majesty had declined giving any direct answer till he should consult certain powers on the continent, and particularly Russia, with which he maintained relations of amity, and confidential intercourse. Since that, the right hon. gentleman had stated to the house, on the day on which he brought forward the ways and means of the year, the probability of important co-operation on the continent, for which he then made a provision. A considerable interval had since elapsed, yet no communication had been made to parliament on the subject. He had abstained hitherto from calling for any information, for the purpose of giving his majesty's ministers sufficient time to decide upon the nature of the communication they might deem expedient to make. He did not then press for an answer, nor wish to embarrass his majesty's ministers, but considering the very advanced period of the session, and the satisfaction some certain information on the subject would afford the house, he trusted some communication would be made before the close of the session. The Chancellor of the Exchequer assured the house, that, whenever his majesty's government should be enabled to advise his majesty to make such communication, they would avail themselves of the earliest opportunity of doing so. But certainly the communications between his majesty and these powers were not at present such as to enable him to state any thing with precision, and he was sure the hon. gentleman would not expect from him under such circumstances. to make any direct reply as matter of opinion or conjecture. Mr. Fox thought the right hon. gentleman might at least have stated, whether there was any reasonable hope, that a communication would be made during the present session. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated to the house, that the present state of the communications between his majesty's government and the continent was not such as to enable him to make any communication on the subject with certainty; and that it could not be expected from him to advance any thing upon conjecture. Mr. Fox observed, that the right hon: gentleman seemed to lay much stress on the certainty. Though he may not at present be able to make any precise communication, he may in some time. What that communication may be, he did not take upon him to say. His hon. friend had adverted to the advanced period of the session, and the importance of having some information on this subject previous to their separation. Though the right hon. gentleman might not, in the present instance, instance, be able to state any thing with certainty, he might at least inform the house, whether they might entertain a reasonable hope of such a communication during the session? To this no reply was given. MILITARY COMMISSION. The house, on the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, went into a committee on the bill for appointing commissioners to inquire into the military expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated to the committee, that it was his intention to follow the model of the act of 1782, for a similar commission, from which very important advantages had resulted. He proposed to appoint persons as commissioners who were intimately acquainted with the military expenditure and the civil branches of the army.. In the selection he had made, he had not consulted any party views, nor had he chosen any individual, who, according to every thing he could learn, in the inquiries which he had thought it his duty to make, was not most likely, from ability and experience, to discharge the duties of the commission with fidelity, impartiality, and effect. Considering the complicated nature of the transactions they were to inquire into, he had thought it right to select the commissioners from military persons acquainted with military affairs, from persons acquainted with the law, and from mercantile gentlemen. The right hon. gentleman then enumerated the commissioners separately, stating the merits and qualifications of each. The list was as follows, and was unanimously agreed to: Military. Major-general Oakes, Colonel Beckwith, Lieutenant-colonel Drinkwater. Law. Mr. Cox, Master in Chancery, Mr. Cumming. Mr. Giles observed that there were no powers given by the bill to the commissioners to inquire into the department of the commander in chief, and proposed that their inquiries should be retrospective. Mr. Huskisson stated that the object of the commission was to inquire into expenditure, and that the commander in chief had no concern with that, except in issuing orders to the different military boards through his private secretary. The Secretary at War informed the committee, that the commander in chief had nothing to do with the expenditure, and that all money transactions took place in the office of the secretary secretary at war, and the other branches of the military department, which were responsible. Mr. Rose fully agreed to the proposition made by the learned and hon. gentleman opposite, for investing the commissioners with a retrospective power. He hoped that they would include in their inquiries the balance due from the executors of Lord Holland to the public. He disclaimed all personal motives in this observation, as also any wish to lessen the misconduct of Lord Melville, by a comparative reference to the case of Lord Holland, when he asserted that by the former the public had not lost a shilling, by the latter a considerable sum. Mr. Fox explained the circumstances attending the balances due from his noble father to the public. He was desirous that the commissioners should possess the most extensive powers, and he assured the hon. gentleman that not one shilling of the money so stated to belong to the public had come into his hands. Mr. Rose disavowed any suspicion of that nature; and . Mr. Fox explained. Mr. Ponsonby did not imagine the hon. gentleman could possibly mean to intimate that his hon. friend had got in his pocket any of the public money, nor did he suppose that he meant to extenuate Lord Melville's guilt by his observations. He knew the purity of the hon. gentleman's motives, and was willing to give him just as much credit for the one of these assertions as the other. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was averse to trying any transaction by rules subsequently adopted. The restrictions on the use of public money at the period alluded to were so lax, that no imputation could attach to any one who had then availed themselves of that advantage. He disapproved of giving to the commissioners full retrospective powers, unless some specific object was pointed out to them, to which they should direct their attention. In what a situation would the public credit of any government be, if the events of the preceding fifteen or twenty years were raked up for the purpose of discovering every petty irregularity? With all the vigilance that could be used, it was impossible that these should not at times be fallen into. Were this to be the practice, there would be little temptation for any man to undertake an office of public trust. Mr. Whitbread observed, that if the commissioners of naval inquiry had not possessed a power of retrospective examination, mination, those abuses would not have been developed which had lately occupied so much of the attention of the house. Mr. Grey supported the proposition of his hon. friend, and replied to some of the observations made by the chancellor of the exchequer. He congratulated the house on the circumstance that the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Rosé) though in office for twenty years, had not met with a single abuse to attack, but that he was obliged to go fifty years back to find food for his zeal. After some observations from Mr. Rose, Mr. Fox, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Whitbread, the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed as an amendment to Mr. Giles's motion, that the commissioners be instructed to examine whether any abuses do exist, and, " in such cases as may appear to them proper," whether any abuses have existed, &c. Mr. Fox, Mr. Grey, Mr. Giles, Mr. W. Smith, and Mr. Whitbread, opposed this amendment, on the ground that it was advisable to use the same words in this act as were inserted in the act constituting the commission of naval inquiry, and asked why there should be any difference between them? The Attorney General, Mr. Devereux, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Barton, Mr. Ellison, Mr. S. Bourne, and Sir W. Burroughs, defended the amendment, asserting the propriety of such a qualification of the original motion. The house then divided. On the division there appeared for the words proposed by the chancellor of the exchequer 98. Against them 42. Majority 56. Mr. Giles proposed to give larger powers to call for accounts, as in the cases of bankruptcy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, there were equal powers here, as far as regarded public purposes, and objected to the unnecessary exposure of private transactions. The words of the bill were, after some conversation, agreed to. Mr. Giles wished to have inserted in the obligation to answer questions, the word "lawful," in order to omit the specific provision against self-crimination, which he considered as a libel on the common law. The Chancellor of the Exchequer preferred retaining the specific provision, after the example of the act of naval inquiry. The original words were allowed to stand. Mr. Giles wished some provision to compel persons in the situation of Mr. Sprott to answer. The chancellor said every person was obliged to answer who was concerned with the Vol. III. 1805. C public public money. Mr. Grey supported Mr. Giles's proposition. Mr. Bragge Bathurst thought some provision necessary in this case. The original words were allowed to stand. After some further conversation the report was ordered to be received the next day. On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the house went into a committee on the naval inquiry bill. The report was agreed to, and ordered to be reported next day, with a notice from the Chancellor of the Exchequer of moving a clause of distinction as to future inquiry, on the report.Adjourned. HOUSE OF LORDS. FRIDAY, MAY 17. The royal assent was given by commission to the Irish postage duty bill, and several other bills. The commissioners were the Lord Chancellor, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Lord Walsingham. The property duty amendment bill, commissioners of taxes name bill, and Irish first fruits bill, were brought from the commons, and read a first time. Earl Darnley fixed his motion relative to the management of the navy for Friday next; for which day their lordships were ordered to be summoned. On the motion of Lord Auckland, a committee of the lords who might be present during the session, was appointed to provide for the warming and cleaning of the house, and appointing proper apartments for the noble lord on the woolsack, and for the officers of the house.-Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS. FRIDAY, MAY 17. In consequence of a summons from the lords, the speaker went up accompanied by several of the members, and on his return acquainted the house that the royal assent had been given by commission to the Irish loan bill, the Irish post road bill, the Irish promissory notes bill, the Irish silver token bill, the Scotch excise incorporation bill, and other private bills. A conversation took place on the second reading of the bill appointing a salary to the chairman of the Salford and Lancaster |