only way ministers had left to them to justify those he had accused was to shew that the charges he had brought forward were unfounded. He had taken 180 pipes of wine, for which he received 450l. He bought in 16 of them, and paid 670l. duty on them. If proper encouragement were given a much greater number of prizes would be sent in. At present the commerce of France was almost uninterrupted. The cause originated in the admiralty Court. Our navy cost us annually twenty millions. Six might be saved, and the commerce of France destroyed. He expected that the gentleman opposite would defend such abuses, but from their known abilities he expected they would defend them better than they did. The King's proctor did not receive less than 40,000l. per annum: he did not think it right that he should receive more than the Speaker did for sitting in the chair of that House. 479 The noble lord then justified his conduct at Malta, and concluded by enforcing his former arguments.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer,thought bringing forward one of the cases would answer every purpose. If there were a distinction of cases he could bring forward two. It would be better than encumbering the House with the whole. He was anxious the calumnies should be met and refuted, but wished the noble lord would seek better information than that contained in the book alluded to. As the falsehood of that work in some parts had been shewn, he hoped the noble lord would be careful what credit he gave to the rest of it.
§ Mr. Fremantlewas of opinion the noble lord would have done well to have corrected himself with respect to the income of the King's proctor. The noble lord had said it amounted to 40,000l. a year if he inspected the report delivered into the Committee of Finance, he would find it did not exceed 7 or 8,000l.
§ Lord Cochraneagreed to the proposition of the right hon. gent. and accordingly moved for documents relating to two of the vessels named in the original motion.