Sitting of 3 April 1805

MINUTES.
Sir John Andersonbrought up the report of the committee on the bakers' bill; which was agreed to, and the bill ordered to be engrossed. Mr. Manning obtained leave to bring in a bill for

183
rendering more effectual the provisions of the London dock act. On the motion of Dr. Duigenan, leave was given to bring in a bill to amend the act for building Glebe houses in Ireland. The following papers, on the motion of Mr. Creevey, were ordered to be laid before the, house, viz. A copy of the power of attorney, or other instrument, granted by the lords of the the treasury to the then lord advocate of Scotland now lord justice Clerk, to prosecute or give discharges for the claims made by government on the late admiral Keith Stewart: an account of all sums of money, or securities for money, paid by the representatives of the late admiral Keith Stewart to the lord justice Clerk, in pursuance of the said power of attorney, specifying the times when such sums or securities were paid; a copy of the account settled and discharged with the representatives of the late admiral Keith Stewart, by the lord justice Clerk acting under the aforesaid authority; a copy of the petition from the town of Edinburgh to the lords of the treasury, praying that 21,000l. be granted out of the balances due from the late admiral Keith Stewart, for the purposes therein mentioned; together with the reference made by the lords of the treasury to the court of exchequer in Scotland on the subject. On the motion of Mr. S. Bourne, it was likewise ordered, that there be laid before the house a copy of such further proceedings as may have been had by the lords of the treasury for the recovery of any sum due to the public from the representatives of the late admiral Keith Stewart. On the motion of Mr. Giles, it was ordered, that there be laid before the house a return of the number of effective men raised under the additional defence act from the 1st of Feb. last to the period of the latest return, stating the number of men raised per week, and specifying those provided by the parish officers, and those procured by recruiting officers; as likewise the number that had enlisted into his majesty's forces for general service. Mr. Bagwell brought in the bill for regulating Irish freeholders, which was read a first time. The innkeepers' bill, and the Irish spirit permit bill, were read a third time and passed.

CONDUCT OF SIR HOME POPHAM.
Mr. Dickensonjun. moved, that there be laid before the house a copy of a letter from sir Home Popham to the secretary of the admiralty, dated 25th Feb. 1805, with its
184
enclosures; also, a copy of a letter from the navy board to the admiralty, dated 1st April, 1805, in answer to the abovementioned letter of sir H. Popham; also, a copy of a letter from sir H. Popham to the navy board, dated Feb. 28, 1805; also, a copy of a letter from sir B. Popham to the navy board, dated March 26, 1805, with the answer of the board thereto.
Mr. Greysaid, he did not rise to object to the production of these or any other papers that might tend to elucidate the subject, but merely to remark, that several weeks had elapsed since a variety of papers moved for on both sides had been presented, since which no inquiry had taken place. By such motions as the present the discussion might be postponed to an indefinite period.
Mr. Dickensonstated the grounds of his motion, which were, that sir H. Popham having discovered some imperfections in the original report of the navy board, had written to the admiralty on the subject, and that the amended report had not been received by the admiralty until yesterday, Some further conversation ensued between Mr. Grey, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Dickenson, and Mr. Kinnaird; in the course of which Mr. Kinnaird intimated his intention of bringing forward a motion relative to sir H. Popham, on Tuesday, the 7th of May next. Mr. Dickenson's motions were then agreed to.

IRISH UNION COMMISSIONERS.
Sir John Newportrose to make his promised motion for the production of a copy of the case laid before the attorney and solicitor general of England on the 16th of May, 1801, by direction of the commissioners for awarding compensation in Ireland in consequence of the union, relative to the claim for compensation from the attorney and solicitor general of Ireland; together with a copy of the opinion of the attorney and solicitor general of England upon this case. The reason which induced him to bring forward this motion, the hon. bart. stated to be this, that the house should be put in possession of the nature and conduct of this singular commission. It appeared, that notwithstanding their appeal to the judgment of the attorney and solicitor general of England, they had acted in direct contradiction to the opinion delivered by those learned gentlemen. But still more, and it was particularly necessary to call the attention of par-

185
liament to the subject, this commission had now been existing for several years, without really having any thing to do, and seemed still determined to go on. The commission consisted of four persons, each of whom received a salary of 1,200l. per year, and it was now above three years since the commissioners wrote a letter to the lord lieutenant, stating, that their business was so much diminished that they had no occasion to meet every day, as they had previously done, and requesting that they might be called on to meet only every Monday. In order to contrive some appearance of employment, he understood that those commissioners prolonged an inquiry upon a particular claim for several months, dividing the inquiry between them two and two alternately, Monday after Monday. It really struck him as matter of surprize and shame that such a commission should have been so long tolerated, and there appeared no disposition whatever to put an end to it. Indeed, according as it went on, it was likely to continue for ever, unless something was done to terminate its existence. Feeling that any expenditure of the public money that could be avoided under the present circumstances of the country ought to be prevented, and that this commission was now become unnecessary, he should take occasion very soon to call the attention of the house to this subject.
Dr. Duigenansaid, that he was a member of the commission alluded to at the time stated in the motion, and that he did not recollect any such case as the hon. bart. alluded to. As three of the commissioners were lawyers he did not think they required any advice from the law officers mentioned in the motion, or from any other persons as to the mode of performing, this duty, The learned doctor added, that he had long since resigned his place in the commission:
Sir John Newportsaid, that it had been already stated by the commissioners themselves, that such case had been laid before the attorney and solicitor general of England, and all he wished was, to see the opinion winch had been given upon the case so stated.
Mr. Sturges Bournewas ready to pay attention to the opinions of eminent gentlemen at the bar, on cases fairly stated to them, and especially those who were so eminent in their profession as the gentlemen alluded to; but as this was a ques-
186
tion concerning the affairs of Ireland, he thought the opinion of the attorney and solicitor general of that part of the United Kingdom ought to be taken also.
Mr. Kinnairdthought the hon. gent. who spoke last had made an extraordinary proposition by desiring to have the opinion of the only two gentlemen in the kingdom, who, by the rules of law and common sense, were necessarily excluded from giving it, because it was a case upon their own claim.—The motion was then put and carried.

LORD MELVILLE'S LETTER TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF NAVAL ENQUIRY.
Mr. Williamssecretary to the commissioners of naval enquiry, presented a Copy of a Letter from lord viscount Melville to the commissioners of naval enquiry, dated the 28th of March, 1805, and of the answer thereto by the commissioners.
The Chancellor of the Exchequermoved, "that these papers do lie upon the table to be perused by the members of the house;" and he said he should immediately afterwards move that they be printed.
Mr. Franciswished to know whether a motion could not be made to print them immediately, so that there should be no delay in making them known to members.
The Speakerobserved that the motion, that these papers do lie upon the table to be perused by the members of the house, must be disposed of before any thing else could regularly be done.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid they could be printed without difficulty by tomorrow.
Mr. Alderman Combeby way of giving to the house the contents immediately, moved an amendment, instead of laying them on the table, "that these papers be now read."
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhad no objection, and therefore consented to withdraw his motion for the present to make way for that of the worthy alderman. They were accordingly read by the clerk at the table, and are as follows:
Copy of a Letter from Lord Melville to the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry, dated the 28th of March 1805.
Gentlemen; having read your Tenth Report, and observing particularly the following paragraph in the 141st page— "However the apprehension of disclosing delicate and confidential transactions of government might operate with lord Melville in withholding information re-

187
specting advances to other departments, we do not perceive how that apprehension can at all account for his refusing to state, whether he derived any profit or advantage from the use or employment of money issued for the services of the navy. If his lordship had received into his hands such monies, as were advanced by him to other departments, and had replaced them as they were repaid, he could not have derived any profit or advantage from such transactions, however repugnant they might be to the provisions of the legislature, for the safe custody of public money." I think it necessary to state the following observations, in order to place in their just view the grounds on which I declined answering your question, and which you appear not to have accurately understood. When you first called upon me for information, I stated to you that I had no materials on which I could frame such an account as you required me at that time to prepare; and, in a communication with Mr. Trotter, before my examination on the 5th of Nov. last, I learned, for the first time, that in the accounts he had kept respecting my private concerns, he had so blended his own private monies with what he had in his hands of public money, that it was impossible for him to ascertain with precision whether the advances he had occasion to make to me in the course of his running private account with me, were made from the one or from the other aggregate sums which constituted his balance with Messrs. Coutts. This circumstance, which I understood Mr. Trotter had distinctly communicated to you, made it impossible for me to return any other answer than I did to the general question which you put to me—'Whether Mr. Trotter had applied any of the money issued for carrying on the current service of the Navy, for my benefit or advantage?' and to this circumstance I uniformly referred in my answer to other questions respecting the manner in which Mr. Trotter applied the money in his hands.—When you put the question to me, "Whether I did direct or authorise Mr. Trotter to lay out or apply, or cause to be laid out or applied, any of the money issued for carrying on the current service of the Navy, to my benefit or advantage?" my answer was, to the best of my recollection I never did, That answer I now repeat. Had
188
you proceeded to inquire whether I had ever any understanding expressed or implied with Mr. Trotter respecting any participation of advantage derived from the custody of the public money, or whether I at any time knowingly derived any advantages to myself from any advances of public money, I should have no hesitation in declaring, as I now declare, that there never was any such understanding, nor any thing like it, between Mr. Trotter and myself; that I never knowingly derived any such advantages; and whatever emolument accrued to Mr. Trotter in the conduct of the pecuniary concerns of the office was, so far as I am informed, exclusively his own.—With respect to any advances winch Mr. Trotter might make on my private account, I considered myself as debtor to him alone, and as standing with regard to him in no other predicament than I should have done with any other man of business, Who might be in occasional advance to me in the general management of my concerns entrusted to him. It is impossible for me to ascertain, from any documents or vouchers in my hands, or now existing, what the extent of those advances might have been at any particular period. The accounts which you have inserted in your Report, I never saw till I saw them in the Report itself. They are no accounts of mine, nor am I party to them. They contain a variety of sums issued nominally to me, which never came into my hands, and they give no credit for various sums received by Mr. Trotter on my private account from my salary as treasurer of the Navy, and other sources of income, of which he was in the receipt, nor do they take any notice of the security of which he was in possession, for the re-payment of any balance at any time due to him from private funds.—With respect to the sums of naval money advanced to me, and applied to other services, I do not feel it necessary to make any additional observations, except to declare, that all those sums were returned to the funds from which they were taken, having in no instance been withdrawn from it for any purpose of private emolument or advantage.—Before I conclude, I wish to correct an inaccuracy which I observe in one part of the evidence in Appendix No. 7, page 192. The question is put to me, "Did you derive any profit or advantage from the use or employment of money issued for carrying on the current

189
service of the Navy, between the 19th of Aug. 1802, and 30th of April, 1803; or between the 1st of Feb. 1784, and 31st of Dec. 1785, during which periods you held the office of Treasurer of the Navy?" Which question I there answer by a reference to the answer given to a similar question put to me before. This answer is inaccurate, in so far as it contains a reference to Mr. Trotter's mode of blending his funds in his private account with Messrs. Coutts. Mr. Trotter was not paymaster till the year 1786. The circumstances, therefore, relative to Mr. Trotter's account, which precluded my returning an answer to your former questions, do not apply to the periods specified in that mentioned, and I can, therefore, have no difficulty in declaring, that during those periods I did not derive any advantage from the use or employment of public money issued for carrying on the service of the Navy. Having stated these facts, it is almost unnecessary to add, that I am at any time ready to verify them upon my oath. I have the honour to be, gentlemen, &c. (Signed) MELVILLE.
Answer of the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry to the above Letter, dated Office of Naval Enquiry, Great George-street, April 2, 1805.
My Lord—We have received your lordship's letter of the 28th of last month, by which you intimate that we appear not to have accurately understood the grounds on which you declined answering our questions, and submit to us some observations in order to place those grounds in their just view; and also express a wish, before you conclude, to correct an inaccuracy in one part of your evidence, and a readiness to verify by your oath the facts stated in that letter.—If it be the object of this communication, that we should again require your lordship's attendance, for the purpose of being examined, touching these matters, and that we should make a supplemental Report upon the result of that examination, and such other examinations as we might thereupon judge necessary, there can be no disinclination on our parts (as far as we are concerned in the proceeding) to meeting your lordship's wishes: But it appears to us that the Inquiry, which is the subject of the Tenth Report, has attained that period when it would not become us to adopt such a measure merely upon the suggestion of any of the
190
parties to whose conduct that Report relates. We were occupied several months in investigating the mode of conducting the business of the office of Treasurer of the Navy. Those who were examined by us had the fullest opporunity of stating and explaining all things which related to the management of that department, or to the share which they respectively had in it; and of correctig, at any time, during, the progress of the Inquiry, any mistakes which might inadvertently have been made. Our opinion and observations upon the irregularities and abuses which we discovered were formed and drawn up with the utmost care and deliberation; and they are now submitted to the three branches of the legislature, as the act, by which we are appointed, requires. If it could be made to appear upon a representation to them that any thing has been omitted on our part, that any misunderstanding or error had occurred, and that a further inquiry is adviseable, upon these, or any other grounds, it would be for them to direct such farther inquiry, and to decide by whom, and in what manner, it should be prosecuted; but, in the present circumstances, it appears to us that we cannot with propriety resume it. We have the honour to be, my lord, &c.&c. (Signed) Ch. M. Pole, Ewan Law, John Ford, H. Nicholls, W. Mackworth Praed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthen moved, that these papers do lie upon the table for the use of the members of this house, and also that they be printed. Ordered.—Adjourned.

MINUTES.
Mr. Adamwas heard in continuation in the Scots appeal, Cathcart v. the earl of Cassilis, on the part of the respondent. The several bills upon the table were forwarded in their respective stages. The innkeepers' rates bill, and several private bills, were brought up from the commons, and read a first time. A person from the post office presented an account of the net revenue of the post-office for 20 years, ending the 5th of Jan. 1805. Ordered to lie on the table.—Adjourned.