try. He knew that, even at the utmost height of party spirit, charges such as these had seldom been preferred, and it was singular that the only instance of a similar charge, for a great number of years, was brought by lord Melville himself against Sir Thomas Rumbold, for malversations in India. He then went to observe, that the commissioners had discovered deficiencies, for a number of years, in the treasurer's department, of 674,000l. a year. It then became necessary to call lord Melville and Mr. Trotter before them, and there they had an opportunity of exculpating themselves if they could, which was a sufficient refutation of the argument that this report of the commissioners was only an ex parte proceeding. But lord Melville could not answer, because he destroyed the documents, and Mr. Trotter could only answer that there were some advances made to other departments, the amount of which he could not tell. Mr. Trotter, it appeared, opened five different accounts-his own accounthis account as paymaster of the navy-his first separate accounthis broker's account-and Jellico's account, and when asked for what they were intended, he had the assurance to tell the commissioners that they had no right to inter. fere in his private affairs. Trotter was also found busy in buying all sorts of stock, to sell again to advantage, and lord Melville, on whom the responsibility attached, was never known to interfere in it, though, if he happened to have been disappointed in his speculations, the public money was lost, and inevitable ruin must have been the consequence. The broker, Mark Sprott, who might have given a clue to these transactions, said that he was ad.

Mr.

vised by his lawyer (Mr. Serj Shepherd) to keep a religious sile Lord Melville, however, owned he knew of the transactions, not the details, and if he kne either, he held him to be equ criminal. Mr. Trotter was in habit of making lord Melville p niary advances, to a large amo and as the former had no for when the latter took him unde patronage, he must have known the advances were made out of public money. He here comme on the evidence of lord Melville Mr. Trotter, observing that other paymasters of the navy, s the act of parliament, lord Bayn lord Harrowby, Mr. Bragge, Mr. Tierney, had no hesitation declaring, upon oath, that they received no emolument from application of the public mo while lord Melville alone was dr to evasive answers, and Trot screening himself under a claus the act of parliament, allowing nesses to decline questions w might criminate themselves,refuse give any answer. After having horted gentlemen of all descript in that house to join with hin bringing such enormous delinqu to punishment, he concluded reading thirteen resolutions, fo ed on the subject matter of speech, but added that, for the sent, he should only press the eleven of them.

The chancellor of the exche observed, that, whatever else report of the commissioners m contain, there was not a single v in it which could imply that mischief had arisen to the public that the delay of even a single had occurred in the dischargi any of the demands of the sear

It was not therefore very fair in the bonourable gentleman to endeavour to excite the passions, in a cause which ought rather to be examined with great coolness and deliberation. He admitted that the contents of the report were of a grave and serious nature, and that it was important to have them fully investigated, and that, with reference to any instance of irregularity, it was the daty of the house to set their mark upon the transaction, after a fall and fair consideration of the case; but at present he saw nothing to justify his consent. He thought the best course to be pursued would be to refer the report to a select committee, in order to decide upon the Whole of the case. In judging of this transaction, the house was to take into its consideration the motives, the circumstances, and the necessity which led to it, although it might have been a violation of the law. If they should decide upon its merits, upon a consideration of whether any loss had arisen, and that it was not justifiable in the noble lord to connive at the practices of his paymaster, still much of that would depend on the circumstance, the extent, and the danger that had been incurred. It did not appear that lord Melville had been aware of the private purposes of profit to which his treasurer had applied the money; the sums vested in the house of Messrs. Coutts and co. did not appear to have been lodged there for the benefit of the noble lord, or his paymaster, but in the course of business; and the same practice prerailed, of drawing in gross for small payments instead of detail. The pay. master had to advance from day to day to the sub-accountants, in order to afford the means of satisfying

assignments, for which the parties had a right to demand immediate payment. After a variety of other observations, he moved, as an amendment, "that the tenth report of "the commissioners of naval en"quiry be referred to a select com"mittee of the house," but after. wards, on the suggestion of Mr. Fox, he consented to move the previous question.

Lord Henry Petty supported the motion, and rested much upon the ground that lord Melville had acted in violation of the law.

The Attorney General spoke in favour of the amendment, and Mr. Tierney against it. The latter said, that, during the time he held the office of treasurer of the navy, he felt no inconvenience result from a compliance with the act of parliament, and that the report, like that of the committee on the Middlesex election, should be taken as conclusive evidence against lord Melville. He had already as fair a trial as the nature of the case would admit. of, and no committee of that house could throw any more light upon the subject.

Mr Canning thought the justice of the house must require of it to give an opportunity of examining whether the whole of the charge against the noble lord might not be done away; for there was no analogy between this case and that referred to, of the Middlesex election, where the parties were fully heard by themselves and counsel, and allowed to cross examine witnesses : but here the parties, instead of being fully heard, were not heard at all. The breach of the law, in this instance, was by no means clear; for the law could scarcely have meant that which was physically impossible.

In several cases, where large sums of money were to be paid to numerous claimants, in the course of a few days, and the majority of these claims under twenty pounds, and many as low as a few shillings, it was not to be expected that each individual should be paid by a draft upon the bank of England. If the doctrine laid down, in the report of the committee of 1782, was correct, the whole of the money in the hands of the treasurer was not that for which he was responsible to the public, but to the individuals to whom these sums belonged. Upon the whole, he did not think that this amounted to any thing more than a case of suspicion, and concluded a long and able speech by an explanation of his own conduct at the time that he was before the commissioners.

Mr. George Ponsonby thought that the delay of even ten years of enquiry would not enable the house to say that lord Melville did not connive at his paymaster's taking the money out of the bank, and applying it to purposes of private emolu. ment. If this charge was only supported by ex parte evidence, it must be remembered that it was the evidence of the party accused, stating every thing he thought proper in his own defence. Lord Melville distinctly admitted, that he knew of Mr. Trotter's taking money from the bank, and placing it at his private banker's. Mr. Trotter was his general agent. As he allowed him to continue in the practice, it must be supposed there was some fellowfeeling between them. It was monstrous language to say that lord Melville was excusable, because no loss had accrued to the public. To forge any of those bills was felony, and if an expert forger was detected

in having counterfeited one of the it would be no defence for him, i court of justice, to say, or ever prove, that he had the money to place it when it became due. Sim to that was the case of Mr. Trot who, as an expert calculator, n know to what extent he could the public money, before the mands for it could come round u him. This might be a proof of skill, but not of his innocence. trusted that the house would ad the original proposition, as he sure it must be their general se ment that lord Melville could be defended; and he observed, t no gentleman spoke for him day, who had not been his collea in office.

The Master of the Rolls was an enquiry upon the principles jurisprudence, which required whole of the case to be gone i before any man could be pronoun guilty. The object of the naval c missioners was not to try crimin or to convict men upon their o confession, but to enquire i abuses, and the house could therefore, upon their mere rep convict a man without hearing dence at their bar. It did appear to him that any thing personal corruption was against the noble lord.

pro

Mr. Fox contended that noth could be more corrupt than to p mit a man's own agent to con the money of others to his own vate purposes. This appeared fi the noble lord's own confessi and, though further examinat might shew him to be more gui it could not shew him less so than acknowledged himself to be. was true that no loss accrued to public from this malversation, it

not follow that there was no risk incurred. Lord Melville indeed might secure Mr. Trotter from any loss, because he knew the navy bills were likely to be funded. Mr. Trotter might act upon his information, and, by this sort of speculation, the pubhe actually did suffer a loss of one per cent. upon the discount of the s. That house had not any power to inflict an adequate punish meat on such delinquents as lord Melville and Mr. Trotter; but if it should determine on any prosecution, with a view to punishment, he maintained that the confession of the party accused would be evidence to proceed upon, and the house was called upon to act as a grand jury to pronounce upon the guilt of the party. The guilt consisted in the violation of the law, and it Bever could be pretended that such afoundation was innocent. In many cases the most severe punishments attached to offences to which the charge of moral turpitude did not apply; such as many of the offences against our revenue laws: therefore the breach of the law was proof against lord Melville, and on this proof, which arose out of the nature of the law, he had no hesitation to pronounce him guilty. He could Rot say there was any direct evidence that lord Melville participated in the profits of Trotter, but there certainly was strong grounds of sus. picion. When he held at the same time the office of treasurer of the mary and secretary of state, and it was stated, on the other side of the house, that he only received the salary of the latter office, and Bothing for his treasurership. He did Bot then, it seems, accept any thing of the legal salary; but did it not justify something more than suspicion

་

that he fondly clung to the office of his friend, Mr. Trotter, and when there were so many, even of his own relations too, who world have been glad to accept the office of treasurer? It had been said that the house should proceed with the utmost delicacy in deciding upon character, but the character of lord Melville was already so completely destroyed, in the public estimation for ever, that were the vote of this night unanimous in his favour, it would not have the slightest effect in wiping away the stigma universally affixed to his name. What was the world to think of retaining a man at the head of the naval department, who, when asked if he derived any advantage from the use of the publie money, was obliged equivocally to answer, "to the best of my recol lection I never did?" If a man were asked if he was not, on a particular night, in a particular room, with John a Noaks, it might be very well to answer that, to the best of his recollection, he was not there; but if he were asked whether John a Noaks did not charge him with an attempt to pick his pockets, what would be the inference if he were to answer that John a Noaks did not, to the best of his recollection 2

Lord Castlereagh exhorted the house not to be led away, by voci feration, into a premature decision, on a subject of so much magnitude, but to defer it to a deliberate enquiry.

Mr. Wilberforce did not see that any of the friends of lord Melville at all affected to deny the bare broad fact of his having borrowed ten or twenty thousand pounds, at a time, from one of his clerks, and had afterwards admitted, that he had allowed the same man to remove large sums of public money to his private ban F 4

kers,

kers. Such a circumstance, in itself, afforded a strong ground of suspicion, and the loss and mischief such a practice might have brought upon the naval department, would have been incalculable. The house was now appealed to, as the constitutional guardian of the rights of the people, and he should ill discharge his duty to the public, if he did not give his most cordial and sincere support to the present motion.

After a few observations from lord Andover, Mr. Wallace, sir Charles Price, and lord Archibald Hamilton, the house divided : for Mr. Whitbread's motion, 216, against it, 216,-and the numbers being thus equal, the speaker gave his casting vote in favour of Mr. Whitbread. Some conversation afterwards occurred, upon amend ments proposed by Mr. Pitt, in the wording the resolutions, which, how ever, suffered no material alteration. Mr. Whitbread then moved an address to his majesty, to remove lord Melville from his councils and presence for ever; but, on the suggestion of Mr. Pitt, it was agreed to postpone the consideration of this motion till the Wednesday following, and, at five o'clock in the morning, the house adjourned.

On Wednesday the chancellor of the exchequer, as soon as he entered the house, informed it, that lord Melville had resigned the office of first lord of the admiralty. Mr. Whitbread then moved, that the eleventh resolution, charging lord Melville with being privy to, and conniving at, the withdrawing, for purposes of private interest or emoJument, sums issued to him as treasurer of the navy, be read, which being done accordingly, he again rose, and stated, that though the notice

now given could not have been unexpected to any one, yet it could not satisfy either him, that house, or the public. Lord Melville had not been dismissed; he gave in his resignation, which was no more than any honourable man might do, from feelings of his own. The result of the proceedings on the last night had diffused such universally joy through the country, that the representatives of the people may

"Read their history in a nations eyes,"

but lord Melville might be restored to-morrow, and they would have no such cause of exultation, if they did not render it impossible for his majesty ever to call him to his councils. He thought it right to tell his majesty, in the most solemn manner, that it was necessary to remove lord Melville from all the offices he holds under the crown. He would go further, and though he understood, from the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Canning,) that Mr. Trotter had been dismissed, it was his intention, immediately after the holidays, to move, that his majesty's attorney general be directed to proceed against lord Melville and Mr. Trotter, for the recovery of the profits so unjustly taken from the public purse. And it was also his intention to move, after the holidays, for a select committee, to enquire into the transfers from one service to another, and all the other transactions referred to in the report. He further observed, that the right honourable gentleman opposite him (Mr. Pitt,) was himself implicated, and it was in vain for him to exculpate himself. What he alluded to was, the quietus of 24,000l. to Mr. Jellico. No satisfaction, he said, would be afforded to public justice,

that