to his private use, and then it would only follow, that they had been advanced to him from time to time as a temporary accommodation. It had been argued by the noble lord opposite (Lord Henry Petty) that these sums had never been repaid. If that had been proved he should admit that it would be a sufficient reason for the house to depart from its adopted proceedings, in order to institute a criminal prosecution. But he wished that noble lord to bear in mind that the charge was not supported by the evidence; and that the hon. gentleman even, who had brought forward the motion, had not asserted that these sums had not been repaid. It was stated in the report that these sums were repaid, but without interest. He could have wished that the noble lord had examined the evidence before he contradicted that fact. The hon. member here called the attention of the house to the answers of Mr. Trotter, to two questions on this subject, where he stated that these sums must have been paid to him, and to him as paymaster, and to his answer, that not only these sums, but all other advances to Lord Melville, since the year 1786, had since been repaid. He asked, therefore, whether in fairness or candour any mind could suppose that these sums had not been repaid? If it could be proved that they had not been repaid, that would make out a stronger case than any that had yet been made, because it would prove an embezzlement of the public money. There was no proof that the public had lost a single shilling. On the whole, therefore, it appeared only, that in the course of 14 or 16 years, Lord Melville had been accommodated with sums to the amount of between 20 and 30,000l. As to the bond of release, he thought there was nothing extraordinary in the clause. Though such a clause was not usual in the precedents of bonds of release, he should not have thought it extraordinary if such a clause were presented to himself in a release, and he should not hesitate to sign it. It appeared by the evidence of one of the gentlemen that had been examined, that covenants to give up vouchers were frequent; and the introduction of this clause for burning of vouchers had arisen from the parties having been at the distance of 400 miles from each other when the release had been executed, and the inconvenience of transmitting the vouchers mutually such a distance. If this clause had come to their knowledge without any previous acquaintance with the circumstance of the destruction of vouchers, it would never have given rise to any unfavourable suspicions. All this, therefore, had been known previous to the civil suit; and it would therefore be inconsistent to alter the course of proceeding. He would ask, whe

ther

ther two processes could be instituted without subjecting the party to a double punishment? If they could not institute the criminal prosecution without interfering with the civil process, they ought not to prosecute at all. The noble lord had been already punished by the successive measures that had been taken with respect to him. The hon. gentleman who had brought forward the motion had stated, that the noble lord's resignation had been voluntary, and not in consequence of the resolutions of the house. But could any one seriously assert that he had not suffered in consequence of the resolutions of the house? He was himself of opinion, that the noble lord ought not to be further punished, because he had already suffered punishment to the utmost extent to which an impeachment would subject him. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Whitbread) had said, that he did not wish to carry the punishment a hair's breadth beyond what the ends of justice requir ed. But what was the end of justice? Not to crush the individual, but to make an example that might deter others from the commission of such crimes. Could any body suppose that Lord Melville had not been made an example of? They had only to consider what he was twelve months since, and to compare that with his present degraded and fallen state. He confessed that he thought the ends of justice were satisfied, that Lord Melville had been sufficiently punished, and that enough had been done for example, and he should therefore vote against the motion.

Mr. Wilberforce admitted that the hon. gentleman who had preceded him in the debate, had acted conformably to his usual character and conduct, and had discussed the question throughout the whole of his speech with that candour and moderation which became a member of the legislature. It was painful to him, after all that he had heard, to be com→ pelled still to dissent from the conclusions which the hon. gentleman had drawn, and particularly because he felt the difficulty and embarrassment in which the house was placed. But whatever might be his feelings on the occasion, or his sense of these embarrassments, they should all give way to the dictates of duty, and for the ends of substantial justice. He had come down to the house the preceding day with his mind discharged from the influence of what had passed, with a view to attend to what the noble lord had to urge in his defence, and in the expectation that any thing that was doubtful might be explained, and any thing that was wanted might be supplied. He had come to the house entertaining doubts. concerning

concerning the motion which was to be submitted to it. But whatever might have been the impression on his mind in that instance, the speech of the noble lord had convinced him that some further criminal prosecution was necessary before the ends of justice would be satisfied. The principles too which the noble lord had laid down, and particularly one of them, were such as to call for severe observation. It might be said that they had now arrived at a new era in the course of the proceedings on this business. They had been in such a state with respect to several particulars, that they could not look for information to any other than his lordship; and though, when permitted to attend in that house, he had been laid under restrictions in another place, it was to have been expected, that notwithstanding these restrictions, he would not have omitted to have entered into a defence of his conduct fairly and temperately. But so far had the speech of the noble lord been from a justification of his conduct, or from proving the steps harsh which the house had taken, that it strengthened the charges already affecting him. He should not go over the whole of the arguments of the noble lord, because they had been infinitely better refuted by the hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Whitbread), and because he should only injure that hon. gentleman's arguments, if he were to attempt to repeat them. It would also be painful to him to go through the detail, for which reason he should abstain almost altogether the consideration. But there were one or two topics on which he felt it indispensably necessary for him to touch. The noble lord in his speech had acknowledged no criminality; he had attempted to justify his conduct, and stated that the law of the land had not been violated. In support of this assertion he had argued from the statute, and from the conduct of subsequent treasurers of the navy, and in par ticular of Lord Harrowby. As to the argument founded on the provisions of the statute, the noble lord insisted that the statute only required that the money should not be drawn from the bank but for naval services, which regulation of the statute had not been violated. But was it to be supposed, that the legislature could in such a statute regulate the manner in which every minute sum was to be drawn, or that having directed that the money was not to be drawn but for naval services, it was not intended that the money, when drawn, was not to be applied to any but naval services? Could it be endured, that the money should be stated to have been drawn for naval services, and the application of it to

any

any other purpose than naval services should be attempted to be justified by any such miserable quibble? It had also been said by the noble lord that Lord Harrowby had doubted of the propriety of the practice, and that it was continued two years after he had been in office. When that noble lord had found that the practice was illegal, he reformed it. Every body who knew Lord Harrowby, knew that his health had been such as not to allow him to attend, when appointed, to the duties of his office; and every body who knew that noble lord, knew also, that when afterwards his state of health permitted him to discharge these duties fully, he had conducted the business of his department in strict conformity with the law, and with a rigid adherence to the letter and spirit of the statute. It was unnecessary to argue that the act of parliament was clear and imperative on this head. The manner in which it had originated, the discussions that had preceded it, and the circumstances that had attended its enactment, all threw a light on its meaning. The great and main object of the statute was, to prevent balances from accumulating in the hands of sub-accomptants, and to make the bank the only banker to the public for the navy money. He remembered an attempt that had been made to justify the practice of making private profit by the use of such money on a former occasion, by a reference to the practice of former treasurers. But on this subject two things were to be considered; first, that the case had been altered when the law proscribed the practice; and next, that the continuance of the practice was aggravated by the circumstances with respect to the noble lord under which the law had passed. For what purpose was an additional salary of 2000l. given to the noble lord, if not as a compensation for his having been deprived of the emoluments arising from the use of the public money? It is admitted that the treasurer was not to make profit by the public money, and is the distinction to be tolerated that what the law does not allow to the treasurer of the navy, shall be permitted to the paymaster? What is there in the law that does. not apply to either as well as to the other? He was sure that the provisions of the law were equally clear as to both. What the noble lord could have meant by stating he did not know of Mr. Trotter's having derived any profit from the use of the public money, but by his share of the interest it bore when lodged in Messrs. Coutts's, he could not perceive. The noble lord seemed throughout a great part of his speech to argue, that Mr. Trotter had not derived any private profit

in drawing the money from the bank, though here he admitted it (a cry of no! no!). He had made a note on the circumstance at the time, but if he misunderstood the noble lord, he was glad to be set right. It appeared to him, however, a narrow and weak distinction that had been put between the purposes for which the money had been drawn, and the uses to which it had been applied. The noble lord had said, that if he had been asked a question directly, as to that point, he could not have had any hesitation in answering it. The conclusion, therefore, was, that Mr. Trotter had been permitted to draw money from the bank, for the purpose of applying it to purposes of private emolument. He was sorry to be obliged to state it, but this was not satisfactory to him, nor could it be so to any one who looked for substantial information. He could recollect but one part in which the noble lord appeared to him to be satisfactory, and that was his reason for keeping his place of treasurer of the navy in consequence of its having been connected with the superintendance of Indian affairs, which that noble lord had presided over and regulated whilst at the head of the board of control, in a manner most honourable to himself and beneficial to the country and the company and here he begged leave to bear testimony, in justice to that noble, lord, to the purity and integrity with which he had administered the affairs of the India company during the whole time he presided over them, particularly in his appointments to high and important offices in that service. He had an opportunity of being acquainted with many such appointments, where the noble lord knew nothing of the person he appointed but from his integrity and ability. He had heard one person (Lord Teignmouth), who had been governor-general of India by his lordship's appointment, say, that during the whole time of his being in that important station he had never been applied to by his lordship for any one thing as a matter of favour, which could have been in the smallest degree disagreeable to his feelings. With regard to the burning of the papers and the clause in the release for that purpose, he observed that many thought that a doubtful transaction. For his own part, if, as it had been put by the learned gentleman (Mr. Leycester), that stood by itself, and they had not known of any destruction of papers, he thought that it would not have given rise to any suspicion. But he agreed with his right hon. friend (Mr. Bond) who had remarked upon the coincidence of the time, and the destruction of the papers, whilst the parties were at such a distance

from