natory resolutions of the 8th April. If it had been the pleasure of the house to pursue a different course, he was persuaded that considerable embarrassment would have been avoided in the prosecution of the inquiry. But it did not however follow, that because there might have been something erroneous in the beginning of the business, that therefore the house should stop short in the performance of its duty. If no farther steps were taken, he could not but say that full atonement would not be made to public justice. When gentlemen stated, that justice was already satisfied, and that it was not intended to follow up the delinquency of the accused beyond the resolutions of the 8th of April and their consequences, he felt some degree of surprise. Unless it was in contemplation to take further proceedings, in case any new matter of crimination should appear, why refer any charge to the consideration of the select committce? Unless something more was intended, the purpose of the select committee was quite nugatory. From the new matter which the report of that committee had disclosed, further proceedings appeared to him indispensably necessary. It was next to impossible that the civil suit which had been ordered by the house could lead to any satisfactory result, and therefore he should support the criminal process recommended by his right hon. friend. This process he would prefer to the proposition of impeachment, for the reasons stated by the right hon. mover of the amendment. He would prefer it on those grounds, that it would be more convenient, while it was equally calculated for purposes of justice; that it would be as efficacious in its inquiry, while it would be attended with less expence, and more expeditious in its decision. If, however, the criminal prosecution which the amendment proposed should not be acceded to, he was free to declare, that under the circumstances, he saw no alternative left but to vote for the impeachment. The right hon. gentleman concluded with repeating, that he felt the utmost pain from the irresistible necessity he was under, on this occasion, to sacrifice private feelings to the call of public duty.

Mr. Alexander considered the alleged offence of Lord Melville to partake much more of the character of the malum prohibitum, than the malum in se, and therefore that it was at the discretion of the house to pronounce what degree of punishment should attach to such an offence. Previous to the act of the 25th of the king, the practice with which Lord Melville was charged was not, either by common or statute law, deemed a crime

1

a crime-by that statute even the practice was merely prohibited, but no penalty was annexed to the continuance of it. It was therefore with the house to determine the penalty, and under all the circumstances, he really thought that a penalty sufficiently severe had already been inflicted upon the noble lord.

Mr. Wilberforce proposed, that on account of the lateness of the hour, the debate should be adjourned till the next day, but " go on! go on!" being the general cry of the house, Mr. Pytches rose, and stated, that according to his opinion Lord Melville would have done better had he requested some friend of his to tell the house that he acknowledged he had done wrong, and was sorry for it; instead of coming forward himself to make a speech, in which he most pertinaciously, asserted his innocence, and shewed not the least sign of any remorse of conscience. Had he manifested any thing like repentance, even though so late; had he even appealed to the feelings of the house, he might have met compassion. But from the whole of his demeanor, combined with all the circumstances of the case, he really thought him entirely undeserving of lenity, and should therefore vote for the impeachment.

Mr. Somer's Cocks thought the conduct of Lord Melville of such a nature that, however he might feel on seeing a man of his rank placed in such a situation, he could not help voting for farther prosecution. When he considered all the circumstances of this extraordinary case, he was surprised that any doubt should appear of the propriety of bringing the noble lord to trial. In the country nothing was to be heard in favour of the conduct of this delinquent; but since he came to town, and this was the first time he appeared in this unhappy business, he had heard many arguments used with a view to serve the cause of the noble lord. It was said, that other treasurers of the navy had made use of the public balances remaining in their hands as well as Lord Melville; but it was to be recollected that the legislature recorded their opinion of the impropriety of such conduct by passing an act against it, and, at the instance too of the noble lord himself. The proceedings on this occasion were called measures of party and persecution. But as to the latter charge, gentlemen should bear in mind the difference between persecution and prosecution. The former is an attempt to overwhelm a man by force and power the latter to bring a criminal to justice. Of which description, he would ask any fair, candid man, was the course pursued respecting Lord Melville? With respect to the im

Gg2

putation

putation of party, he believed the house would feel that if the members of that party, who generally acted in opposition to ministers, were not to vote against a minister charged with, or convicted of peculation, a corrupt minister would be tole rably secure of impunity. The imputation of party, however, should not be exclusively applied to the gentlemen who opposed Lord Melville. In point of fact, it appeared to be much more applicable to those who defended him, and who must be naturally influenced by feelings of party and private friendship. The cry of party, therefore, should not be raised on that side of the house. As to what was said respecting popular clamour, it was impossible that such delinquency as that of Lord Melville should not excite considerable clamour ; but the existence of that clamour furnished a strong reason to shew that Lord Melville ought to be brought to trial, in order to satisfy the people that parliament was ready to do them justice, by punishing the man who peculated their property.

Mr. Cartwright thought the object of public justice, whether for the purpose of example or punishment, already attained with respect to Lord Melville, and therefore would oppose any further proceedings in this case.

Lord Henry Petty, in reply to the observations made by the master of the rolls, said that both the noble lord who had appeared within the bar, and the learned gentleman, had, in fact, impeached the resolutions of the house by the manner in which they had attempted to reason on the construction of the act for the regulation of the navy office. It was to be remembered, that that act had been brought into the house by Lord Melville himself, and there could be no doubt on any man's mind as to the true intent and meaning of the act, when they looked back to the circumstances under which it was introduced. It was after the resolutions moved by Lord John Cavendish, after the memorable speech of Mr. Burke on the reform of the abuses of office, and after the various discussions that took place thereon, that this act was passed, and the distinct motive and end of it was, to prevent public officers from being private bankers, and to prevent the diversion of the public money to the purposes of private emolument. It was an act to remedy a grievance that had prevailed, and which was universally felt at the time as a gross abuse. The noble lord therefore, who yielded to the public sentiment in bringing in the bill, could not be ignorant of its true meaning, and it was idle to talk of its provisions not

having been violated, because it did not specify how long money drawn for specific naval services might be suffered to remain in the hands of the paymaster, in its transit from the bank to the pocket of the public creditor. It was obviously the spirit and letter of the act, that no money should be drawn but for specific services, and that it should be applied directly to the object. The simple question then was, whether this law had not been violated? Whether in various instances it had not been distinctly evaded-such as in the 40,000l. drawn for and given to Messrs. Boyd? And he asked how the learned gentleman could reason, that the law had not been broken when a fact so glaring stood uncontradicted? In truth, not the least palliation had been offered by the noble lord; nor did there appear in any part of the case any thing to support the reasoning of the learned gentleman. He was ready to confess that there might be circumstances attending the breach of a statute which might palliate and soften the departure, and to which the charge of a gross violation of law would not be applicable. A statute might be obsolete, or peculiar exigencies might arise to justify the departure from an act: but was this the case here? The noble lord had wilfully violated his own law, and in doing so he had been guilty of a high breach of his public duty. These were the resolutions of the house, and the truth of these resolutions could not be impeached. But the learned gentleman asked, why the house should go further, since no new circumstances had come out except the release? What, was the 22 or 23,000l. advanced to Lord Melville without interest no new circumstance? Was not the 22 or 23,000l.lent him, with interest, a new circumstance? and above all, was not the extraordinary fact of the 10,000l. found in his hands in 1789, a new circumstance? Was it not a new circumstance that Mr. Trotter had advanced money to Lord Melville's family and servants, since it must be known to the noble lord, that all such advances were made from the public money? Certainly most important matter had come out in the new inquiry, and above all he requested the house to pay attention to the discovery of the 10,000l. which Lord Melville owned to Mr. Trotter he had in his hands. Mr. Trotter was taken up by Lord Melville, no doubt, in a state of purity and innocence. He was unacquainted with the arts of office. He had a fair character, and it was to be presumed a clear conscience. In the duty that he owed to his patron, he would naturally look to him for instruction, but he would look also for example. And what

was

1

was the example he set him? He confessed to him he held 10,000l. of the public money in his own hands, and which was to be managed so as ultimately not to fall on Mr. Trotter. What a declaration with which to commence this connection! It is the prerogative of persons of high rank and station, to spread the influence of their example all around them. When such a hand as that of Lord Melville was put into the public purse, a thousand hands would imitate the example. When Mr. Trotter saw that his principal was so little scrupulous as to take 10,000l. out of the money intrusted to his care for his personal use, he must be from that instant initiated in the abuse of his trust. The noble lord had that day pretended that 20,0col. which he had also taken from the naval fund, he had employed in secret services for the management of Scotland; and he had, with a high tone, declared that he never did, and he never would communicate the application of this sum. At the time that the noble lord had presumed to do this, he was not in the situation of a confidential servant of his majesty. What were they to say then of this management, which was not even to be communicated to his principals? He violates the law; he diverts from the naval service 20,000l. which he must have obtained by a false pretence, and he loftily says, he will not disclose what he did with it, because it went for the management of Scotland. Not even to the right hon. gentleman, the confidential minister of the crown, to whom it was his duty to make known the transaction, did he communicate the use, for the right hon. gentleman owned that he was ignorant of it. Like the man of Ross he seems

to give by stealth;" but perhaps he now blushes "to find it fame." It was not, however, precisely the sort of fame which a statesman ought to covet-to give away the public money to unaccounted purposes. It did not appear that any hint of this sum was ever given to any one, nor did it appear that the 10,000l. was ever repaid. Indeed all that regards this 10,000l. was most suspicious. His words to Mr. Trotter, on the occasion of his telling him of his having the money, are most singular. He expresses to him his apprehension that he, Trotter, may ultimately suffer; and thus he put Mr. Trotter on his guard, and gave a sort of hint that he must take care of himself. Here perhaps was the source of all the traffic, and speculation and jobbing that followed, and particularly of that most notable novel discovery in book-keeping, known by the name of a mixed account! But it was said, that an impeachment before the lords was improper in this instance,