litary details, sir C. Stuart, M. G. Oakes, and colonel Beckwith of the guards: for the civil œconomy, lieutenant general Drinkwater: for the legal part, Mr. Cox. and Mr. Cumming and for mercantile judgment, Mr. Peters and Mr. C. Bosanquet. He then moved, "that "they shall enquire into all the "abuses that do exist in the said "department." To which Mr. Giles moved an amendment, "that "the words have existed,' be in"serted."

Mr. Rose objected to the amendment, as going too far back, as, for in-tance, the sum of half a million of money was left unaccounted for by the late lord Holland, at his death, and had not been recovered for the public, for fourteen years afterwards, Had this sum been laid out, at compound interest, for that length of time, it would have produced half a million, which was lost to the pub. lic, and yet his executors did not seem to think themselves accountable for the profits.

Mr. Fox assured the house, that he had never received one shilling of these profits, which he was ready to prove, and he believed the present governor of Gibraltar (his brother, general Fox) could safely do the same. For his own part, when he found there was so great an arrear, he declined acting as an execator. After some further conversation, the original motion was carried.

On the 23d, Mr. Serjeant Best called the attention of the house of commons to the 11th report of the naval commissioners, on which it appeared, that enormous sums of the public money had been raised by loans, by order of the ministers, for alledged services, without the

consent of that house, and contrary to the established constitution of the country. He then referred to several resolutions of the house, made for the purpose of guarding against any encroachment of the preroga. tive of the crown, and the public purse, even by the issue of exchequer bills. This report shewed, that 4,300,000l. had lately been raised by the issue of navy bills, without any communication being made to the house upon the subject; though, for the greatest part of the time, parliament had been sitting. According to the sound principles of the constitution, no navy bills could be issued, but for stores or actual services; and for the purpose of preventing any further violation of the law and constitution, he moved, " for a select committee, to consider of the 11th naval re"port."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer concurred in the general objects of the motion, but as the navy bills, issued for secret services, could only be enquired into by a secret committee he moved, as an amendment, to insert the words, "except as far 66 as relates to 100,000l. issued for

secret naval services," which, after some conversation, was agreed to.

On the 24th, Earl Darnley moved, "for a select committee of the "house of lords, to take into con"sideration the several papers on "the table, respecting the state of "the navy." The object he professed to have in view, was, a comparison between the late and present board of admiralty. The practice of the former, he said, was to dismiss useless ships, which crowded without strengthening the navy; to confine the building to the king's H 2

yards;

yards; to dismiss useless officers and artisans; and to put a stop to profusion and abuses. The system of the present board was exactly the reverse; and it was necessary it should be enquired into.

Lord Melville observed, that the proposed enquiry, instead of being a comparison between the late and present board of admiralty, would be one between the late and every other board of admiralty for the last twenty years; all of which pursued the system of building in merchants' yards. A number of flotillas, collected at Boulogne, and on the French, Flemish and Dutch coasts, rendered an increase necessary of vessels of a smaller and lighter description, for the service of the North Sea, the blockade of the enemy's ports, in the narrow part of the Channel, and the protection of our own coast. This increase, during his administration, amounted to 168 vessels. Finding, also, that the ships of the line were not, either in number or quality, such as he thought the situation required, he had given orders for building some in the merchants' yards, as the king's yards could afford but small and slow supply, from the men being employed in those repairs, which must always be inseparable from a state of war. Even carl St. Vincent himself, (in a letter to sir A. S. Hammond,) enforced the necessity of contracting for as many 74 gun ships, as persons could be found to undertake, though, for some unaccountable reason, that noble lord appeared to have altered his opinion. His lordship concluded by saying, that he had no anxiety as to the result of the motion, and left it entirely to the diseretion of the house.

Earl St. Vincent explained, that the change of opinion imputed to him, arose from the lamentable deficiency of timber in his majesty's dock yards, which required to be replenished, before any new contracts were entered into. He maintained, that ten ships of the line might be annually launched from the kings yards, without impeding the necessary repairs, or raising the wages of the workmen. He said, that in the whole navy board, there was not one member who did his duty to the public, or was competent to his office, with the exception of Mr. Markham, and hoped, in justice to the public, that they would all be ignominiously dismissed. As to the personal attack of the noble lord, he treated it with contempt; and if the motion were rejected, he could not but consider it as an act of injustice to himself.

The duke of Clarence spoke in terms of the highest admiration of the naval administration of earl St. Vincent, and concluded a very able speech, by giving his hearty assent to the motion.

Lord Sidmouth could not see any public advantage likely to result from the adoption of this motion, he therefore had to regret, that he could not, consistently with his sense of duty, give his vote with the wishes of his noble friend, (lord St. Vincent,) for going into the proposed committee.

Lord Holland and lord Suffolk supported the enquiry, and lord Hawkesbury and the earl of Buckinghamshire opposed it. After which a division ensued, contents, 33,-non-contents, 88,-majority, 55.

The report of the prize agency bill was brought up, on the 5th day of

of June, in the house of commons, and several amendments, by sir W. Scott, were agreed to.

Mr. Johnstone animadverted, in strong terms, upon the conduct of the king's proctor, for having permitted his partner to act, in many cases, for the adverse party, and concluded by moving, that any "proctor, who shall allow his "partner to take the adverse side, "or who shall receive any part of "the profits from the proctor on "the other side, or any other person, shall, upon conviction thereof, be utterly excluded from the "profession, and also from any "place he may hold in the admi"ralty, or vice-admiralty courts, "and, for each offence, forfeit 500l." The clause was adopted, and the bill ordered for a third reading. The next debate of any consider able importance, occurred in the house of commons, on the 11th of Jane, when, previously to Mr. Whitbread's motion, for an impeachment against lord Melville, the Speaker acquainted the house, that he had received a letter from his lordship, requesting the permission of the house to attend and be heard, upon the subject of the reports of the naval commissioners. Upon the motion of Mr. R. Dundas (his lordship's son,) he was then conducted in by the Serjeant at Arms, to a chair placed for him within the bar; and having been seated for a few moments, he rose and addressed the house. For the detail of his speech, we must refer to the appendix; but the general purport of it was, an acknowledgment of his having appropriated the public money, entrusted to him for the service of the navy, to other public purposes; and a solemn denial of his ever having

derived any private benefit therefrom, or in any degree participated in the profits made by Mr. Trotter; he at the same time confessed, that he had applied the sum of 10,000l. in a way, which, consistently with private honour and public duty, he never could and never would reveal. After the conclusion of his speech, his lordship was conducted out with the same ceremony as on his introduction.

Mr. Whitbread, in adverting to the subject of his motion, commented on the observations made by the noble lord, and the unwillingness he shewed to put himself upon his trial, on the ground of there being no tribunal before which he could have justice, on account of the impressions made on the public mind against him. He had even stated, that the house had fettered itself by its own proceedings, and rendered itself incompetent to pass that vote, for which he now called upon it. This position the honourable gentleman denied, because there could be no bar to an impeachment by the commons of Great Britain. The civil suit instituted against him could be no bar, as there were many instances, in the courts of law, that a civil action, and a criminal prosecution, were instituted at the same time, even for an assault. As to the appeal made by the noble lord to the feelings of the house; though no man could be more alive to it than he was, yet it was only a common case with every man, who committed an act which subjected him to the animadversion of the law. The sort of defence made, was such, as rather to aggravate, than to do away what he was accused of: that he felt and suffered great degradation, was most true; but that punishment was not

II 3

sufficient,

RHODES

HOUSE

8

OXFORD

LINDABY

sufficient, and such new matter had come out, as rendered it impossible not to vote an impeachment, or some other mode of criminal proceeding. The conduct of the noble lord could not be blinked, but must come to a fair trial, before his innocence could be proved; he therefore, upon the report of the select committee, called upon the house to impeach him, on three distinct grounds: first, for the violation of the act of parliament; secondly, for having, by false pretences, obtained the public money; and, thirdly, for having participated in the emoluments derived from the use of the said money. Upon these three points he argued at great Jength, recapitulated the whole of the evidence, so often adverted to, and pursued the same line of observation which we have already detailed, in the course of these proceedings, as far as our limits would admit. He then concluded with moving, "that Henry lord viscount Melville be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanours."

Mr. Bond agreed with the last speaker, as to the necessity of the measure, but dissented from him respecting the mode proposed. He thought a criminal prosecution to be preferred, as it was less tedious and expensive, and full as likely to answer every end of public justice.

The Master of the Rolls thought that lord Melville had been already punished severely, by the erasure of his name from the councils of his sovereign, by his loss of place, and by his future disqualification; he therefore was of opinion, that any farther prosecution would be vexatious and unjust.

Earl Temple considered the noble lord as highly culpable, and trusted the house would not give up the

prosecution, corruption being s notoriously apparent, and the lay of the land so flagrantly outraged.

Mr. J. H. Brown considered th noble lord to have been alread sufficiently punished by the vote c the 8th of April, and the subsequen consequences of that vote, nor di he think the public looked for an thing further.

Mr. Alexander was of the sam opinion, but if the house was deter mined to carry the matter further restitution, sought through the at torney general, was the most pro per mode of redress to the public After some further conversation the chancellor of the exchequer (9 account of the lateness of the hour moved an adjournment, which wa unanimously agreed to, and, at o'clock in the morning, the hous adjourned.

When this debate was resumed, o Wednesday the 12th, Mr. Leyceste said, that after the house had adopte a civil mode of proceeding, for th recovery of the money alledged t have been withdrawn from the pub lic, it would be inconsistent in then to order a criminal prosecution also: he thought the ends of justice were satisfied, that lord Melville had bee sufficiently punished, and that enoug had been done for example; h should therefore vote against the motion.

Mr. Wilberforce said, whateve doubts he might have entertainc before, the speech of the noble lor himself convinced him, that a crimi nal prosecution should be instituted before the ends of substantial justic could be satisfied: what affected hin principally in that speech, was the avowal of the noble lord, that he had applied 10,000l., of which he would give no account to that house, nor to