' commissioners, it cannot but be attended with the most bene'ficial consequences to the future welfare and prosperity of this ' kingdom.'

2. "That in furtherance of the intention of the House of Commons expressed in such resolutions, his majesty, by his warrant dated June 26th, 1782, directed that the salary of the treasurer of the navy should be increased to the sum of 4000l. per annum, in full satisfaction of all wages, and fees, and other profits and emoluments theretofore enjoyed by former treasurers.

3. "That it appears to this committee, that during the treasurership of the right honourable Isaac Barré, the conditions of the aforesaid warrant were strictly complied with; that the whole of the money issued from the exchequer to Mr. Barré for naval services was lodged in the bank; that it was never drawn from thence previously to its being advanced to the sub-accountants, to be applied to the public service; that during the time Mr Barré acted as treasurer and ex-treasurer, he had not in his possession or custody any of the public money, and that neither he nor the paymaster of the navy did derivé any profit or advantage from the use or employment thereof.

4. "That the right honourable Henry Dundas, now Lord Viscount Melville, succeeded to the office of treasurer of the navy on the 19th of August, 1782, when a further addition was made to the salary of the said office, in order to produce a net annual income of 4000l. after the payment of all taxes and charges on the same; and that this additional salary was considered by the said Lord Viscount Melville as granted to him in lieu of all wages, fees, profits, and other emoluments, enjoyed by former treasurers.

5. "That the said Lord Viscount Melville continued in the said office till the 10th of April, 1783; that being asked whether he derived any advantage from the use of the public money during that period, he, in his examination before the commissioners of naval inquiry, declined answering any question on that head, but that he has since, in a letter written to the said commissioners, and dated the 28th of March last, declared that previous to 1786, he did not derive any advantage from the use or employment of any monies issued for carrying on the service of the navy; but Mr. Douglas, who was paymaster, being dead, and his lordship having refused to answer any question on this head as aforesaid, no evidence has been obtained as to the application of monies issued for the service of the navy, or the mode of drawing the same from the bank during this period.

6. "That the honourable C. Townshend, now Lord Bayning, held the office of treasurer of the navy from the r1th of April, 1783, to the 4th of January, 1784, and that from the examination of his lordship, it appears that, during his treasurership, no part of the money issued for the service of the navy was applied to his private use or advantage, and that he does not believe that Mr. Douglas, who acted under him as paymaster; derived any profit or advantage from the use or employment of the public money except the money issued for the payment of exchequer fees.

7. "That the right honourable Henry Dundas was re-appointed treasurer of the navy on the 5th of January, 1784, and continued in the said office until the 1st of June, 1800.

8. "That in te year 1785, an act of parliament was passed, 25 Geo. III. chap. 31. intituled, An Act for better regulating the office of treasurer of his majesty's navy;' whereby it is directed, that no money shall be issued from the treasury to the treasurers of the navy; but that all monies issued for naval services shall be paid to the bank on account of naval services, and placed to the account of the treasurer of the navy, and shall not be paid out of the bank unless for naval services, and in pursuance of draughts signed by the treasurer, or some person or persons authorized by him; which draughts shall specify the heads of service to which such sums are to be applied, and that the regulations under the said act shall take place from the 31st of July, 1785.

9. "That the execution of the said act was postponed till the month of January, 1786, and from that time till the month of June, 1800, when Lord Melville left the office of treasurer, contrary to the practice established in the treasurership of the right honourable Isaac Barré, contrary to the resolutions of the House of Commons of 18th of June, 1782; and in defiance of the provisions of the above-mentioned act of the 25th of Geo. III. chap. 31. large sums of money were, under pretence of naval services, and by a scandalous evasion of the act, at various times drawn from the bank and invested in exchequer and navy bills, lent upon the security of stock, employed in dicounting private bills, in purchasing bank and East-India stock, and used in various ways for the purposes of private emolument.

IO. "That Alexander Trotter, Esq. paymaster of the navy, was the person by whom, or in whose name, the public money was thus employed, and that in so doing he acted with the knowledge and consent of Lord Viscount Melville; to whom he was at the same time private agent, and for whose use or benefit he occasionally laid out from 10 to 20,000l. without considering whether he was previously in advance to his lordship, and whether such advances were made from his public or private balances.

II. "That the right honourable 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. chap. 31. has been guilty of a gross violation of the law, and a high breach of duty.

12. "That it further appears, that, subsequent to the appointment of Lord Melville, as treasurer of the navy, in 1784, and during the time he held that office, large sums of money issued for the service of the navy, were applied to other services; and that the said Lord Melville, in a letter, written in answer to a precept issued by the commissioners of naval enquiry, requiring an account of money received by him, or any person on his account, or by his order, from the paymaster of the navy, and also of the time when, and the persons by whom the same were returned to the

banks, or paymaster, has declared, that he has no materials by which he could make up such an account, and that if he had materials, he could not do it without disclosing delicate and confidential transactions of government, which his duty to the public must have restrained him from revealing.

13. "That Lord Melville, in applying monies issued for the service of the navy to other services, stated to have been of so delicate and confidential a nature, that, in his opinion, no account can or ought to be given of them, has acted in a manner inconsistent with his duty, and incompatible with those securities which the legislature has provided for the proper application of the public money."

The first resolution being put, Mr. Pitt moved the previous question thereon. After the resolution had been supported by Lord Henry Petty, Mr. Tierney, and Mr. Ponsonby; and opposed by the Attorney-General, Mr. Canning, and the Master of the Rolls,

Mr. Fox said he should be extremely unwilling to suffer this question to be put without expressing his sentiments upon it. For if, unhappily, the vote of the House should be opposite to that which he hoped and wished, he should feel very uneasy indeed that his name should partake of the universal odium that must attach to any decision tending to second such notorious delinquency as the report on the table exposed. He could never reconcile it to his mind to be silent upon such an occasion, lest he should be suspected of declining to mark with the strongest reprobation guilt of a nature so glaring, that any man who gave it the sanction of his vote, or attempted to protect it from punishment, must be viewed in the light of an accomplice, or one at least disposed to become the accomplice of similar transactions. Before he proceeded to the merits of the charges under consideration, he thought it proper to notice the arguments of the gentlemen on the other side, not because he considered those arguments possessed of any intrinsic force, but lest from the authority of the persons from whom they proceeded they might have the effect of leading the House to a decision, which, if it should correspond with the wishes of those by whom such arguments were used, must destroy its character with the country and with all Europe. The first gentleman with whom he would begin was the master of the rolls. That learned gentleman had directed the whole of his observations. to shew that the House should go into a committee in order to ascertain whether the breach of the act of parliament, not of which Lord Melville stood charged, but of which he confessed himself guilty, proceeded from corrupt motives. If corruption consisted merely in a man putting money into his own pocket, according to the vulgar conception, perhaps

1

some of the deductions of the learned gentleman would be right. But he would contend that nothing could be more corrupt, in his opinion, than to permit a man's own agent to convert the money of others to his own private emolument. This was the amount of Lord Melville's confession; and although it might be possible, from a further examination, to prove the noble lord more guilty, it did appear to him utterly impossible to prove him less so. For the most conclusive evidence of the noble lord's corruption, he would only refer to that paragraph in the report, in which the noble lord stated, that although he knew his agent Trotter was applying the public money to other purposes than that for which it was legally intended, he did not prohibit him from doing so, What was that, he would ask, but complete corruption, even taking the case simpliciter; but combining it with other circumstances, could any man entertain a doubt upon the subject of his guilt? What greater aggravation of his delinquency in tolerating the breach of his own act of parliament could be imagined than allowing his agent to misapply the public money, for the safe custody of which that act was intended?

But it was pretended that no loss had accrued to the public from this malversation, and a very singular argument was advanced, that as there was no loss there was no risk. Now, said Mr. Fox, it unfortunately happened in certain parts of my life, which I do not quote with a view to recommend my example to others, that I was in the habits of engaging in certain speculations, which are commonly called gambling. If a man should, in that kind of speculation, win a large sum of money, I am sure that an argument would not thence arise that he had run no risk. I rather think the natural inference would be that his risk was considerable. Probably, however, in this case, Lord Melville did take care that Trotter should not lose any money. Trotter was the confidential agent of Lord Melville, and Lord Melville was the confidential agent of the state. Therefore, in this sort of speculation in which Trotter engaged, Lord Melville could guard against much risk. If two men play at cards together, and a third person stands behind one of them and throws hints to the other, he that receives the hints is tolerably sure of winning. Just so in this business; Lord Melville knew when the navy bills were likely to be funded, and Mr. Trotter could act upon the information he might receive. Will any one say, then, that from such acting upon such information, no loss would accrue to the public? On the contrary, I maintain, that the public did suffer a loss of one per cent. upon the discount of such bills. But, then, the learned

gentlemen desired the House to go into an inquiry, in order to obtain farther evidence. He would appeal to the judgment of the House, whether any farther evidence could be necessary to enable it to come to a decided opinion upon the breach of law which the noble lord himself confessed. That opinion the House was called on to declare. The public had a right to demand it from them.

It was said, that the House ought not to think of acting judicially, of inflicting punishment without the fullest examination into the merits of the accusation, and affording the accused the fullest opportunity of vindicating himself. And that so far as the confession of Lord Melville went, he had been already tried. He would, however, defy those gentlemen who rested their objection so much upon the question of punishment, to shew, that it was at all in the power of that House to inflict any punishment on such delinquents as Lord Melville and Trotter. But if the House should determine on prosecution in any way with a view to punishment; whether by directing the attorney-general to prosecute; whether by moving an impeachment, or preparing a bill of pains and penalties, which perhaps would be the more proper mode of proceeding, he would maintain that the confession of the party accused would be evidence to proceed upon, and that the House was now called on to act, as it must in every similar case, as a grand jury, to pronounce upon the guilt of the accused. It was strange to hear it asserted, that the accused was not guilty, because no loss had accrued from this scandalous transaction. To those to whom the loss of honour was nothing, perhaps, it might be said that no loss had arisen. But what was the loss of honour to that government which, after such a palpable instance of delinquency, should preserve its connection with the delinquent? And what the loss of character and honour to that House, should it attempt by its vote, to screen such a delinquent?-infinitely more than any sum of money could amount to.

Whatever the learned gentleman to whom he had already adverted might assert, he could not see that any farther inquiry could be necessary to enable the House to decide that a great public officer, who allowed his servants to make illicit profits from the public money, in the teeth of an act of parliament, was guilty of a most serious offence. The guilt consisted in the violation of the law, and it never could be pretended that any such violation could be innocent. private individuals became the objects of suspicion, it was their own affair; but when suspicion attached to men of high rank in the state, it became a matter of great public interest. Putting all the circumstances of the case together,

When