Sitting of 23 May 1805

DUKE OF ATHOLL'S CLAIM
Colonel Stanleyreported from the committee, whom the petition of John duke of Atholl is referred; and to whom the report of the commissioners of enquiry relative to the Isle of Man, made in the year 1792, and all accounts respecting the revenues of the said isle, which have been presented, to the house in this session,of parliament are also referred; and who were instructed to take into their consideration all such parts,of the said report as relate to the collection and management of the revenue of the said isle, and likewise to examine into the receipts of the revenue of the same isle, and the disbursements thereout, from the 5th January 1791 to the 5th of January 1805; and into all balances in the hands of the collectors or receivers of the revenues of the same isle, and to report their observations upon all such subjects to the house; and to whom the several accounts and papers relating to the Isle Man, which have been presented to the house since the 26th day of March last and also, the account of the amount duties received within the ports of the Isle of Man upon imports sand export,

53
between the 5th January 1798 and the 5th January 1804, which was presented to the house upon the 10th day of April, in the last session of parliament, are also referred; and who were empowered to report their proceedings, together with their observations and opinion thereupon, from time to time, to the house; that the committee had examined the matters to them referred, and had come to several resolutions thereupon, which they had directed him to report to the house; and he read the. report in his place, and afterwards delivered it in at the table, where the same was read; and the resolutions of the committee are as followeth,viz "Resolved, That the committee, having considered the documents and evidence which have been laid before them, are of opinion, that the petitioner has fully established the allegations of his petition. Resolved, that it is the opinion of this committee, that it would be proper to recommend to the house, that parliament should grant such farther compensation as shall seem adequate for the benefit of the petitioner and the other heirs-general of the seventh earl of Derby, according to the provisions of the act of the 7th of king James the First, and that such compensation should be charged on the revenue of the Isle of Man."
Mr. Curwendid not wish at this moment to oppose the reception of this report, though he totally objected to its contents; and his wish was, that the subject should undergo a full discussion in a committee of the whole house, and that the whole of the merits of the noble duke's claims should be fairly and fully investigated. He hoped the house, in its attention to the claims of the Duke of Atholl, would not be unmindful to the complaints of a numerous and loyal body of his majesty's subjects, though not represented in that house: and as it was the peculiar privilege of parliament as well to watch over the modes of raising money from the pockets of his majesty's subjects, as to guard with vigilance its proper disbursement, so he trusted in this case the inhabitants of the Isle of Man would not be exposed to imposts, which it was not just they should pay, at the mere fiat of the noble duke, who claimed the privilege of taxing them just as he pleased, of his own mere will and caprice; nor sutler the public money to be lavished in the payment of demands, not founded on any just or
54
reasonable title. At least he trusted, that before the house would assent to the report now offered, and founded on such a various multiplicity of items and documents, they would fully and fairly investigate the whole. This was not the first time those claims of the noble duke were brought forward; they had been repeatedly urged, and every time in a new and different shape from the former. They came now forward upon a footing totally different from that on which they had been last submitted to his majesty's privy council, who, after four years deliberation, and after referring the subject for the judicial consideration of his majesty's attorney and solicitor general, and receiving the elaborate report of those learned gentlemen upon the subject, decided that the duke of Atholl had no right to the claims he preferred. The noble duke claimed, under the appointment of James I. a power which, he thanked God, no king of this country ever enjoyed, a power of taxing the people at his mere will. This power the house of Keys, in the Isle of Man, who are the proper representatives of the inhabitants, denied; and this was the question now at issue. It was somewhat extraordinary that though those claims had been rejected, after four years deliberation, by the privy council, when a noble lord, now in another house (lord Sidmouth), was at the head of administration—an administration which he had supported, which he should ever respect, and which he considered as a much more vigorous one than that by which it was succeeded; yet by the privy council which succeeded, after a deliberation of scarcely as many weeks, with the facility of turning to all the documents, and to the attorney and solicitor general, for their evidence on the case, they decreed that the claims were founded; and this decision was confirmed by a committee of this house, which had only sat a few days. In that committee, of which he was a member, he opposed the claims; but finding that he stood alone, and was unable to prevail, be ceased to attend it. What he now wished was, full investigation before the whole house, and that the whole of the report and evidence be printed.
Glenberviesaid, that the reason why the ultimate decision of the privy council was in opposition to the first, was, that a new memorial, stating new facts, and founded upon new evidence, had been presented by the noble duke, to whom it was

55
a part of the justice due that the decision should not be delayed, which might be the case, if, at this late period of the session, the whole of those voluminous documents were to be printed, which, he contended, were in print already; and that the hon. gentleman had derived his information from a printed copy. He concluded by moving, "that the report be taken into consideration on Tuesday next."—This was opposed by Mr. Curwen, Mr. Creevey, Mr. Hurst, Mr. Windham, and Mr. Johnstone. They expressed their wish, that the evidence on which the report was founded should be printed, and stated the impossibility of doing that in due time. It was indecent to hurry through the house in a few days, what had occupied the attention of the privy council for several years. In the administration of lord Sidmouth, a negative had been put on the claims of the duke of Atholl, and why should that be reversed? The attorney and solicitor general had declared their opinions against him. If new matter had been brought forward since that time, the case ought to be again referred to the consideration of the law officers, and should they report favourably to the noble duke, there could then be no objection to the admission of his demand.—An amendment was moved by Mr. Johnstone, that the report should be taken into consideration on Wednesday, the 5th of June. On the other hand, Col. Stanley, lord Glenbervie, sir W. Burrowes, Mr. Rose, Mr. I. H. Browne, and the;Chancellor of the Exchequer, contended that the evidence on which the committee proceeded not being oral, but drawn chiefly from the able and elaborate report of the commissioners in 1792, already in the possession of the house, it would create useles delay to reprint it. Since the opinion given by the law officers, additional and important matter had been produced. If the house relied implicitly on the opinion given by those officers, that would have been an argument against referring the subject to a committee at all. They had, however, thought proper to refer it to a committee, the decision of that committee was now before them, and it was highly expedient to act upon it as speedily as possible. If, however, the delay of a day or two was considered as desirable, they had no objection to postpone the consideration of the report to Thursday.—The house then divided on Mr. Johnstone's amendment; for it, 58; against
56
it, 119; majority, 61. The report was then ordered to be taken into consideration on Tuesday.

Select Committee on the Eleventh Naval Reprot.
Mr. Serjeant Best.—I rise, sir, to call the attention of the house to a subject, perhaps one of the most important to its own privileges that has ever been agitated within these walls. From the eleventh report of the commissioners of naval enquiry, it appears, that enormous sums of the public money have been raised by loans, and disbursed for alledged services, by order of his majesty's ministers, without the permission of this house, and without any account laid before parliament of such disbursements. Sir, knowing, as we do, the opinion of the public without doors, expressed from every part of the nation, of the laudable vigilance exerted by the commissioners of naval enquiry, to whom other abuses have,been referred for investigation, and feeling, as we must, from recent abuses in the expenditure of public money, the necessity which exists, in times like the present, for exerting, with the utmost vigilance, the peculiar privilege which it is the province and the duty of this house at all times to exercise over the public finances; yet, in calling the attention, of the house to this subject,. I do not mean they should pronounce judgment against the parties implicated, upon the mere evidence of the report itself; for although the facts stated therein may have been proved to the satisfaction of the commissioners, and we have every reason to rely on their veracity, still I am inclined to think, the house, before it proceeds to, any measures against the parties implicated, ought to go into the enquiry; and this will be the object of the motion which I shall have the honour of proposing this day. Sir, it cannot be necessary for me to remind the house, that it is the bounden duty of parliament to watch over our constitution, and to take care that no inroads are made upon it by any minister, or any set of men; and more especially that part which comes so peculiarly under We auspices of the house of commons, namely, the security of the public purse. Sir, it is impossible for any man to look at, the facts stated in the report on your table, any more than at those other facts of a similar nature, that have come under your consideration, and not to see that the grossest abuses have been committed; and that scarcely any law has been passed for

57
the security of our constitution on those points, that has not been violated. I know not if it will be disputed, whether money can be raised and disbursed in this kingdom, for the service of the crown, without the consent of parliament; but that large sums of money have been so raised and disbursed, we have seen from recent and undeniable facts. It, therefore, becomes highly necessary to ascertain whether loans of money can be raised from the people by the ministers of the crown, without the consent of parliament, consistently with the principles of the British constitution; because scarcely a session of parliament passes without one or more votes enabling the minister to raise loans for the state upon exchequer bills; and if it be the law of the constitution that loans cannot be raised upon exchequer bills, without that permission, it certainly cannot be legal to issue navy bills for the purpose. But though I may entertain no hopes of success in the motion which it is my purpose to offer, it is my duty to bring it forward, and at least to state to the house what former parliaments have done in similar cases, and what opinion they entertained of the power of ministers to raise public loans without their permission. It appears by a resolution of the house, passed on the 7th of June, 1680, that if any person whatsoever should issue exchequer bills, or other government securities, for the purpose of raising sums of money for the service of the crown, without the consent of parliament, he shall be responsible to parliament; and in other resolutions, the same principle is directed against any person who shall purchase tallies by anticipation. But, sir, another principle is, that it must be obvious government cannot raise loans from the public, without the. consent of this house: for if this house were once to admit such a principle, or pass such a measure unnoticed, it would,not only, surrender the most valuable of its privileges, but every other privilege it has obtained, with that would speedily follow. A learned writer upon the constitution of this country (Millar) has said, that it has so guarded every avenue and passage, by wich the prerogative could invade our rights, that the crown cannot raise any loan or supply of public money without the consent of this house, and is, therefore, obliged the more frequently to call meetings of parliament, being unable to levy any money without their interven-
58
tion. I shall quote another instance, which occurred shortly after the revolution, to prove how jealous the parliament was, in those days, of their privileges on this point. The instance to which I allude, is that of the Bank act, which, in express terms, debars the government from borrowing loans of money, even from the directors of the Bank, without the consent of parliament: and is it probable, I ask, that government should be prohibited from borrowing money from the Bank, and be left at liberty to raise loans from others? The fact is, that the restriction in the Bank act was made on account of the connection existing between government and the Bank, and to guard against the probable influence of the former over the latter, and the consequent facility of procuring thence loans of money. But, sir, it never could have entered into the apprehension of the framers of that act, that ministers might be at liberty to go into the city and search from one street to another to raise money by the aid of brokers. In fact, the reason why they confined the restriction so peculiarly to the Bank was, that they never once suspected any other means would be resorted to. My object therefore is to shew how such evils have been guarded against by the constitution. No member of this house, who lived within fifty years of the revolution; could have conceived that any minister of the crown, or any government in this country, would have ventured to adopt the measures in this way which we have seen practised within the last few years, and passed by without any enquiry. Even since the year 1800, independently of the vast number of navy bills that have been issued in the only legal way they ought to have been issued, namely, for stores and actual services; and which becoming due, instead of being paid off, were taken up by issuing other navy bills, as has of late been the practice at the Bank, no less a sum than 4,300,000l. have been raised by the issuing of navy bills; and of this no communication was ever made to parliament. It appears, page 513 of this report, that on the 2d October, 1802, a letter was written by the secretary of the treasury to the comptroller of the navy directing him to issue navy bills for the sum of 500,000l. for the purpose of raising that sum. One would imagine, by the frequent and familiar use of this kind of resource, that instead of his majesty trusting to the house as the

59
proper channel for granting supplies, it was only necessary to issue a letter from the secretary of the treasury to authorize the raising of enormous sums upon navy bills. But, sir, my objection goes equally to small sums as well as large; because if you admit a small sum to be thus raised to-day, a large one will be raised in like manner to-morrow. In the process of a little time, any sum, however enormous or unnecessary, may be raised by the crown, without the consent of this house. In this case, sir, it appears, that the order from the treasury issued on the 24th of October; on the 10th of November the money was raised; parliament sat the very next day, yet no communication whatever was made to this house. It is unnecessary for me to state what would have been the opinion of parliament in other times upon a proceeding of this sort. It is however clear, that the enormous sum I have stated has been raised without any application for the assent of the house of commons. It is sufficient for me to say, that this sum was raised at periods, during great part of which parliament was sitting; and that no communication whatever was made. Now, sir, if it be not lawful for the government to raise money without the consent of parliament, will any man say this transaction is legal? What, I ask, is the pretence to justify it? State-necessity will, I allow, at times arise, that may authorize such conduct in a minister; but it cannot prevail for two years together, nor supersede the duty of communication to parliament. As the acts stands, it is illegal. All I ask, then, is, for the house to go into the enquiry, and let it be for those gentlemen on the other side of the house to shew the existence of any state-necessity, not by statements here, but by regular evidence before a committee. By law the crown is restricted from borrowing money for any purpose, even for paying debts, without the consent of parliament; and here no new circumstance appears, for which a minister could not have been prepared to justify the measure upon the ground of exigency. But, sir, there is another circumstance of which I complain still more than of that which I have stated: for though I feel that, on the part of ministers, standing in the situation they do, it was a high violation of the law of the country, as I understand the report (and I shall be glad to find I have misunderstood it);
60
from the explanation I shall this day receive (I allude to the manner in which they have paid away the money, and which, in my mind, is still more reprehensible than the mode of raising it); it was surely their duty to have submitted the whole of the circumstances under which they acted to parliament, and the proof of necessity would have obviated all objections to complete indemnification. In page 449 of the Report, you find, by the question put to sir Andrew Snape Hamond, and his answer thereto, that those bills were issued for the purpose of raising money, and not for stores furnished, or actual services rendered, which would have been the only legal ground; and in the next statement you find them stated as bills regularly issued for stores received and services rendered. This, sir, was a most gross imposition upon the house; for instead of being issued to discharge debts to come due in the course of the current year, they are appropriated to pay the debts of former years; and those are circumstances which, if parliament had not been imposed on, it would never have sanctioned or consented to such a violation of its own privileges. Such a conduct, sir, I submit, was in the highest degree reprehensible, and if such attempts to impose on the house, by the production of false vouchers or false returns, be permitted, the consequence must be to destroy all confidence in the accounts stated by ministers. No transaction can be more repugnant to law: possibly it may be explained away a but until I have other proofs, I must agree with the opinion expressed by the commissioners in their report, that they see no reason why there should have been any departure from the usual form of proceeding, and resort had to such measures as these; measures which, I believe, would never have been discovered, but would have remained for ever concealed from the house, had it not been for the talents and vigilance of the commissioners of naval enquiry. If it was possible that any such state-necessity could exist for two years, what becomes of the boasting statements made during that time to this house? For, instead of the country being in that miserable state of exigency which called for such desperate expedients, the right hon. gent. constantly stated, in pompous language, that we had abundant resources to carry on the war in which we were enga-

61
ged. Whereas, it would now appear, we were in a state of poverty. I can suggest but one of two reasons that could actuate any minister in such a case; namely, that either his estimates must have been short of the proper amount, or a part of the money voted for naval services must have been employed for the purposes of the army, or some other service; and this too would be another instance of violation of the law, which strictly forbids the application of money, voted for one purpose, being appropriated to any other. How has it happened that money was not provided, when the navy bills are issued at three months, and therefore could not come by surprize?—Sir, I think I have proved that there is ground to charge his majesty's ministers in this case with a violation of the law, a misapplication of the public money, and a gross deception upon this house; and unless the right hon. gent. can chew that I have. totally mistaken that report, and justify his own conduct, it must be plain that he has violated the constitution. At all events, I have shewn enough to prove the necessity of going into enquiry.—I have to complain, in the next place, of another violation of law, in taking from under the control of the lords of the admiralty those transactions, for the success or failure of which they only are responsible, and transferring them to that of the secretary of the lords of the treasury, who have no more to do with them officially than the lord chancellor. Sir, I will say, that any commands so given to any naval officer, not sanctioned by the first lord of the admiralty, ought not to have been obeyed. It has been settled by an order of council, as appears in page 499, that all naval juries must be directed by the lords of the Admiralty, and any difference of opinion be ultimately subject to the control of the first lord; all navy contracts, except for secret service, must be made under his direction. You will find, that 100,000l. has been raised by navy bills, for secret service, by the same illegal mode. But it must be obvious, that navy bills cannot be legally issued for secret services; the proper fund provided by law for secret services being the civil list, under what is called the civil list act. And the right hon. gent. who introduced that bill, so framed it, because he knew no other proper source, as ministers were responsible to parliament for all sums voted them for specific service, but not for secret ser-
62
vice; and therefore it could not be supplied from any suns for the appropriation of which ministers are responsible. What security then has the house for the disposal of such money? not even the oath of the minister, as in the case of such service; nothing but a mere assertion; in which case, I beg to ask whether parliament can be said to have any control at all? But if this is the sort of quietus by which a minister is to cover the expenditure of such a sum as 95,000l. in one instance stated to be paid to a man whose name even is not mentioned, and 16,000l. in another, for services of too delicate a nature, forsooth, to be disclosed even to the commissioners of enquiry, I know not to what extent profusion and irresponsibility may travel pari passu. But his majesty's ministers, not satisfied with violating the law, violate even the rules laid down by themselves. If, however, the commissioners of the navy, and those of naval enquiry, are men not fit to be entrusted with such confidence, they are unworthy of their offices, and ought to be dismissed. I admire, however, this fastidious delicacy, which can disburse such sums as 95,000l. in one instance, and 16,000l. in another,. without even a memorandum of the mode of expenditure, while the latter turns out to be the ever memorable stone expedition, known to every waterman on the river long before it was attempted, in vain, to be,carried into effect.—Having now, sir, stated to the house, the ground of my motion, I. do not call upon it to pronounce judgment. We stand upon a different footing from that of a former night, when you, sir, by your decision, did so much honour to yourself and the high and important station you fill. There our judgment was warranted by Ow: admission of the party accused; but here, we have no such ground to go upon The house, however, is called upon to investigate, and the right hon. gent. has told us that he will not oppose any investigation, as far as it goes towards his own conduct; but whether it is his pleasure or not, it is not, for us to enquire. It is our duty to investigate. We owe it to the country. His majesty's ministers may, perhaps, make out a case for their own justification, but they are bound to govern the country, not only wisely and justly, but according to law. I have in my hand an old statute of William III. which lays it down as an indispensable maxim, chat all kings and queens, who assume the government of this

63
country, shall be bound to administer it according to the laws of the land, and not by their own will, caprice, or private judgment; and that no minister shall be allowed to depart from this law with impunity. Sir, it was objected to the motion of an hon. friend of mine (Mr. Fox), for the emancipation of the catholics the other night, that it could not be granted, because it was contrary to the established law of the state, and might endanger the constitution. I hope, sir, the same srcupulous regard for that law and that constitution, will operate also in this case, and that no minister will be allowed to violate either. I shall now move you, sir, "that a select committee of this house be appointed to take into consideration the eleventh report of the commissioners of naval enquiry, and report their opinions thereon to the house."
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, it would not be necessary for him to trouble the house long, as he was so far from wishing to oppose the enquiry proposed by the hon. and learned gent. that the appointment of a committee for that purpose was the object of his particular desire. He was sure the result of the enquiry would be, to explain the matters referred to by the hon. and learned gent. in a manner perfectly satisfactory to the house; and it was the more necessary these matters should be so explained, as the hon. and learned gent. had had room so completely to mistake them. He could not, however, agree to the motion in its whole extent, because that part of the report which related to secret service could with propriety be referred only to a secret committee. Whatever was not of that nature, he was ready to allow to go to a select committee. As it might be inconvenient that two committees should sit at the same time on the same subject, the same witnesses being likely to be examined by both, and perhaps to be wanted by both at the same time, he should recommend, that the committee for the general matter be instituted first, and when that committee should have made its report, the committee for the secret matter may be appointed. Though he agreed thus generally in the objects of the motion, he could, not help offering some observations On what had fallen from the hon. and learned gent. First, as to the idea that issuing fresh navy bills to renew others, or to raise money to pay them off tending to nothing else then a suspension of parliament, the
64
sittings of which it would render unnecessary, striking at the same time at the vitals of the constitution, he had to observe in the first instance, that this was not the opinion of the commissioners of enquiry, whose diligence, talents, and integrity, were so much commended by the hon. and learned gent. They were satisfied with saying, that they did not suppose the practice arose from any indirect motive, though it was irregular. The hon. and learned gent. had argued with more eloquence than was necessary, on a point which nobody could be inclined to dispute, that it was the duty of kings and their ministers to govern according to law. But the hon and learned gent. had overlooked the practice that had so long prevailed from session to session, on the necessity inevitably felt of incurring a navy debt from year to year, for services not provided for in the year preceding. This practice had been long recognized and had never been complained of. A measure which he had the honour to recommend, had rendered the issue of these, navy bills more economic, and had been the means of saving millions to the country in the last war. This was the system of paying all bills at the day, for if money was not ready to pay thus; the credit must of course be impaired. The reasons why the navy debt grew up were various, arising from the nature of the service, and the manner in which it was provided for. The house voted a certain number of seamen, which was made the ground of a rough charge under all the different heads. The pay might perhaps be calculated with some accuracy, if the numbers did not vary; but the wear and tear, victualling, extraordinaries, stores, and other expences, were necessarily uncertain in their amount. It would not besides be denied, that his majesty, if he saw occasion, had not a right to increase the number of seamen employed, while parliament was not sitting. The prices of stores and victualling fluctuated from year to year, so that it was impossible any estimate could preclude the necessity of incurring navy debt. The measure which had been taken, at his recommendation, in the last war, of increasing the allowances from 4l. to 7l. a month, had gone very far to reduce the accumulation; but it was impossible to prevent the debt altogether. The practice of issuing navy bills was as old as the revolution. For a long time the only regulation with respect to the payment of them

65
was, that those of longest standing should be paid first. Thus they may be outstanding for fifty or sixty years, without any absolute obligation to pay at any precise time. The alteration that, had been adopted in 1794 went not to prevent the issue of bills, which was impossible, but to provide that they should be paid at the end of 15 months. The object of this regulation was to relieve the bills from the difficulties under which they laboured in the American war, when the uncertainty of payment rendered them subject to a discount of front 12l. to 18l. per cent. This provision, not being found sufficient, it was settled in 1796, that they should be paid at three months. This regulation did away the discount, and was the means of saving many millions to the nation. It was intended not to prevent the issue of the bills, but to remedy the depreciation of the paper, and to facilitate the public service. It happened that some of these bills could not be paid at the end of the three months, from causes which the committee about to be appointed would enquire into, without breaking in on the money reserved for the expences of the dock-yards, wages, and other expences, an immediate fund for which was indispensable. It was necessary, therefore, to issue fresh bills to those of the former holders, who were willing to accept them as a substitute, and to raise money on the credit of others for those who insisted on payment. This amounted to nothing at the utmost with respect to the holder than the payment at six months of what was before paid at fifteen. The money being raised for the purpose of paying bills issued for naval purposes, was, bonâ fide, applied to naval services, and fairly accounted for to parliament as such. The hon. and learned gent. on this ground supposed a fictitious account, calculated to destroy the credit of all documents laid before parliament from the public offices. He supposed the documents purported that the bills were for one service, while the committee would find they were for another. There was no list of the particular application of the sums of money voted for naval services laid before the house, only an account of the collective amount of the sum granted, stating that it was applied to naval services. It was to be supposed, however, from the professional habits of the hon. and learned gent. that he would not lightly prefer a charge of such a serious violation of the, law; and therefore it was to be expected, that from
66
whatsoever source he might have derived them, he should come to the committee prepared to give proofs of the charges. he. had made; or, in failure, that he should return to the house prepared to retreat them. It would be recollected that the year 1800 was a year of peculiar difficulties. We had an internal visitation of scarcity, which was not only a cause of general distress, but had the effect of enhancing, the public expences connected with the feeding of our fleets and armies in a very great degree indeed. In that year also, towards the close of it, we were menaced with a confederacy of the Northern Powers, who had assumed the character of hostility to us on points essential to the honour and safety of our empire. Great exertions became necessary in consequence, for the equipment of our fleet; and the services of the noble lord, then at the head of the marine department (earl Spencer) on the occasion, would ever be remembered with gratitude. The consequence, however, was great difficulty, and a great increase of cost in most articles of naval stores. The increase in cost was not less than from 40 to 80 per cent. This expence did not go on as the hon. and learned gent. supposed, from March 1800 to May 1802. For the latter part of this period, he was not responsible, but he was willing to take the responsibility upon him. The hon. and learned gent. had fallen into a mistake on this point; and from the manner in which the report adverted to it, there was reason to think the commissioners themselves had made similar mistake. The issues the lion, and learned gent. noticed so particularly, began in Oct. 1800, and ended in March 1801. They ended as soon as the loan for that year afforded means of making arrangements for the payment of them. The other issue began in Sept. 1801; the difficulties continued to the spring of 1802; The preliminaries of the peace. had been negotiated in the early part of this period, but the definitive treaty was not concluded till near the end of it. No loan could be made while the price of stocks fluctuated in the uncertainty between the two periods, so as to leave no room for a, satisfactory bargain. As soon as the loan afforded the means of an arrangement, it was made, and the issue had not been since recurred to. He thought it right, even in the present stage of the business, to offer this explanation. He wished for the enquiry, and he was sure it would be proved

67
by the accounts the committee would have to refer to, that the conduct so much complained of, was not deserving of censure. As to the ninety day bills, that could not be thought a subject for grave enquiry. Perhaps the difference between eighty-nine and ninety days was allowed for in the bargain; or the contractors might have thought it so little, being, only 3½d. in 100l. as not to he worth attending to. Even Mr. Goldsmid, whom he mentioned with respect, accustomed as he was to calculations of this kind, had suffered this difference to pass without notice. It was therefore not to be wondered that it escaped the navy board; and it was hardly to have been. expected that the house of commons would look to it with a microscopic eye. The thing had been, besides, corrected before the committee of enquiry had been instituted. With respect to the secret service, he should not enter into it much. No disclosure could be made, consistently with a regard to what was due to the public and that good faith due to the merits of the individual principally concerned; but he did not hesitate to say he was satisfied the committee would find it was a service which it was the duty of the government to promote, and that the merit of the individual principally concerned was deserving of the highest consideration. The circumstances did not admit of disclosure at the time, nor did they now. But the committee would report on the merits of the service, and that it was strictly naval in its nature, and intitled to be paid for directly out of the naval money, if it could have been disclosed. at the time.—This he was sure would be made out to the satisfaction of the house, and of the learned gentleman himself. Secret service money was not to be issued from the civil list, though sums occasionally voted in aid of the civil list, may be so applied. The hon. and learned gent. could not possibly think, that admirals or general-officers on foreign stations, were not at liberty to apply money. to the purpose of procuring intelligence, and that such money might not be paid out of the sums voted for army navy extraordinaries. As to the stone expedition,,though the report of it may have reached Westminster Hall, though it may have reached the ears of the hon. and learned gent. unaccustomed as they were to such things, yet it may have been matter of public interest to keep it as secret as possible, particularly before it was com-
68
pleted. The circumstances of the other, service he had alluded to, could not for a long time be made public; and possibly. the committee might be of opinion that they never could be. Enough appeared to shew, that the stone expedition was known to the first lord of the admiralty, that it met his approbation, and that it was a service perfectly naval in its nature. He had great satisfaction in agreeing to a committee to enquire into the general matter of the report. When that general report should be brought up, as he believed it might be in a very few days, he would move for the appointment of a secret committee, consisting of five members, to enquire into the secret matter. On these grounds lie should move, as an amendment, that a committee be appointed to enquire into. the matter of the eleventh report, "except so far as relates to the 100,000l. issued for secret naval service."
Mr. Forsaid, he should not feel it necessary to occupy the time of the house many minutes, as he did not mean to object to the division of the committee. As the right hon. gent. however, had thought proper to enter into a discussion of sonic of the topics adverted to by his learned friend, he trusted he should be indulged in making a few observations. The right hon. gent. seemed to think that part of his learned friend's argument unnecessary which stated, that a king of this country and his ministers should govern according to law. In this he differed from the right hon. gent. because there was no truth that should be more strongly impressed on the minds of ministers, than that the house had the right to exercise its constitutional control over the public, expenditure. The more they should investigate, the more they would discover that the law of the land had been sacrificed to convenience. This practice had increased very considerably lately, and if not seasonably checked, might lead to consequences such as his him. friend had stated. But they could not be carried to the extreme, as in the time of Charles II. because the sitting of parliament would be necessary in the end, in order to provide the means of paying the money thus raised. He was sure the right hon. gent. would not disallow, that the most essential duty of that house was to take care that no money should be raised but in a manner approved by parliament, nor applied but to purposes for which it should be directed by parliament.

69
The house had not given any approbation of the manner in which money had been raised by these. bills. The right hon. gent. hail adverted to the mariner in which navy bills were formerly issued, which practice he allowed to be bad, and had stated that the present mode bad beer adopted with a view to economy, and as not being inconsistent with the constitution. He had himself supported the right hon. gent.'s bills, because he believed the former practice unconstitutional, and inconsistent with economy in the public expenditure. That, too, had been the impression, he believed, of the right hon. gent. himself when he first came into parliament, and took so meritorious a part in the committee on the extraordinaries of the army, he meant the committee of which the first lord Camelford had been chairman. It was then considered as injurious to, and inconsistent with the constitution. The right hon. gent. had substituted bills at 15 months, and afterwards at 90 days. This altered the law, and, therefore, in a constitutional view he could not deem it correct to renew the manner that had been practised before that alteration.—There were many things that required further investigation, and particularly the manner in which this money had been finally paid. It should also be enquired into, whether these navy bills might have been continued consistently with law. If such a mode were once to be admitted, it would amount to an issue of navy bills without the sanction of parliament. He had himself no doubt that the practice was contrary to law; but he should not then give any final opinion. It was a different case altogether, time suffering the extraordinaries of the army and the navy debt to accumulate, from the issue of these fictitious bills pretendedly issued for services specified, when they were really issued to raise money only. This was an irregularity which required investigation. As to the other point, that it was not worth referring to the committee the difference between the 89 and 90 days discount, he agreed with the right hon. gentleman. But he did not think that the circumstance having escaped the notice of the Messrs. Goldsmids, gentlemen, whom he had not the honour to know, but of whose conduct he had a high opinion, was any argument in justification of its being overlooked by the navy board, because undoubtedly, if these gentlemen had been informed that they had a right to the difference, they would have taken it, As to
70
the secret service money, the right hon. gent. had put it on a good footing, by proposing to refer the consideration of that part of the report to a secret committee. As to the secret services in general, he thought it extremely desirable that the sum expended should be accounted for on oath, in the same manner as money applied to such services from the civil list under the provisions of Mr. Burke's, bill. As the executive government was the channel through which all the sums voted for the public service were to pass, it was extremely desirable that such sums should be accounted for to the house. But on this subject he should not say more till after further enquiry. It appeared to hint from the report, that the order of the council had not been complied with in the expenditure of this naval secret service money, nor the authority of the lords of the admiralty attended to. As to the stone expedition, he was ready to admit that the first lord of the admiralty, if he disapproved of it, ought not to give it a kind of tacit consent. But then his consent should have been obtained in form and under his hand, after consulting him upon it, and not by communicating it immediately and collaterally when determined on. The first lord of the admiralty should have signified his consent by his signature, and then have been responsible for time measure.—He was glad that an enquiry was to, take place on this and on other subjects, in order that, it might be discovered in what respect the laws had been complied with, in what respect they had been sacrificed to convenience, and in what respect it would be necessary for parliament to interfere to prevent any such sacrifices of law in future,. unless where circumstances should call for it. He did not presume to deny that there might be exceptions, in which such a sacrifice would be necessary; but as the power of making such sacrifice was liable to much abuse, parliament was the more bound to take care that it should not be unnecessarily exercised.
Sir Andrew Snape Hamondsaid, he had entertained hopes that the paper on the table would have satisfied gentlemen on the subject of the transaction which had been alluded to. The reason why he had not had the intercourse with the then first lord of the admiralty which ought to subsist between the first lord of the admiralty and the comptroller of the navy was, that earl St. Vincent had resided mostly in the country. He had consented to superintend the stone

71
expedition at the desire of the secretary of state, who had written to lord St. Vincent on the subject, and received an answer conveying his lordship's approbation of the project. When the vessels were ready to sad, he wrote himself to lord St. Vincent. In all this he did not think there was any thing that could justify any reflection on his conduct. So far from having wished to make himself independent of the admiralty, he had ever wished to take the instructions of the first lord of the admiralty. As to the charge of having paid 90 days discount instead of 89, the time had been calculated from the day of the issue to the day of payment, both days inclusive, conformably to what took place in the commonest occurrences in life. A person taken into employment on one day, and discharged at the end of a month, should be paid for his time, including both the day of being engaged and the day of his discharge. The manner of issuing the navy bills had been the same as was always pursued, and it was really incomprehensible what made the committee report on this point. When the new mode of issuing navy bills had been adopted in 1796, navy bills were at a discount of 15 per cent. and on the expenditure of seven millions in 1797, there had been a saving of above a million to the public by the new mode. When the expenditure increased, the benefit had been greater. When the issue of navy bills had been made on the 24th of October, 1800, there was but 900,000l, in the treasury; and he asked in what manner the money could be so well procured? He was happy to bear testimony to the conduct of the Goldsmids They never delayed the sums wanted a single day or hour. If the house knew of what value such punctuality was to government, they would view this transaction in the light he did. He was happy to state, that the navy bills were in as much credit as ever; and if they should not continue so, he was sure the navy service would be reduced to the embarrassments with which it had been affected during the formed practice.—The question was then put, and the chancellor of the exchequer's amendment agreed to. The committee was then ordered to consist of 21 members, and to be chosen by ballot to-morrow.—.Adjourned.