Sitting of 10 October 1805

MINUTES.
A message from the lords informed the house, that their lordships had

327
agreed to the Innkeepers Rate bill, the English Militia Reduction bill, the Spanish Trade Licence bill, American Treaty bill, Neutral Ships bill, and Alien Prize Ships bill, without any amendments. After which, the speaker, pursuant to a summons by the black rod, attended in the house of lords, where the royal assent was given by commission to the foregoing bills, the Edinburgh Police bill, and several private bills.—Mr. Lee gave notice that on the 25th of April he should move for leave to bring in a bill to allow the same advantages with respect to the issue of small notes to the country banks of Ireland, as were enjoyed in this country; also for a bill further to regulate the mode for receiving small debts in Ireland.—Sir W. Scott moved the order of the day for the second reading of the Prize Courts bill.—Sir C. Pole expressed a wish that this measure should not be hurried through the house, but that the hon. member would consent to have it printed,and that sufficient time should be allowed to the parties concerned, to consider the several clauses which it contained. Sir W. Scott proposed to have the bill read a second time this day, and committed pro forma to-morrow, after which he should move to have it printed, and after the holidays recommitted, when as much time as the hon. gent. should deem necessary should be allowed. The bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow.—A message from the lords informed the house, that their lordships had agreed to the Irish Militia Volunteer, the Irish Spirits Permit, the London Bread Assize, and Bowyer's Lottery bills, without any amendment.—Mr. Rose presented several accounts relative to the Isle of Man, and the case of John Duke of Athol. Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.—Mr. Giles desired to be informed, whether it was the intention of his majesty's ministers, to bring forward a bill for continuing for a further period the Commission of Naval inquiry; as if not, he should feel it his duty to submit a motion to the house on that subject, at an early day after the holidays.

PROCEEDINGS RESPECTING LORD MELVILLE AND MR. TROTTER.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer,as soon as he entered the house, rose and said, that he thought it his duty to-acquaint the house,that the noble lord who had been the subject of the discussion on a former night, had since made a tender of the resignation of the office of first lord of the admiralty to his majesty, which resignation his majesty had been most graciously pleased to accept.
Mr. Whitbreadthen moved, that the resolutions of Monday should be read. The house ordered that the eleventh resolution only should be read, and it was read accordingly. "That the right hon. lord viscount Melville having been privy to, and connived at the withdrawing from the bank of England, for purposes of private interest or emolument, sums issued to him as treasurer of the navy, and placed to his account in the bank, according to the provisions of the 25th Geo. III. c. 31, has been guilty of a gross violation of the law, and a highs breach of duty." Upon which,
Mr. Whitbreadrose, and expressed himself in these words: Sir, the notice which has been just given by the right hon. gent. over against me cannot have been unexpected by any one; but I confess that, by the notification now made, I am by no means satisfied; I think the public cannot be satisfied; I think, nay, I feel confident, this house will not be satisfied; I am sure the ends of public justice will not be satisfied, if some further resolutions are not adopted, in consequence of the proceedings on the report of the naval commissioners. If the issue of the debate of the night before last was a mere personal or party triumph; if it was only our own feelings which Were concerned, we might be satisfied, because the noble lord who was the object of the accusation which I had the honour to bring forward, has thought fit to retire from a situation of responsibility, dignity, and emolument, at least from the first situation in point of dignity he held: and as far as any triumph over an individual can be concerned, this has been most complete. But, sir, I was not actuated; and I am sure those Who voted with me on the occasion were not actuated by personal or party motives: I undertook a great cause, in which I had the satisfaction to succeed: I shall not abandon the cause I have undertaken; but I shall still urge the motion of which I gave notice on the former night. If I know any thing of my own heart; if I know any thing of the feelings which actuate me, there is nothing, I trust to God; of, a vindictive spirit within me and having accomplished the end of disclosing the conduct of the noble lord, and having the verdict of the house, I should not, for the mere sake of ulterior punishment, think it necessary to press the subject farther; I should here stop, and desist: but let us consider the situation in which we stand. The noble lord, stigmatized as he is by the vote and proceedings of this house,

329
has not been dismissed. He has done that which any honourable man may do on feelings of his own. He has tendered his resignation. Is that enough? Lord Melville May be restored to-morrow; he may again be made first lord of the admiralty. Is it fit that should be a possible event? Is it not necessary for the dignity and honour and feelings of this house, than it should be impossible he should be restored to the situation I have described. Reflecting on the proceedings of the other night, I think no man can view them without the deepest gratitude, without experiencing the strongest emotions of joy that such was the event. Many instances have occurred in history where a faction has triumphed over an individual, where persons have been pursued by large majorities of this house; but what is the situation in which we stand? Can there be any page of the journals of parliament which will be looked to in after ages with more pleasure by the true lovers of the country, than the page which records the proceedings of the house on this momentous subject? With an attendance much larger than is usually obtained, the point was equally balanced, and it remained for you, sir, sitting in that seat, which is the seat of impartiality, which is filled, I may say, without paying any undeserved compliment to you, by a person in every respect qualified—it remained for you, to whom no party spirit can be imputed, of whom no partiality can possibly be surmised, to decide between the two parties, which was in the right. Your decision did immortal honour to yourself; your decision was looked upon, is looked upon, and ever will be looked upon with joy and satisfaction by the country. The popularity which flows from deeds like these is the greatest satisfaction a man can receive. If we see in all persons whom we meet; if we read in every countenance, in every expression, the congratulation, the self satisfaction; the approbation bestowed on the representatives of the empire—if out of this house
"We read our history in a nation's eyes,"
We have good reason to applaud ourselves; but we shall not have such cause of exultation if we stop here, and do not render it impossible is majesty should ever restore lord Melville. At the same time that I thus express my feelings—that I give the house the strong bias of my mind, I mean to speak with an assembly, which has conducted itself with so much honour and respectability, in terms of deference and respect.
330
If did not think there was a pervading sentiment, that the motion with which I shall conclude would be approved of and adopted, I would not urge it: but from all I have collected, not only from my immediate friends, but from persons divided from that party, with which I am proud to rank myself, and who have opposed that party—from what I have heard from every description of persons whose sentiments I have endeavoured to collect, I find a generally prevailing opinion, that it is necessary we should proceed further in this stage of the business. Ulterior proceedings, with reference to others, undoubtedly must be had, and we must tell his majesty in the most solemn way we can, that it is necessary lord Melville should be removed from every office he holds under the crown, and from his majesty's presence and councils for ever. I should like to ask the right hon. gent. opposite me (Mr. Canning) whether some preliminary measures have been taken. Has Mr. Trotter been dismissed? (Mr. Canning answered, yes.) Has Mr. Wilson been dismissed? (Mr. Canning answered, no.) If not, then I say all that is necessary to be done has not been done. There may be particular circumstances, and I am far from meaning to say they do not exist, which may make it necessary to retain such a person as Mr. Wilson in office a few days. Is it the right hon. gent.'s intention to dismiss him? (No answer.) Then I say he ought to be dismissed from his office. He is not fit to hold a situation in the Navy Office, or any other office under government? Yet, even if both are dismissed, ulterior Proceedings must be had; and, in order that it may not be necessary for me again to trouble the house, I take this opportunity of giving notice, that it is my intention, immediately after the holidays, to move that his majesty's attorney-general be instructed to proceed against lord Melville and Mr. Trotter, for an account, in order that (agreeing as I do with the commissioners of naval inquiry) the public may receive back what has been unjustly taken from the public purse, and that the profits so unduly made may be refunded. The way of obtaining restitution I shall leave in the hands of the hon. and learned gent. There are other proceedings necessary to be adopted, in consequence of the Tenth Report, even if the question I shall propose to day should be carried. That it will be carried I can entertain no doubt; it would indeed be an inauspicious dawn of our labours, if the house should

331
reject it. I hope and trust that the career of that sun, which has just begun to diffuse its warmth and nourish the hopes of the country, will be brilliant, and when it sets, that it will set in glory. It will be necessary that all the proceedings, both of lord Melville and Mr. Trotter, should be enquired into and sifted. The time is come in which I shall, as it is my duty, propose every practicable enquiry. With regard to that part of the subject which you have already investigated, no enquiry could have made it clearer; but there are other matters contained in the report which are dark and mysterious. On them I must throw a light. It was my intention to have proposed a resolution with regard to the transfer of the public money from one service to another, in violation of the law, but I collected from gentlemen with whom I conversed, that those transfers might have been made without such evil intention as I attributed to them. To one transfer the right hon. gent. opposite me has acknowledged he was privy. The transfers might all of them have been honourable. I shall proceed, in conformity with the wish of the house; but it may be necessary for me to mention, that it is my intention, after the holidays, to move for a select committee, to enquire into all the transactions referred to in the report; for I am convinced, no subject of deeper moment can come under the consideration of the house. It appears by the report, that money voted for particular services has been applied to other services. What a precedent does this set up? What a door does it open to fraud? During the whole of the treasurership which preceded, and during the whole which succeeded lord Melville's treasurership, no negotiation of this kind was ever found necessary. It was only during the administration of lord Melville that any such practices were ever carried on in the treasurership of the navy office, according to all the accounts we have of the manner business was transacted. In the course of these transactions a particular circumstance will come to the recollection of the house. What I allude to is, the papers recording them having been destroyed, papers which ought to have been carefully preserved. If such transactions as are stated in the report took place, they ought to have been secretly recorded, in order that, if innocent, the justification of those concerned might appear; or, if guilty, that they might be condemned. There are other parts of the Tenth Report which it may be necessary to refer to a committee,
332
as well as other circumstances not included in the report. I adverted on a former evening to the conduct of the bank, and meant to have returned to it, but my recollection failed me. Upon the evidence of the chief cashier of the bank, it appeared the bank had not sufficient vouchers for the money issued. I have been given to understand, that the evidence was not correct, but that the bank were correct. If that is the case, let it be set right. Do not let the imputation remain on the bank, if it is an unjust one. In the course of what I offered to the house the other evening, I intimated, from conversation and rumour, which I stated to have been founded on accurate information, that the right hon. gent (Mr. Pitt) was not without blame, I do repeat that charge, and it remains for him to exculpate himself. If he cannot do so now, I shall move for that part of the subject being referred to a committee. I do charge, that he was apprized of the irregular mode of taking the money out of the Bank of England, and placing it in a private, bank. The rumour is, that he was acquainted, from the most direct and authentic source, and that as prime minister and chief financial officer of the country he took no step to prevent it. This is a point which must also be referred to the committee. There are other circumstances, particularly the circumstance which relates to Mr. Jellicoe. This is one of the strongest features of the case, and has made a strong impression on the public, and every person who has heard of it. It is not only lord Melville who is accused, but the commissioners of the treasury. It will be for them to shew upon what ground they granted a quietus to Mr. Jellico, to the amount of 24,000 l. To persons who are in the habit of constantly talking of millions, tens of millions, fifties, and hundreds of millions, and who could make a mistake in supposing that to be 186 millions which was only 134 millions; the sum I have mentioned may appear trifling; but I wish to know why a quietus was given for 24,000 l. If it was only for 24 pence, the grounds ought to be enquired into I believe it will be found, that the lords of the treasury were to blame, and that it was obtained under false pretences.—Lastly, sir, there is a circumstance on which it is particularly important the house should have information, if it can be obtained. How it is to be obtained I do not know; but things often come to light which we despair of developing. The most important point

333
on which I dwelt so long the other night, both as it affects the public and lord Melville, as well as his connections, is, whether he was or was not a participator in the peculations charged against Mr. Trotter. That fact is material to be ascertained, and if it is possible, the commissioners will ascertain it. The suspicious circumstances I stated on the last night—they have made a deep impression on my mind, and there has been no denial of them.—It is stated, by Dr. Swift, that two and two do not always make four. I am sure, according to lord Melville, four and four were not always equal. His lordship had, as the salary of his office, 4,000 l. a year; no duties attached to it, but it was clear of all deduction. We heard lord Melville state how he was oppressed by public business, that he had hardly time to rest at night; but that it was necessary for the administration of public affairs they should not be entrusted to other hands than his own; that it was necessary he should continue to be president of the board of control; and that he should have the management of the war. But was it necessary too that he should be treasurer of the navy? Undoubtedly there were always persons willing to receive the emoluments of office without doing the duty as well as his lordship. What does lord Melville do? He gives up 4,000 l. a year of his income, as secretary of state, and takes 4,000 l. as treasurer of the navy. What does this prove, but that the one was better than the other; that the one promised to yield more in future, that the one was male, and the other female, the one fruitful, the other not; that the one produced only 4,000 l. a year, and the other was productive of a great deal more. This is what, on reflection, more and more strengthens my suspicions, for suspicions I admit they are, and must be till they are confirmed: but whether they are confirmed or not, perhaps I do not feel that they Constitute the principal article of charge. The principal article of charge has been substantiated, has been acknowledged by the noble lord himself, under his own hand, and out of his Own mouth; the house of commons has decided on it, and where there is ground of suspicion that he has swerved one hair's breadth, one scruple beyond his duty, it is necessary for the dignity of the house of commons, and for the satisfaction of the people of this empire that he should not again execute his office, and that others should be deterred from acting in the same
334
way. With this view, I shall move an humble address to his Majesty, praying his majesty to remove lord Melville from his councils for ever, and from all offices held during pleasure of the crown. The noble lord is not the only one by many who has given in his resignation to his majesty. The right hon. gent. opposite has heretofore done the same. But if lord Melville is suffered to retire with his dignities and riches, his resignation will not afford a satisfaction to public justice; and beyond that I do not wish to proceed. As to the punishment the noble lord, if the public Was not concerned, I would say, "go forth, let us hear of you no more." That which he has suffered by the disgraceful situation he has exposed himself to, is infinitely more than I wish him to feel: but the end of punishment is example, and unless he is punished beyond what he has already suffered, he is not sufficiently punished. We know that lord Melville, down to a very late period, has had the confidence of the crown; that the confidence of the crown has been expressed towards him so strongly, that, since the last administration, an addition of 1,500 l. a year for life has been conferred on him. It is on the table, printed and known to the whole world, that after lord Melville's having retired to Scotland, I should have supposed for life, he was—by the exigencies of the country? no, but by the circumstances of the right hon. gent. opposite, called from his retirement, and given a situation of the greatest responsibility the crown had to give, except that which the right hon. gent. himself holds. He was to receive the emoluments of such office. That was not enough; he was to have 1,500 l. a year more. That was not enough; for in case he retired, he was to have a grant for life—a patent office; for so long as he should hold the privy seal of Scotland he was to have 1,500 l, a year. That is a man therefore under no ordinary circumstances. At the time of this advance, which perhaps it may be necessary to enquire into, there was also a grant to lady Melville of 1,500 l. a year of the money of the public, for which no service has been rendered, granted, if not in a clandestine manner, at least in a way that those who affixed the seal to the patent did not understand the nature of it. What office lord Melville holds during pleasure, besides the one which he has resigned, I do not know; I do not know that a pension of the kind I have stated can be valid; or whether, supposing a ser-

335
vant of the crown to have misconduct himself, such a pension may not be revokable? If it is, it ought to be revoked; if it is not, so much more the pity. Having taken up more of the time of the house than I at first intended, I shall not longer intrude upon their attention, meaning to conduct myself as becomes me towards the members of the house, and particularly those who agreed with me, and trusting that those who disagreed with me on a former evening, will agree with me this night, because there may be many who will now imagine, that the house, having come to the resolutions founded on the report, ought not to stop short, and may therefore concur with me in the vote that lord Melville should be removed from his majesty's councils. In this hope, and with this view, and not meaning to be led away by my own suggestions, unless they should be supported by the house, and without any desire of pressing the house to a division, if it should appear that it is not actuated by sentiments similar to my own, I shall conclude by moving, "That an humble address be presented to his majesty, praying that his majesty will be graciously pleased to remove lord viscount Melville from all offices held under the crown during pleasure, and from his councils and presence for ever."—The question being put,
Canningrose, and spoke to the following purport. However strongly the hon. gent. who has just sat down has expressed his desire that the house should on this occasion attend merely to the call of impartial justice, and however desirous he may have been of disclaiming any other motives for the course he has pursued, than what proceeded from a wish to establish an example, such as may effectually prevent the recurrence of the like mischiefs and irregularities in future; I cannot help thinking, and I am pretty confident that many of those who have heard the hon. gentleman's speech are of the same opinion, that, notwithstanding his professions of moderation, he has introduced such topics and spoken in such a tone, as prove him to have been actuated by something more than the motives alleged, and indicate something much more bitter than appears to be warranted by the nature of the case under consideration Gracious God! what measure of justice would the hon. gentleman deal out in this case? What is his object? In the interval that has elapsed since the house last separated, lord Melville has, in deference to the decision of this house, thought proper to re-
336
sign the high office which he held in his Majesty's councils, and yet this ready compliance with your vote is stated by the hon. gentleman as an article of aggravation in the charges against the noble lord. The hon. gentleman has made that act of the noble lord a ground of accusation against him, and seems to have considered his deference to the authority of the house in the light of a subterfuge to evade or disappoint justice. What would have been the feelings and the animadversions of the hon. gent. what his expressions of indignation and resentment, if the house had met this day, lord Melville, instead of bowing to its decision, still continuing to hold the office of first lord of the admiralty? (A cry of hear! hear! from the opposition benches) Would he not have made that the ground of further and increased invective? (Still a loud cry of hear!) I take for granted, from the symptoms on the other side of the house, that the gentlemen there assent to these assertions; they would have considered lord Melville's continuance in office as an aggravation of his guilt; and yet they now condemn him for his prompt acquiescence in their wish. What course then is lord Melville to pursue to avoid their wrath, if what he has done, according to the notification of my right hon. friend, be made the ground of invective against him? and is this to be taken as a specimen of the fairness of the motives upon which gentlemen boast of acting, and of their impartiality in acting upon them? Sir, the hon. gent. has applied to me for information whether I have dismissed Mr. Trotter from the employment which he held under me in the navy pay office? I have told him that I have done so. After the decision of the house on Monday night, I could not have a moment's hesitation. Some gentlemen thought proper on a former evening to animadvert in terms of severity on my having retained Mr. Trotter in office, after the accusations, relative to which the house have decided, had been published against him. But of my conduct in that instance, I trust every candid man will approve. Mr. Trotter I considered on his trial, and whatever my own opinion might have been of the nature of the charge against him, and the degree of his guilt, it struck me that it would be extremely unfair to prejudice the public mind against his case by dismissing him under such circumstances. He stood in such a situation that I could not feel it consistent with public justice, to fix a seal of infamy upon the man by dismissing him

337
while his trial was pending. But the moment the sense of this house was known, when I no longer could prejudice a man whose guilt, till declared by a competent tribunal, I should have felt it unfair to prejudge by any act of mine, I removed Mr. Trotter; and my reasons for not removing him before that sense was known, will, I have no doubt, be deemed satisfactory by every dispassionate mind.—Nay, I have little doubt that although a learned gent.(Mr. Ponsonby) remarked with such severity on my conduct on a former evening, that hon. gentleman himself will, upon a little reflection, if he possess the mind and feelings of a British lawyer, be ready to confess that he was wrong, and that to have taken a different course from that which I have pursued would have been unfair, tyrannical, and oppressive. With regard to Mr. Wilson, who holds a secondary station in the navy pay office—to him I do not conceive that any imputation attaches, that would warrant me in acting towards him in the manner which the hon. gentleman desires. On the contrary, I consider Mr. Wilson to be one of the most industrious and deserving servants of the public. But, says the hon. gentleman, Mr. Wilson is reported by the commissioners as having given a reluctant testimony; as having refused to answer questions, lest they should tend to criminate himself. Sir, the conduct of Mr. Wilson before the commissioners of naval inquiry has been thus explained to me; and not to me only, but if I am not much misinformed, to the naval commissioners themselves, I speak in the presence of one of them (sir C. Pole), who will correct me if I am wrong, though they have not thought fit to report that part of Mr. Wilson's evidence. Mr. Wilson acted occasionally, in the absence of the paymaster, and used to sign drafts in the usual form on the bank, for the money wanted for the office. If there was any legal guilt in the manner of executing this part of the duty of the paymaster, and that there was legal guilt in it must not now be doubted, since the house has so decided, Mr. Wilson, so far as he acted in this respect for the principal, participated in that legal guilt, and was liable, or thought himself liable, to whatever might be the legal consequence of it. That he had ever acted with a view to private emolument, has not been supposed or charged against him. His evidence upon oath expressly denies that imputation. The share which he had had, as substitute for another, in a practice pro-
338
nounced illegal, Mr. Wilson naturally supposed implicate him in the penalties applicable to illegality of the transaction, and on that ground alone he declined to answer the interrogatories of the commissioners. But although the charge of legal guilt might attach to this man, I believe that he is perfectly free from any imputation on the score of morality, Still, though I entertain this opinion of Mr. Wilson, if this house pronounced a different opinion, I should bow to its authority, and remove him from office. But no such opinion has been declared, and I think him not all fairly implicated in the guilt attributed to the transaction which led to this discussion. Why then should I comply with the wish expressed by the hon. gentleman? or with what justice could I sacrifice a man whom I conscientiously believe to be innocent, to suspicion, or to clamour; unless some new evidence should arise, or some competent tribunal should pronounce Mr. Wilson guilty? I have not, I cannot have, any personal partiality for Mr. Wilson, whom I know only as a clerk in my office: but I will mete out a different measure of justice to this or any other man whom circumstances may place in my power to what the hon. gentleman seems disposed to shew to lord Melville. But to return to the question; the hon. gent. has now renewed all the unfairness, and apparently forgotten and thrown aside all the fairness and moderation, of which he thought it necessary to assume the semblance at least in the last debate. He has resorted to every means of aggravating, his charge: he has collected every circumstance that could tend to give an unfavourable impression against the object of his accusation, and has even construed the act which was a mark of the noble lord's deference to the house, and of his humiliation, into an aggravation of his criminality. The hon. gent. at one time calls particular parts of the tenth report dark and doubtful, which at another time he assumes to furnish clear and glaring evidence to aggravate the guilt of lord Melville. And he has travelled not only out of the charge itself, but out of the report, into the whole range of party polities, into the history of every action of lord Melville's political life, to collect topics, which have no natural relation to the subject properly before the house, and all calculated obviously to inflame the passions upon a charge which its advocates term appeal to justice—The hon. gent. tell you that the motion this night is nothing more than a con-

339
firmation of the vote of the former night. But the vote of the former night, as amended, only declared that the noble lord had violated the law, but it did not charge him with having done so for private emolument. You have indeed recorded your opinion that lord Melville has been guilty of a violation of the act of parliament, in consequence of which certain advantages have resulted to another person. But you have not said that the noble lord has had any participation of such advantages, nor does any thing appear to justify such an inference. I trust, therefore, that when the hon. gent. so triumphantly declares his conviction that the house cannot act inconsistently with itself; that it will not disappoint the just expectation of the country; I trust, sir, he will not find himself mistaken. The house will follow up the vote of last night with consistency—that is, in the same sense and spirit in which that vote was given. The house will not disappoint the opinion which the country has conceived of its justice, temper, and wisdom, by first voting a man guilty of a lesser offence (I do not mean to vindicate lord Melville, or extenuate the infraction of the law for which you have held him responsible; but an offence merely legal is less in the eyes of every man than the gross moral guilt which the hon. gent. would now impute to him, and which he would fain persuade you, contrary to your own knowledge and recollection, you meant to impute to him yourselves), and then turning round and apportioning the punishment, not to the crime of which it has found lord Melville guilty, but to all the foul aspersions and aggravated charges which the hon. gent. has in this stage of the business thought it decent to heap upon him; to which charges the house is no party; and which it not only did not sanction by its vote of the last night, but upon deliberation refused to agree to even an ambiguous and doubtful affirmation of them.—The hon. gent. has disclaimed any other motive for his motion this night but a view to public justice. What has been already done towards that end? Is the state of humiliation to which the noble lord has been reduced nothing? Is such an end to such a political life nothing? Has not the noble lord already suffered quite enough to disarm any set of men not actuated by the most rancorous feeling of party enmity? And against whom is this enmity directed? Against one who never was himself suspected of deserving the character of a bitter political antagonist. In any of the public situations which lord Melville has occupied, I
340
would challenge any man to produce an instance where party prejudice has been found to obstruct, or delay, or influence the promotion of merit, whether political or military.—Sir, the hon. gent. has congratulated his country on the extraordinary public virtue which has been manifested on this occasion. If he means the virtue displayed by the house of commons, I cordially agree with him. Whatever I may have presumed to think of the vote of Monday night, as hasty or premature, no man more heartily than I subscribes to the purity and integrity of the motives which dictated it. If the hon. gent. means to compliment himself on the part which he has taken, on the part which he this night takes, in urging the house to a rigour beyond the measure of justice, and, I venture to affirm, beyond the measure of its own feelings of what is right; I am far from presuming to deny his claim to that credit, for an exertion of virtue beyond the ordinary rate of most men's capacity, and beyond the usual practice of the country and the times in which we live. The hon. gent. must have gone far back into the times of ancient Greece and Rome to find models of that sort of virtue. There he will have found, no doubt, that when a great political delinquent was to be brought to justice, and an appeal made to the people to aggravate the severity of punishment, the accuser was not generally found among those who had received any injury from the accused; but among those whom he had served. And, sir, when I look back to the proceedings of this house in the year 1795, when I recollect the serious charges which were then brought forward against two most eminent commanders, now members of the other house of parliament (and for their services well entitled to that distinction); when I recollect that in the debates which arose up on those charges, their most active defender, their most indefatigable advocate, was that very noble lord who now is made the theme of the hon. gent.'s violence and invective; and when I see that noble lord, now no longer a minister, already pulled down from the high eminence on which he stood, and prostrate at the feet of the house of commons, no longer formidable from power or dangerous from influence; when I see him now, after his political existence has ceased, after the crimes of his political nature (be they what they may) have been severely visited upon him; when I see him now in this defenceless state persecuted and hunted down,—and by whom? by the friends of sir John Jervis and the kindred of sir Charles Grey;

341
I cannot sir, refuse to the hon. gent, the praise of Spartan inflexibility, of more than Roman virtue: but while humbly and at a distance I admire the exertion of these high qualities in him, I pray to Almighty God to spare me the pain of being ever called upon to imitate his example!
Mr. Grey.—I rise, sir, under no inconsiderable share of embarrassment. I was in some doubt, whether I should take notice of the observations of the right hon. gent. at all. It is indeed, unpleasant to me at all times to enter into any thing in this house where I am personally concerned. With regard to whatever I or my hon. relation have done, I do not feel that we have merited the reproof of the right hon. gent., since I do believe we neither of us have any obligation to confess to the zeal, impartiality, or ability of the noble lord. The right hon. gent. accuses me for the warmth I have displayed respecting this business, and in answer to this accusation it is only necessary to say, that I am quite unconscious of any such bitterness, and it would, I think, be rather difficult for the right hon. gent. to shew in what way it has been evinced. He chooses to congratulate me and my hon. friend near me (Mr. Whitbread) on our more than Spartan virtue in voting against the noble lord, who, as he alleges, was the champion of those who are dear to us by the ties of blood or the connexions of friendship. He tells us that the battle which the noble lord fought for these relations was disinterested, and he admires the return we have made for these magnanimous exertions. This, sir, is a strange kind of language; but it will be proper for me to call the attention of the house to the circumstances to which the right hon. gent. has alluded. It is sufficiently in the recollection of the house that these noble lords being in the service of government, received only bare justice from the ministers of the day. It will be recollected that among the few instances of military glory which distinguished the late war, the two noble lords, triumphing over difficulties of a very formidable nature, had eminently distinguished themselves. On their return to this country from the West Indies, some dissatisfaction arose, and an inquiry was proposed by some members of this house. What was the conduct of these noble persons on that occasion? Did they fly from justice? Did they wish to elude inquiry, or did they discover any anxiety to conceal their conduct behind any mean or dishonourable subterfuge? On the contrary, did they not court inquiry? Did
342
they not call for the fullest investigation of every part of their conduct, and appeal to the fair decision of the house? The right hon. gent. has spoken as if those noble persons received favours from the noble lord who appeared in their defence; but I utterly disclaim the existence of any such favours. The noble lord defended them because they had served with credit and honour those by whom they were employed. This sort of justice was due, not merely to their particular merits, but it was due to the country whose interests they had promoted. Will the right hon. gent. opposite, who, on the occasion when the motion for an inquiry was brought forward, moved the amendment, say, that he did not seriously believe that the charge was unfounded—will he say that he was not convinced that their conduct, so far from being liable to censure, was entitled to the highest approbation and gratitude? Am I then to be told that the noble lord who appeared in defence of the noble lords was conferring a favour on them, or any of those with whom they were connected? Am I to hold myself under obligations to the noble lord for a defence of those gallant officers, whom he himself had employed, and who had signalized themselves in the public service? The right hon. gent., however, takes some merit to the noble lord for employing those who were known not to be in all cases favourable to the administration of that period. Without dwelling on this point, or ascertaining how far the noble lords at that time differed from ministers, it is sufficient for me to say, that to employ naval and military men of all different parties, is no proof of the moderation of ministers. They are compelled, whether they will or not, to employ the Services of those who are distinguished by their talents or their experience, and the minister who would act otherwise would soon find that he could not long persevere in arrangements utterly repugnant both to the feelings of this house and the country. It is hardly possible to conceive ministers guilty of a greater crime than refusing the services of persons of known talents, and to whose employment the only existing objection is some differences of political opinion. But the right hon. gent. has represented the defence of those noble persons as a work of great difficulty. It is of consequence to see, then, how the case really stands. Why, sir as nearly as I can recollect, though I do not remember what was the majority, only sixteen members, that is the odd numbers on the di-

343
vision of Monday, could be found to support that charge now represented as so formidable. The case was one of the plainest and least intricate that can be supposed, and, therefore, the noble lord's defence was, in point of difficulty, trifling, and, in point of Justice, the noble lords had a right to expect it from those who employed them. I have been obliged to say so much on this topic, for, after what fell from the right hon. gent., it was quite impossible for me to have remained silent. Indeed, the right hon. gent 's allusion to this business was equally ill judged and impolitic. It was calculated to excite unpleasant feelings, without at all advancing that cause which he affected to support. The right hon. gent. has alluded to the warmth with which the noble lord has been attacked; but, really, I am at a loss to discover where the least evidence of it has been exhibited. I have felt no personal warmth or vindictive spirit on the subject, and I am sure no part of the conduct of my hon. friend has betrayed any appearance of a rancorous spirit. I have supported my hon. friend from a sense of duty, and I only regret that I have been prevented from taking that share in the discussion which I could have wished. The right hon. gent. talks of rancour, of which no trace has appeared; but though there has been no rancour, it was impossible not to feel strong indignation when instances of strong delinquency were discovered. My hon. friend urged these delinquencies, with that force which was peculiar to himself; but he never resorted to asperity of observation. He wished only the ends of justice to be fulfilled; but when his object is accomplished, I am sure that my hon. friend will never think for a moment of vindictive measures of punishment. It is with a view to have these ends of justice satisfied that the motion of my hon. friend has this evening been brought forward; but he has declared that if a satisfactory assurance is given that lord Melville has closed his political life, he has no wish to press the motion at the present moment. This surely is no evidence of rancour, of Which the right hon. gent. speaks so loudly in his speech. As to the necessity of the motion I have no sort of hesitation in saying, that unless something is added to the resolution on Monday night, they are left incomplete. After saying that the noble lord had been guilty of a gross violation of an act of parliament, and a high breach of his duty, we shall not discharge our duty to the country without following up such resolu-
344
tions by some corresponding measures. Without some others it is almost a nullity to suffer the resolutions of Monday to remain on the journals of the house. My hon. friend has said, and has said with truth, that the notification of the resignation of the noble lord by the right hon. gent. is far from satisfying either the house or the country. The resignation of the noble lord, at another period, might have been very proper, but under the present circumstances of the country, his mere resignation of his situation as first lord of the admiralty is far from coming up to the spirit of those resolutions which will afford such general satisfaction in every part of the empire. Lord Melville's resignation after the resolutions of Monday was altogether a matter of course. Neither he nor any other man dared to have continued in power after the opinion of this house was so solemnly and so beneficially expressed. The resignation has taken place; but what security have we obtained that he may not, in a very short time, be recalled to a very confidential situation under the crown? The house will bear in mind that the noble lord still continues a privy counsellor, and one part of my hon. friend's motion is, that he be dismissed, not only from his majesty's councils, but from his presence for ever. It is not at the same time to be forgotten that the noble lord at this time is actually in possession of several lucrative offices held during pleasure; and I do not think that, after the resolutions we have passed, his removal from these would be at all carrying punishment to an improper length. After the declarations we have made, can we take any precautions too strong to insure the object which the majority of the house professed to have in view? The right hon. gent. rests a great deal on delicacy, as an argument for resisting my hon. friend's motion. I, sir, am a friend to delicacy, where it can be exercised consistently with justice; but I can never accede to a proposition for screening convicted guilt from adequate punishment, by any scruples which false delicacy would impose. With a wish then that our resolutions should not be evaded, but carried into the fullest effect, I should certainly be desirous of seeing my hon. friend's motion adopted, as at once the most consistent with our honour, most agreeable to the calls of justice, most consonant to the expectations of the country. I shall say only a few words on some other topics which the right hon. gent. has thought fit to introduce into his speech. The right hon. gent has spoken of

345
the arbitrary and despotic doctrines brought forward by my hon. and learned relation behind me (Mr. George Ponsonby); but as my hon. and learned relation is himself so competent, it is not necessary for me to trouble you with many observations. But I may just be permitted to ask, whether there be any thing extraordinary or inconsistent with justice, any thing inconsistent with the character of a British lawyer, any thing at all tyrannical or despotic, in having a person accused of a most aggravated crime secured previous to his trial? Could this be called a prejudging of the cause? As well might we be accused of prejudging a criminal, because we found it necessary to shut him up in a prison previous to the proofs of his guilt being fully or fairly considered. Here, however, we were talking of a person not accused, but found guilty. I put it to the house, whether, after the circumstances of Trotter's conduct were known, it was at all decent to employ him in a situation which he had previously employed to the most improper purposes. If Trotter was not dismissed, he ought surely to have been suspended from his office, till the inquiry in this house was closed. The right hon. gent. has advanced nothing to shew that it was not his duty to have followed this course. His whole speech, indeed, was nothing but idle rant and fury, containing nothing addressed to the reason of the house, nothing which affords the least proof that the motion of my hon. friend should not be adopted, as the natural consequence of the previous resolutions. Conceiving, then, this to be the, case, I shall support the motion as called for by every principle of honour, every demand of justice, and every feeling of regard for our character.
Mr. George Ponsonby—Mr. Speaker; after being so pointedly and personally alluded to by the right hon. gent., I hope I shall be favoured with the attention of the house for a few a moments. Since first I had the honour of a seat in this house, I will not attempt to deny that it has ever been my ardent wish to stand high in the esteem of all the members of whom it is composed. After the vote of Monday, however, a vote so honourable to the character of this assembly, a vote which has exalted its character among all orders in the state who value independence and worth, I confess, that to stand well in your opinion has become a matter of the utmost anxiety. The right hon. gent. has chosen to say, that if I had been a British lawyer I never could possibly
346
have brought forward those tyrannical, despotic, and oppressive doctrines which he supposes me to have delivered. Of having uttered any such language as could convey the idea of arbitrary principles or practices, I am utterly unconscious. I was followed by a right hon. gent. who is unquestionably one of the most sound and constitutional lawyers, and a judge in one of the highest courts in the kingdom, and it is rather, remarkable that he took not the least notice of these supposed arbitrary doctrines, though he did me the honour to allude to several parts of my speech. If such doctrines had been contained in what I then advanced, it is next to impossible that they should have escaped the observation of his penetrating and comprehensive mind. If I did lay down arbitrary doctrines, they are the same doctrines which many of the most eminent lawyers that this country ever saw have not scrupled to avow. The right hon. gent. however, tells me that if I were a British lawyer, I could not possibly avow the principles he imputes to me. I am not ashamed at any time, sir, or under any circumstances, of my country, and I hope I shall never be guilty of an action which will give my country cause to be ashamed of me. As, however, the right hon. gent. rests so much on my not being a British lawyer, I beg leave to inform him, that I have as good British blood flowing in my veins as the right hon. gent. can boast of in his. I cannot boast of having arrived at so early a period of life as the right hon. gent. at the honours and rewards which the right hon. gentleman now enjoys. What I have earned of honours and rewards have been the result of long labours and painful exertion; but this I can safely assure the house that never till now have I been accused of being an arbitrary or unconstitutional lawyer. I said, sir, alluding to the case of Mr. Trotter, that circumstances had been disclosed which shewed that he ought not to have employed in the office of paymaster of the navy, and I am still of the same opinion. But on what principle is it that the right hon. gent. accuses this declaration as inconsistent with the principles of justice? What are these principles? they are plainly these:— that Mr. Trotter had, by his own evidence, proved his guilt; and that the testimony of his friend and patron, lord Melville, instead of weakening, strengthened this opinion. I ask, then, after such evidence was given before the commissioners, if it would have been at all extraordinary or unjust to have

347
suspended Mr. Trotter till his innocence or guilt was fully ascertained? I say, in such a suspension there was no prejudice. There was, on the contrary, that strict regard to the proper application of the public money, with which the employment of a person even suspected of malversation does not appear to me to be very consistent. If the right hon. member had acted in this way I am fully sensible that neither the house nor the country would have blamed him for his arbitrary or despotic proceedings. I entertain a sincere respect for the right hon. gentleman's talents. Indeed it is not conceivable that without great talents he should, at so early a period of life, have risen to that elevation in the state in which he is now placed. With all my respect for his abilities, however, I must insist, that when he next honours my observations with his notice, he will take a little pains to state accurately what I say, for I protest, with all my esteem for his talents, I should not relish the idea of his making speeches for me.— Having said this with respect to the arbitrary doctrines of which he accuses me, I shall, before I sit down say a few words on the general question before the house. My hon. friend seems to me to have framed his motion on the most consistent principles. He very properly says, that though the right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Pitt) has intimated to us the resignation of lord Melville's situation of first lord of the admiralty, he has not told us, what is much more important, what is much more intimately connected with the resolutions of Monday night, that lord Melville has closed his political life; that he is never more to have any share in the administration of the affairs of this great empire. We all know what are the connections of the noble lord, how far extended are the resources of his influence. None of us are ignorant how intimately he possesses the confidence of the ministers of the crown, and how anxious they, would, at any time, be to receive his advice and support. We have, independent of a motion similar to that of my hon. friend, no security against his return to power, a thing totally inconsistent with the resolutions of Monday, and which would render them mere wastes paper on the journals. But even admitting that lord Melville did normally retire, let it be kept in mind that he still continues a privy councellor, as my hon. friend below me (Mr. Grey) has already very properly remarked. While the connection of the noble lord with the administration of the
348
country continues such as it now is, I profess that I am not satisfied that we have gained what our grand struggle of Monday so justly entitled us to expect. Let me suppose that this intimacy continues, and that the minister employs his influence to misrepresent and vilify the decisions of this house. Let me suppose that the press is hired into the service, and that the public are told, in publication after publication, by the friends and creatures of ministers, that lord Melville has been run down by a desperate faction in this house—that he has been condemned unheard—that he offered to call evidence to prove the falsity of the accusations against him, but was refused—that, in short, he is a much persecuted, and much injured man. Let me suppose that, by these delusions, the strong sentiments of honourable indignation which now actuate the public mind are a good deal deadened, and that the minister, availing himself of these favourable changes should, during the recess of parliament, venture on the daring measure of once more recommending lord Melville to the service of his sovereign, and that his majesty, fatally yielding to this recommendation, should once more receive him into his councils. Let me suppose this, which is not by any means an impossible case, and what then is to become of all our resolutions, of all our efforts to stem the growth of corruption, of all our exertions to bring peculators, however elevated their rank, or extensive their influence, to an ignominious punishment? It is to guard equally against this and any similar case that I am inclined to support the motion of my hon. friend. The right hon. gent. strongly recommends to us the propriety of leniency in our proceedings; I am no enemy to leniency when properly exerted, and I have no wish that the noble lord should be treated with unnecessary severity; but, before I can be lenient, I must know that the cause of public justice is secure. I must be satisfied that the noble lord shall not again have it in his power to have any weight in our national councils. I wish to have the public money placed safely beyond the reach of the corrupt and profligate. I am willing to shew as much tenderness as possible to the noble lord, though I confess I never had the honour to exchange one word with him in the whole course of my life; but I shall be a party in lenity to no man till I have provided against peculation among great public men. I am clear, sir, for making every public delinquent refund what he has un-

349
justly obtained out of the public purse, and I shall certainly support my hon. friend in all his motions for carrying through this glorious work of reform. While I shall support the motions for calling lord Melville and Mr. Trotter to a strict account, I shall be equally a friend to any investigation of the control exercised by the treasury over the inferior offices. It is the duty of the treasury to see that negligence and waste do not exist in the inferior departments. I do not impute corrupt practices to the right hon. gent. at the head of the treasury, for I do not like to impute corruption to any one without strong evidence; but I do see from the report, that the superintendance of the treasury has, in many instances, been criminally relaxed. The rank of the commissioners is not to screen them from inquiry; and I trust the future proceedings of the house will fully prove the truth of this opinion. Though I am a representative for another part of the kingdom, I shall feel no hesitation in saying that I consider myself as much a representative for Great Britain as for Ireland, and on all occasions shall endeavour to act on this liberal principle. If the motion is persisted in, it certainly shall have my cordial vote.
Mr. Canningexplained, and stated that lord Melville was as effectually excluded from his majesty's councils, by what had already taken place, as he could be by any resolution of the house to that effect.
Mr. Samuel Thorntonrose, in consequence of the allusion made this night and on a preceding one, to the evidence of an experienced and meritorious officer of the bank before the commissioners of naval enquiry. That officer (Mr. Newland) had there intimated that the drafts passed by the treasurer had not always expressed the service on which they were drawn, conformably to the provisions of the act of parliament. If this were the case, the bank were certainly to blame, as he held in his hand a copy of the power under which the paymaster had passed his drafts from the year 1786 until the resignation of lord Melville; this power stated in express words, "that he should be particularly careful to specify in each and every draft the service for which the money was drawn." The fact was, that Mr. Newland, though at the head of the cashier's department of the bank, was not the officer under whose inspection the detail of this branch of business was carried on, and therefore had only delivered a matter of opinion. The officer who paid the drafts from the
350
navy office had assured the hon. member, that after every research in his power, and to the best of his recollection, no draft had ever been paid without specifying the service. Since August, 1803, the mode of conducting the business had been varied, and sums were written off at once by the bank from the treasurer's account to that of the sub-paymasters of the navy, which accounts were kept also with that corporation.—The hon. gent. mentioned that allusions had been made to certain communications in which he was reported to be a party: but herein he begged to set the house right, and, as far as respected him, he could assure them they were founded in mistake. What might have passed with any other gentlemen they could themselves best explain. With respect to Mr. Trotter and Mr. Wilson, every apprehension that they could any longer abuse the confidence of their employer, or misapply the public money, were at an end. The right hon. gent. (Mr. Canning) had sent an order this morning to the bank, prohibiting any money being given to any person connected with the navel department, without a draft signed by himself.—The hon. gent. said, that he had voted in favour of the resolutions, because he thought it his duty, because the noble lord, in his opinion, had committed abuses; but he was unwilling to go farther till he should obtain more evidence than the house had yet before them of the motives from which that noble lord had acted. That his lordship had permitted the commission of abuses he was ready to admit, and had voted accordingly, but that his conduct had proceeded from corrupt motives, he thought remained to be proved; and notwithstanding, therefore, the vote he had given on Monday night, he could by no means go along with the hon. gent. in his motion of to-night. He could not help recollecting how long the noble lord had been an able and active servant of the public. From this recollection, he had given his former vote with regret; and, from the same circumstance, could not be induced to go farther, unless from the most positive evidence of the corrupt intention of the noble lord, which evidence was not at present of such a nature as to justify any farther they proceedings.
Mr. Barhamwas of opinion, that the allusion made by the right hon. gent (Mr. Canning) to the two honourable persons whose naval and military conduct had been the subject of inquiry in that house the beginning of last war, was very injudicious,

351
and could serve no useful purpose. The part which he himself had taken in that discussion he had been prompted to by what he had at that time conceived to be a sense of duty, however painful he had felt the task. The two noble lords, however, had been amply acquitted by a vote of the house, and had since justified the good opinion of the public. In regard to the question now before the house, he thought this step moved by the hon. gent. absolutely necessary to carry into effect the resolutions formerly voted. It was by such a measure only they could tell his majesty that such persons were improper to hold any office of trust or confidence. This opinion, he maintained, originated in no motives of personal animosity to the noble lord. Hardly any, he believed, had fewer enemies than that noble lord, and far should he be from supporting any measure that he thought had its origin in the smallest degree from a rancorous or persecuting spirit. On the contrary, this, he maintained, was a measure of justice, and essential to the honour and dignity of the house. He hoped, therefore, the motion would be persisted in.
Mr. Bankesdisavowed any political connexions that could wrap his judgment on any great question of justice or policy. The vote he had given on Monday night had been purely disinterested, and had not arisen from the influence of any party. He disapproved of the abuses that had taken place, and had voted accordingly. He would take the liberty, however, though unconnected with any party, to recommend to the hon. gent. not to persist in his present motion. Was the hon. gent. certain that the circumstance of the case, taken in the whole, would warrant such a measure? At any rate, he thought it extremely ill-timed; and the same sense of duty that had prompted him to vote with the hon. gent. on Monday night would also induce him to resist the present motion. The design of the adjournment on the former night, was avowedly to decline any measure on the part of the house till they should see if his majesty would, from the suggestions of his own royal breast, take any step that might supersede the necessity of any further operations on the part of the house. The result had been favourable to the wishes of the house, and had rendered, in his opinion, this measure unnecessary. But why, he asked, such eagerness to follow up the blow that had been already give? for this, he understood, was but a part of the measures that were intended to be adopted, and that other en-
352

quiries were also to be instituted. He should be told that it was to prevent the noble lord from ever again returning to his majesty's councils; but there was no probability, in his opinion, that he would again be restored. Indeed, he said, it might not be impossible but farther inquiries might lead to discoveries that might render an impeachment necessary. He did not by any means say that such would be the effect of farther inquiry, but that such might be the effect was not impossible. Should such, however, be the effect, it would then be time enough to have recourse to such measures, for at present he deemed them premature. It had been said, that the resolutions of the former night would prove ineffectual, would be attended with no material advantage, unless followed up by a measure of the description of that proposed by the hon. gent.; but it was generally understood that night, he contended, when those resolutions passed, that no farther measures were to be adopted. Had this motion immediately followed the resolutions, it might have been considered as a necessary corollary to those resolutions, and might, as such, have met his support; but the necessity of the measure no longer existed. The step proposed to the house was, besides, contrary to all the precedents with which he was acquainted. So far as his knowledge or experience extended, it never had been the usage of the house to address his majesty against persons out of office. Such was the case in respect to sir Robert Walpole, lord Ranelagh, and others whom the hon. gent. mentioned, against whom no address of removal had been presented to his majesty, though previously perhaps in the contemplation of parliament, when no longer in office. Indeed the very idea was sufficiently absurd, because it was not possible to remove from office those who were in no office. At all events, if the matter was to undergo a full discussion, as intimated by the hon. gent., he would much rather delay any farther proceedings till the result of those inquiries should be ascertained. When the house should have the whole before them, they could then more justly estimate the degree of odium that was to be attached to a conduct which, though irregular, and in violation of an act of parliament, might yet admit of many circumstances of mitigation. In such a discovery he declared he would have much more pleasure than he experienced before in the vote he gave in favour of the resolutions.
Mr. Windham,though not generally in

353
the habit of agreeing with the hon. gent who had just sat down, (for he and the hon. gent. were rarely on the same side of the question, though they often sat on the same bench,) agreed with him in one point at present. If the qualification proposed could be acceded to, consistently with the feelings of the house, the motion made by his hon. friend should not be brought forward. What gentlemen would have agreed to on the last night was exactly the same they were so desirous to put off this night. The only object was to ascertain whether the proceeding recommended was in substance the same as the motion, which was more consistent with the custom and regular from of the house. He censured those who had recourse to argument founded on delicacy and soft sentiment, which should never be introduced or countenanced in a grave assembly. He was less interested for the noble lord from private motives than many others, though he was not uninterested. But when that interest was made use of to influence the decision of a question, of which was the best mode for the house to do its duty, he could not listen to it. If this resolution was a necessary corollary the other night, he saw no reason why it should not be a necessary corollary now. The motion went far beyond what had done, inasmuch as what had been done was no security for the perpetual exclusion of the noble lord, though it was to be expected he would not be reinstated. The only excuse that could be offered to the public for not following up the resolution agreed to on the other night was, that in the progress of the future investigation matter of extenuation may come out. He did not think that could be. He thought the house justified in the vote of the last night, because the whole of the case was before them. If he did not think so, God forbid that he should object to any thing that could place the case in a fuller or purer view! There was nothing to impeach the decision then made on the fairest motives: he should, therefore, require a promise or declaration, which would render it impossible to restore lord Melville. Otherwise, he had such a hold of those who were in power; they were so linked and connected together, that an attempt may be made to counteract what the house had done. One instance was well Known, in which, after a censure more strong than that now passed upon lord Melville, the noble person recovered his situation, and the highest honours of the country were showered on him. What the house pronounced in its
354
best judgement should therefore not be given up under less than an express pledge for what was implied in the resolution of the former night. It was, therefore, necessary to follow up the resolutions, in order to have security for the future. A right hon. gent. (Mr. Canning) had said, that it ought to be a rule not to proceed with passion and violence; a good rule, certainly; but extremely ill observed on the part of the right hon. gent himself. Had they gone beyond the line? If they had, let it be shewn by argument, and let it not rest upon the intemperate assertions of the right hon. gent. Parliament had made a great effort, such a one as, he was persuaded, would entitle them to the thanks and gratitude of the whole kingdom; he wished that they should continue those efforts; he wished to take security against their falling off. It would be a lamentable instance of the mutability of opinion, if they should forfeit, by indifference or langour, the high honours which their conduct on the preceding evening had obtained them from all sorts of people, honours "which should be worn now in their newest gloss." The right hon. gent. had indulged him self in the use of some strong expressions against the force of popular prejudice and clamour; in that he fully coincided with him. To yield upon any occasion to public clamour, so far as to condemn any one upon it, would be, in his opinion, one of the meanest and most unjust acts of which a deliberative body could be capable. But as the noble lord had not, as he would contend, been condemned under the influence of public clamour, he conceived it the duty of the house to proceed and follow up their resolutions of Monday, by agreeing to the motion of his hon. friend. Leaving out of the question all idea of participation in the profits derived from the use of the public monies, and looking to the abstract crime, the bare and naked violation of an act of parliament, still he would maintain, that the house was in duty bound, if they valued consistency, if they valued the maintenance of their own honour, to proceed and to pass the motion made by his hon. friend as a necessary inference and corollary from the resolutions to which they had agreed on Monday. Gentlemen would do well to recollect, that they were not in a court of strict judicial proceedings, in a court where the interest, the honour, and the feelings of the people were to be considered. They were not to be fettered by the ordinary maxims of the judicial tribunals,

355
but the privileges of parliament were to be asserted by them in that mode which they thought most likely to establish and preserve them. The noble lord was undoubtedly carus amicis, and, he had no objection that he should long remain so; but it was as true, that he was no longer idoneus patriæ and, therefore, he thought it necessary that the house should declare so. If it was understood that the noble lord should not be appointed to any place of trust and confidence, as long as the resolutions agreed to on Monday remained on the journals, that may be urged as an argument against the adoption of his hon. friend's motion; but, after what had passed, it was his opinion that the house if it wished to be consistent with itself should agree to the motion foran address to his majesty.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer.—As the right hon. gent. has thus required some specific explanation, and it appears to be the wish of several other gentlemen that I should give some sort of pledge on the subject of the noble lord's return to power, I rise to say a very few words, solely for the purpose of explanation, and not with the view of at all arguing the question. What I now say, I take it for granted, then, will not preclude me from again addressing the house, if the debate should be Continued. It is my wish that the noble lord should be treated as far as possible with those feelings of liberality, and if such a pledge as that which the right hon. gent. who has just sat down had alluded to could prevent the necessity of persisting in the motion, I am sure that every legitimate object would be accomplished. I have no hesitation at all, accordingly, in saying, that all idea of noble lord's return to power is completely annihilated, and that no danger whatever need be apprehended from this quarter. When I make this frank declaration, I only wish it to be understood that this is not to understood as continuing in force in case the resolutions of Monday should, on future inquiries, be found to have been premature, and should accordingly be erased from the journals of the house . In any other case but this, I think it is absolutely impossible that any minister should ever think of recommending the noble lord to a share in his majesty's councils. After this declaration, I do think that the motion of the hon. gent. might be dispensed with, without at all losing sight of the object he profess to have in view. The house are now agreed as to the general principle, and they only differ as to the
356
mode in which that principle is to be reduced to practice. I think the explanation I have now given is sufficient to remove all that apprehension on which the hon. gent grounds his motion, and surely it would be but an act of common liberality to the noble lord and his numerous friends to proceed in the way most agreeable to temperance and moderation. I trust, therefore, the hon. gent. will not persist in pressing the house to a division on his motion.
Mr. Fox,began by adverting to the manner in which the motion had been spoken of by the hon. gent (Mr. Banks) on the same bench. The hon. gent. allowed that the present motion was a corollary from the resolution of Monday, and declared that if it had been put from the chair immediately after the other resolutions were passed, he must in consistency have given it his support. He wished to know, why he might not equally vote for the motion now, since whatever argument existed for the motion at that time, remained now in full force? The only reason which induced a postponement of the motion then, was the lateness of the hour, and that was the only consideration which induced him to recommend to his hon. friend not to submit his motion till the next meeting of the house. He had frequently seen and complained of the inconveniencies of hurrying through important motions at a very late hour, and as some debate was naturally to be expected on so interesting a subject, he was anxious that every gentleman should have an opportunity of delivering his sentiments. He had said, that among other advantages which would attend the delay would be that of giving the ministry an opportunity of properly performing their duty; but he never even hinted that the identical motion which his hon. friend now submitted to the house would not be brought forward. If the support of the hon. gent. to the bill was, therefore, now lost, it was entirely lost, because his hon. friend and himself had proceeded on a pledge that the motion would be adapted as an obvious corollary from the Resolutions, and that, viewing it in this light, they had yielded to the argumentum ad vericundiam—After these introductory observations, Mr. Fox
proceeded in substance as follows:—The right hon.
gent. who spoke second in the debate, has delivered himself in a manner so extraordinary and injudious, that it is really hardly worth while to take notice of his observation. The resolutions of the house on Monday night, seem so completely

357
to have irritate the right hon. gent. and, so fully to have overpower his mind, that he has his evening taken an opportunity of throwing forth his indignation without providing himself with grounds on which to exercise it. He has chosen to attack, without the slightest appearance of truth, my learned and hon. friend (Mr. G. Ponsonby) as the author of arbitrary and despotic doctrines, and on this I shall not long detain the house after what my learned and hon. friend has said, in so satisfactory a manner. The right hon. gent. accuses my hon. and learned friend of arbitrary doctrines, because he says, that a person proved by evidence to have been guilty of a most corrupt use of the public money, should at least be suspended from his office till the charges against him be fully investigated. Now, all that I have to say on this is, simply, that it such doctrine be arbitrary, the most eminent lawyers in the kingdom have never been backward to promulgate it. It is a doctrine universally acknowledged and acted on in all the relations of life. When we hear or read of a servant, or a steward suspected of peculation or any other breach of trust, and not merely suspected, but actually confessing guilt, we of course order them to quit the office where the grounds of
suspicion arose, conceiving that persons so situated are utterly unworthy of trust. But, perhaps the right hon. gent. meant to take up the business of the Tenth Report, and was therefore unwilling to incur the charge of prejudice by the discharge of Mr. Trotter before the trial took place. Under what circumstances is it that the right hon. gent. determined to retain Mr. Trotter in the important office of paymaster of the navy? He had heard that before the commissioners be refused in some cases to answer questions at all, and in others had given equivocating replies. He had heard that he not only refused to answer questions to which, supposing him innocent, the reply was quite obvious, but he had known Mr. Trotter to have used every effort to retard the investigation of the commissioners, and after all this previous knowledge, the right hon. gent. retains him in his employment paymaster. What then, is the reason for this most extraordinary conduct? It is, sir, that hon. Trotter's case was sub judice, and the right hon. gent. does not wish to prejudge him on his trial. The right hon. gent has this evening declared a Trotter is dismissed, when he is as much sub judice as he has been at any period since the commissions finished their exa-
358
mination. Mr. Trotter has not been formally condemned by the house, for we have found him guilty only collaterally, our resolution on Monday evening being exclusively directed against lord Melville. Perhaps, sir, the right hon gent. was alarmed by the impression made by our proceedings, (and they were well calculated to make an impression on persons like the right hon. gent.,) and by a sudden impulse of feeling thought it most prudent to discharge Mr. Trotter without further delay. I cannot impute this decision to any other principle, for ail the reasons that operated for retaining Trotter for several months back still continue in force.—The next feature in the very extraordinary speech of the right hon. gent. were the arguments he used for the lenient application of our resolutions against lord Melville, and the circumstances on which this lenity is to be founded. Perhaps, in what I am now about to say, the right hon. gent. may think me bitter and rancorous, but, in spite of this, I feel myself called on to say that I shall never sit in this house and patiently hear these extravagant panegyrics on lord Melville's public conduct. I am at a loss where to find what are the circumstances which are to incline us so powerfully to mercy. What particular claims does he possess to induce the house to pass over his aggravated offence with a comparatively trifling punishment? Is this motive to lenity to be found in the eagerness which his lordship has ever shewn to heap up emoluments, and to systematize corruption? Is it in the gift of the chamberlainship of Fife granted to his wife, with arrears to a vast amount, procured under false pretences? Is it in procuring a year ago fifteen hundred a year in addition, not, sir, the salary of first lord of the admiralty, for I know that is very inadequately paid, but in addition to his salary as lord privy seal for Scotland? But, sir, the right hon. gent. lays a great deal of stress on his discovering no political or party partialities in the appointment of officers, either for the naval or military service. I deny, sir, that there is the least merit in this supposed impartiality. It is what every minister, whatever he is, is obliged to preserve an appearance of, as on open dereliction of it would be instant disgrace. I need not remind the house that lord North sent sir Charles Saunders and admiral keppel to Faulkland Islands, though that expedition unfortunately failed. Indeed party distinctions were almost always from necessity overlooked. But, sir, I cannot hear the

359
right hon. gent. stating that the noble lord was free from party violence, without minding the house of one or two circumstances, which demonstrate the existence of party spirit in all its most intolerant and disgusting features. I shall mention one, sir, which fell within my own knowledge, and which will fully illustrate my position. At a period of the late war, when the danger of invasion was supposed to be at the height, when offer a voluntary service were eagerly accepted, a numerous and loyal body of men in Tavistock made a tender of their services. The tender was refused by this self same moderate lord Melville, on the sole ground, for no other could be alleged, that the corps, when raised, was to be commanded by the late duke of Bedford. It may perhaps be imagined, that my feelings at the recollection of the deceased are so strong as to hurry me into some degree of exaggeration; but I solemnly protest that I am stating the matter precisely as it happened. And yet, sir, we are to hear of lord Melville's moderation and perfect freedom from all party spirit. There is another circumstance, which also pretty strongly illustrates his lordship's forbearance and superiority to any of the workings of the angry passions. It is well known that the dean of the faculty of advocates in Edinburgh is generally the most eminent person in the profession, and that it is seldom customary to interfere with him from any political considerations. Yet this mild and moderate lord Melville actually did interfere, and by employing all the influence of government against the hon. Henry Erskine, a gentleman confessedly the most eminent at the Scotch bar, was actually dispossessed of a situation which he had for many years held with the greatest honour and credit. So much, sir, for the boasted liberallity of the noble lord, which we are called on to look to for a motive to influence our decision!—As to the favour bestowed on two noble lords, on which the right hon. gent. rested so much stress, I entirely agree with my hon. friend near me (Mr. Grey) in every one of his observations. The right hon. gent. says, that my two hon. friends must possess more than Spartan virtue to be able to follow that line of accusation against the noble lord which they had pursued. If extraordinary exertions in virtue were required, I do not know any men in whom they would be more readily found than in my hon. friends. But I must beg leave to say, that they are under no obligations to the noble lord for the defence he made of those relations,
360
to whom they were naturally so strongly attached, Sir Charles Grey and sir John Jarvis, were selected for a very difficult service in the West- Indies, which they performed with gallantry. Some misunderstanding, however, arising, they returned, and a charge was preferred against them in this house. If I recollect right, there were three divisions on the subject, when the minority were successively thirteen, fourteen, and seventeen, and this was the formidable phalanx which the noble lord had so much merit in combating. I take it for granted that he believed the charge to be false; and if he did believe it to be unfounded, what merit had he in defending the gallant officers? It was no more than an indispensible duty to those whom he had employed on a difficult service, which they executed with promptitude, vigour, and success. If this be merit, it is impossible to say, sir, how far the line of obligation may be extended.—An hon. gent. under the gallery (Mr. Samuel Thornton), has given a curious reason for voting for the resolutions on Monday night, on which it is impossible for me not to make a few observations. He says, that he voted for the motion conceiving the noble lord guilty of a certain degree of negligence and inattention. I confess I am utterly astonished at such a declaration, after attending to the language of our resolution, that the noble lord had been guilty of a gross violation of an act of parliament, and a high breach of duty. Surely, sir, this heavy charge is not to be confounded with inattention and negligence. How the hon. member could have misunderstood them, is to me incomprehensible, as they were particularly objected to on the other side of the house, With respect to the resolutions, it appears to me that they complete the criminal part of the charge against the noble lord, and I am not at present for pressing any further proceedings in that way. If the attorney general is to proceed against him for refunding the money, derived from profits of money misapplied, this will be by civil, and not by criminal action, for recovery of money is always ranked among the civil actions. The same observation will apply to any action for recovering grants obtained under false pretences. I have the less objection to press the motion in the mean time, on the grounds of the pledge which the rt. hon. gent. has night so distinctly given to the house. I find, sir, after a careful examination, that during his majesty's long reign, now a period of nearly forty-five years, only the late duke of Devonshire and

361
myself, have been dismissed his majesty's councils, and I assure you, sir, we want no such person as the noble lord to be our associate. I had almost forgotten Mr. Grattan, who had the like fortune in Ireland. I believe the representatives of the late duke of Devonshire would have no objection, and I am sure I should be proud in his joining our small circle. None of us could, however, be proud of any connexion with such a man as lord Melville has shewn himself to be throughout his whole career of life. I have said, sir, that I would not now press the motion to a discussion, in consequence of the right hon. gent.'s pledge, but I should be grieved indeed to see the resolutions passed without being followed by some lasting result. Such a work as that which we on Monday accomplished must not be suffered to pass away unimproved. From one end of the empire to the other the people Will rejoice in the hope that a better system is a about to be adopted, and we must not let their just expectations be disappointed. It is necessary for us by making lord Melville a signal mark of the vengeance of this house to shew the country that we are indeed their representatives; that we are determined equally to watch over their property and their liberties. The public have received our work with the purest gratitude, but is there no part of this great work to belong to the government?—Is his majesty to have no opportunity of manifesting his paternal interests on the subject? In What situation do we leave our sovereign? The people applaud us in the warmest terms. They say the house of commons have taken up our cause againt the whole host of contractors and peculators. The house of lords may do the same; and shall not our beneficent sovereign have an opportunity of expressing the warm interest he takes in every plan for alleviating the burdens and improving the condition of his people? I admire this house as the corner stone of the constitution—as the source of all reforms and improvements—as the balance by which the constitution is kept in purity and vigour. But I do not wish to exclude the monarchy from its proper share in every beneficent work. I think our resolutions ought to be presented to the throne. Should the house of lords also do the same thing, his majesty might thus be prevented from expressing his dissatisfaction on the subject, to the great prejudice of the people of England. Is that the situation in which ministers ought to leave their sovereign? The house may depend upon it, that this question will be a subject of consideration out of
362
doors for a long period of time, and that it will be agitated over and over again. It is materially connected with other abuses, and involves the dearest interest of the country. It should be remembered, that Great Britain is at present involved in a struggle which occasions considerable ferment in the public mind; and therefore the public ought to be convinced that substantial justice is done to them. Neglect on this topic will enable those who are inimical to monarchical government to draw a line of distinction between the monarchical part of the constitution and the house of commons; they feeling no mark of disapproval from his majesty similar to that expressed by this house. I Warn ministers not to leave it possible for such language to be held. Let them consider it as a question involving the dearest interests of the country, and the honour the sovereign whom they serve. Trusting, therefore, that ministers will do their duty, I have no Objection that the motion should be withdrawn, in the confidence of a more complete and satisfactory explanation and conclusion at a future day.
Mr. Wilberforcesaid that perhaps there never was a time when parliament were called upon to interfere in a matter of such importance as on the present occasion, and more important resolutions than those which passed on a former night, were never agitated in that house. As guardians of the constitution, the house were met there to defend it from any inroads that might be made upon it, and he considered the resolutions which had been recently adopted as the most likely way to prevent danger to the constitution of the country, from the abuse of extraordinary power lodged in the hands of an individual. It behoved parliament to interfere whenever the public trust was abused or misapplied, and they should take every occasion to punish the offenders. This was the foremost of its duties. It was his opinion, and he mentioned it with deference, that it was the duty of parliament to inquire into all public abuses, and to follow up their resolutions by a minute investigation. He had declared his opinion on this matter on a former night, and he was perfectly satisfied with the sentiments he had delivered. When he voted the night before last, it was from strong sense of public duty, and his desire to maintain the character and reputation of that house. He came down to the house this night without any expectation of a measure similar to that proposed by the hon. gent.; being brought

363
forward. He had not had any communication with a single individual upon the subject; and he confessed it was not without some surprise, that he heard such a measure brought forward at the present time. He did not say that he should oppose the expediency of the measure of some future period., and vote against it, but he should not vote for it at this time. An hon. gent. had said, that the present motion was a direct corollary of the resolutions of a former night. What occasion then was there for any delay, and why did not the present motion immediately follow the former resolutions? Upon a conviction of the necessity of the vote he then gave, he might have felt it his duty then to have supported this. But, at the same time, he thought circumstances had, since then, been considerably changed, by the resignation of the noble lord, whom we were informed, had since retired from office. He had heard, with considerable pain, the sentiments delivered by a right hon. gent. (Mr. Canning); and he felt the dangerous consequences that were likely to ensue upon the avowal and maintenance of such pernicious principles. He felt as strongly as that right hon. gent. the impropriety of acting from party motives, and he strongly censured such as did. But the right hon. gent. argued thus: "because I vote for you, you must in return vote for me." This, he thought, such an accommodation as was calculated to defeat the ends of justice. He thought it was a proof of honourable confidence, when a minister employed persons that differed from him in sentiment; and he could not but commend the noble lord, and every other person who acted in the same manner. The hon. member concluded, by entreating the hon. mover of the motion, not to do away the happy effect of the vote of the former evening, by attempting to go farther than some, he was persuaded, would think it their duty to accompany him. Governed by no popular feeling, he Would not say, whether he would or would not vote for the measure, but warmly urged the hon. gent. to withdraw his motion.
Mr. Fullerhoped the hon. gent. would sift the matter to the bottom, and not allow the depredators on the public to go undetected and unpunished. If there were a grain of ipecacuanha or of emetic tartar in the world, he trusted it would be administered to the delinquents, to oblige them to disgorge their ill-gotten gains. The proceedings of Monday would be nugatory if
364
they were not followed up by some motion like the present; at the same time he thought that the house should not be too precipitate in their steps; and he was not sure that it was adviseable to press it forward so rapidly as was proposed by the hon. gentleman.
Mr. David Scott.—Sir, I merely rise to express some reasons which I should hope would, in some degree, operate with the hon. mover to withdraw the present motion. I should previously apologize to the house for intruding, while under such severe indisposition, as I fear will scarce enable me to make myself heard. Sir, the hon. gent. who brought forward the resolutions on Monday, and other gentlemen on the same side of the question, used as their strongest argument, that the public looked to the virtue and dignity of the house for immediate justice, and for such severe resolutions as then were moved. The resolution being then carried respecting lord Melville, I mean to say no more upon it, except that God knows, the public must think it sufficiently severe. If the present one proposed was carried, what would the public say to it? They would, sir, instead of ascribing it to justice, to virtue, and a proper, dignified conduct in the house, ascribe it to what the hon. gent. below me (Mr. Fox), has so much dwelt upon, bitterness and rancour. They would say, this noble lord, after full forty years of most meritorious services to the state, and most of these in the highest situations, has had a very unmerited return, severe in the extreme, so much so, that all these measures taken by the house, must certainly have arisen, not from public virtue, but from a most persevering vindictive spirit. Sir, this conclusion is the more natural when we look to the character of that noble lord throughout the country. As to his being concerned in any sort of peculation, it is totally out of the question. No man whatever, I conceive, could believe a thing of the sort. There is no man that has the honour of his acquaintance, who does not know him to be incapable of benefiting by the public money, or by any other thing not perfectly honourable. Such suspicion could scarce arise in the mind of any person, as indeed being directly contrary to the habits of his life. No man has ever valued money less; indeed, from what we all know, if he had chosen to benefit by the public money, he might have had millions. On the contrary, those who have the pleasure of knowing

365
him best, I believe know, that if he made the two ends meet at the end of the year, he was well pleased. Much has been said about enmity and illiberality, I believe, sir, that all who know his lordship as well as I do, know him to be as honourable, liberal, and humane a character as ever existed. The subject which the hon. member below (Mr. Fox) urged so much, of his lordship's violence in turning out the dean of faculty, I must take the liberty of saying, is completely unfounded. Lord Melville had no more to do in the turning him out than you had. The dean of faculty, sir, is elected by the majority of the votes of that respectable body, over whom he presides, and no individual, however powerful, could influence them in their choice. I must also touch on something which fell from another hon. member of Ireland below me, who was offended with the right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Canning) saying that no British lawyer would have so acted. The hon. Irish member I see does not know that we commonly, when speaking of British subjects, call them English, be they English, Scotch, or Irish; he therefore, I hope, will never be offended with the word English being applied in future to express any of his majesty's subjects, or suppose it can be meant as an allusion to any particular part of the united kingdom.
Mr. Kinnairdsaid, that it was not his intention to have said any thing on the present question; had it not been in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. member who spoke last, founded on the observation of a right hon. gent. opposite to him (Mr. Canning). That right hon. gent. had said, that no man could reproach lord Melville with being a bitter political adversary. There was a country which was probably known to the right hon. gent. only by the account given of it by Dr. Johnson. In that country (Scotland) lord Melville was known to be a bitter political adversary, and he was therefore the more surprised to hear the hon. member who spoke last, who was a native of Scotland, say, that lord Melville did not exert his influence in that country, in a particular instance, which had been alluded to by an hon. gent. near him. He would ask that hon. gent. or any other member of the house, to step forward and say that lord Melville had not exerted all his political influence, and in consequence had succeeded in turning off from a post of honour in the faculty of advocates, a gentleman who was an honour and an ornament to his profession. He trusted the time was
366
not far distant when Scotland would be able to shake off the yoke of the noble lord, and to vindicate the insult which had, through his means, been offered to one of the most learned and best beloved men in the country.
The Secretary of war(Mr. William Dundas) said, that he did not expect that he should have felt himself called on to make any to make any observations in the course of agitating the present question. He was aware that it would shew very bad taste in him to interfere, and therefore it was not his intention to have done so. Here, however, he felt himself called on by the hon. gent. who had just sat down. How had the hon. gent. found out that lord Melville was a bitter political adversary? Was it by going to his country mansion, and dwelling with him for weeks or months at a time, by mixing in his convivial moments, that he had acquired that knowledge? Had the hon. gent. only gone to the noble lord in his moments of conviviality, now to rise up against him in the hour of his need, when the hon. gent. was not called on, when, in fact, it was in a manner understood that the motion was to be withdrawn, and that only for the sake of introducing extraneous observations and allegations against him? On such conduct he knew he needed to make no comment. He was conscious that the generous feelings in the breasts of Englishmen would speak more forcibly against such a practice than any thing he could say. With respect to the gentleman who had been deprived of the office of dean of the faculty of advocates, the case had been altogether misrepresented. What was the fact? That gentleman's attending a meeting of the friends of the people in Edinburgh, when democratic principles were attempted to be disseminated throughout the country; his conduct excited the indignation of the advocates, and animated by the esprit du crops, as he might call it, they unanimously concurred in depriving that gentleman of an office, of which there was no former instance of exclusion.
Mr. Foxbegged leave to remark, that whatever had fallen from his hon. friend near him (Mr. Kinnaird), had been extorted by the remarks of the right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Canning).
Mr. Kinnairdthought that the right hon. gent. had effectually displayed his bad taste in attacking him in the manner he had done. Was he to be reproached with ingratitude or any improper feeling, because living in

367
the same county with lord Melville, no stranger to lord Mellville's agreeable convivial qualities, he had occasionally mixed in company with him, and had even been pleased with his society; he had now, when called on by his parliamentary duty, discharged that duty with fidelity, though to the exposure of any thing blameable in lord Melville's conduct? The hon. gent. begged pardon of the house for noticing this indecent reproach which had been thrown out against him. In doing so, he meant only to put himself right with the house, without any regard whatever to the right hon. gent.
Mr. Ellisonbegged pardon of the house while he performed his duty in shortly stating his sentiments on this subject. He had come down the other night, as he had today, with every wish to check peculation, and with every intention to follow up the resolutions of the house, as far as justice might seem to warrant. Expecting that the whole crime would be made out before the house ought to be called on to pass sentence, he on the former night voted for the committee, thinking that any sentence before the gravamen was made out, was worse than any punishment which the house might afterwards feel itself called on to inflict. The house, however, having determined that there was no necessity for a committee in the first instance, he came down this night with a determination to lend every aid in his power to bring the guilty to punishment, to pledge himself to assist any class of men to whatever party they might belong, who who would institute an enquiry, and punish abuses in every department.
Mr. Whitbreadhoped it would not be necessary for him to make any apology for offering a few observations on what had been said. He had been arraigned by two right hon. gentlemen, both this night and on the former night, for the way in which he had opened the business. On the former night he had been accused of too much passion in his statement. As he was conscious of feeling nothing of the kind in his mind, he hoped the right hon. gent. would do him the justice to suppose that he had misconceived him in this respect. As to his statement of this night, he denied that he had blamed lord Melville for tendering in his resignation, He thought, on the contrary, that noble lord was right in retiring; but he must be of opinion that ministers were reprehensible in allowing him. There was this difference between him and Mr. Trotter; Mr. Trotter had been dismissed; he had re-
368
tired! He ought to have been dismissed as well as Mr. Trotter. The hon. gent., however, had been arraigned, as being nearly connected with sir Charles Grey, and also with sir John Jervis, with having omitted to recollect that the noble lord whom he now accused, had been the advocate and supporter of the two hon. characters. It never, however, entered into his mind that those two persons did owe any obligation to lord Melville. He had never considered lord Melville as their advocate. But, supposing it to have been the case, what was meant to he inferred from the fact? Was it to be alleged that the support which lord Melville then gave his two noble friends was a job, and that he (Mr. Whitbread) was now bound to do a job for lord Melville? Sir Charles Grey then stood on his trial. He was acquitted, and was twice thanked by that house for his conduct. Lord Melville, it may be said, moved for those thanks. Be it so. But would it be said he did so without thinking them merited? Far more, would it be urged, because lord Melville chose on that occasion to abandon his duty, that the hon. member and an hon. friend of his (Mr. Grey) were now called on to desert their duty? The right hon. gent. opposite had given a promise that night, that lord Melville should never again hold any office of trust in the management of public affairs; but might not his majesty change his advisers, and might not lord Melville be then again admitted into his councils? What means had the king of knowing what was done hi that house? Had the right hon. gent. communicated their resolutions to his majesty? That could not be; else he must have been dismissed, and would not have been allowed to resign. The hon. member felt anxious that the house should stand high in the public opinion; he felt doubly so, after the proceedings of the other night, lest it should be again let down. He begged to be allowed to state the way in which matters stood on the morning when they last adjourned. Many members were anxious that the concluding motion should then be made. He intimated his intention of bringing it forward that very night. Nothing fell from him indicative of any intention to relinquish his motion; he only wished to postpone the moving it for a few hours on account of the exhausted state of the house. The right hon. gent., without assigning any reason for the additional delay, proposed an adjournment for thirty-six hours. This Was objected to by his hon. friend (Mr. fox),

369
unless it was understood that in the interval no public business should take place; and the right hon. gent. with a countenance which he (Mr. W.) should not easily forget, said, upon every view of the case, it would be better to adjourn. Could it, however, be in the contemplation of the house, that this delay was for the purpose of allowing lord Melville time to resign? If any member, however, found themselves taken by surprise, he should withdraw his motion, but at the same time he knew that was not a thing calculated to satisfy the public. He said so, not in any spirit of resentment against lord Melville, as if this resolution were necessary to make him feel his situation. If he had any feelings, and the hon. member entertained no doubt he had, nothing could ring them more than the resolution already passed by that house. He was conscious the sense of the house went with him, that it was necessary that lord Melville should never again hold any office of trust. All, therefore, that he desired was to find out some way of entering this opinion on the journals of the house, and that the motion had on that account been withdrawn. The parallels which had been set up as to the motions against ministers being allowed to drop on their resignation, did not at all apply. They were made on the ground of incapacity; this was founded on a delinquency. He know that in common cases, to be expunged from the list of the privy council was no disgrace. It had occurred to his hon. friend (Mr. Fox). The right hon. gent. then in the plenitude of his power, had recommended it as a measure proper for his majesty's adoption. He had, however, since retracted that opinion, and had recommended to his majesty not only to restore him to that honour, but to promote him to his highest confidence. He had asked pardon for his offence before God and man. But, could ever such a recommendation avail in favour of lord Melville; after the resolutions adopted by that house?—He was happy to understand that the Bank was not so much to blame as he had supposed; and also to learn, by what fell from the right hon. gent. (Mr. Canning), that the mode of conducting business in his office was entirely changed, such would always happen when principals began to do their duty. But, why, he must ask, was Trotter dismissed, and Wilson not? The right hon. gent. had said, wilson was a deserving officer. With all respect for the assertion of the right hon. gent. he, how-
370
ever could not help having also a high respect for the authority and opinion of the commissioners of naval enquiry; they said, and the hon. member said too, that Wilson was an improper person to continue in his present or in any other situation of public trust.—The hon. gent. said he could not, after what had fallen from hon. friends of his, and from other hon. gentlemen, whose support he was anxious to procure, refuse, in the mean time, to withdraw his motion. He was anxious, however, lest the public should suppose that in passing their former resolutions, they had only adopted in a heat what they were unwilling to follow up; he, therefore, had to suggest what he hoped would meet the opinion of every gentleman present, that a copy of the resolutions of that house, of the former night, be laid before his majesty without any comment. By this means he conceived that the house and the public might be satisfied that lord Melville could not, with any consistency, be restored to any office of emolument for trust under the crown. This, he thought, was the best mode of conciliating different opinions—He then moved, "that his original motion be withdrawn;" which being agreed to, the hon, gent. proposed, "that the resolutions of Monday be entered, as read;" which was also agreed to. His next motion was, "that these resolutions, be laid before his majesty." This motion was agreed to. nem.con
Mr. Whitbreadagain rose, and said, that he thought the most solemn mode of carrying such an important step into execution ought to be adopted on the present occasion; on that account he should propose, "that these resolutions be laid before his majesty by the whole house."
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he understood the hon. gent. to have meant that the resolution should be laid before his majesty without any comment, and in the most simple form.
Mr. Whitbreadreplied, that it was his intention they should be presented without comment, but not without form. He quoted several precedents to prove the propriety of the mode of proceeding which he proposed, and observed, that even had no precedent existed, that course ought to be pursued which gave most weight and dignity to the transactions.—The motion was then agreed to, and it was ordered that such of the members as were of his majesty's most hon. privy council should

371
wait on his majesty, to know when he would be graciously pleased to receive the same.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that hon. gent. had already given a general notice of some motions he intended to make after the recess: he should wish to be informed, if possible, on what day he intended to bring them forward.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid, that on the very first day after the conclusion of the holidays, he meant to move that instructions be given to the attorney-general to proceed legally against lord Melville and Mr. Trotter; and also, that an enquiry should be instituted for the investigation of those parts of the 10th report which had not been already considered by the house. There was one circumstance which he only wished to notice, though he did not mean to be deemed too severe in so doing. He merely meant to suggest to that hon. and learned gent. (the attorney-general) that it might be proper to introduce a restraining bill, to prevent the noble lord making away with his property. He did not mean, however, by stating this, to take the house surprise.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhinted, that it was not impossible his majesty might intimate his wish to receive the resolutions before the adjournment. The extent of the adjournment had usually been from Thursday to Monday se'nnight; but he should propose that, in this instance, it might be from Thursday to Thursday fortnight.
Mr. Serjeant Best gave notice, that on an early day after the recess, he should submit a motion to the house founded on the 11th report of the commissioners of naval equiry—Adjourned

MINUTES
—The royal assent was given by commission to the Militia Reduction bill, the Spanish Trade bill, the American Treaty bill, the Foreign Prize Ships' bill, the Bengal Supreme Council, the Innkeepers' Rates bill, the Edinburgh Police bill, and six private bills.—The Irish Militia Reduction bill, the Irish Spirit Permit bill, Bowyer's Lottery bill the London Bread Assize bill, and some private bills, were read a third time, and passed.—Lord Hawkesbury laid on the table, by command of his majesty, copies of correspondence between the admiralty and navy board, and an account of the number of guns and carronades on board of certain ships, pursuant to address of that house.—Adjourned.