from each other, that this was a doubtful circumstance. The noble lord in his letter to the commissioners had stated, that he was in the habit of amusing himself occasionally with destroying useless papers (a loud cry of no, no; on which the hon. member consulted his copy of the report). He had mistaken a word. The noble lord had stated, that he employed himself in the occasional habit of destroying useless papers. When these circumstances were considered, it would be impossible to divest one's mind of the suspicion of some impropriety. But the topic upon which he felt most sensibly, the article in his lordship's speech which affected him most forcibly was, that on which he spoke of the 10,000l. which he had in his possession when Mr. Trotter had been appointed paymaster. Of the application of this sum, he had declared that he would give no account to that house, or to any other body or individual. It would have been surprising that any man should make such a declaration, but it was particularly astonishing in his lordship, who was so well acquainted with business, so well versed in history, so well skilled in the practice of the constitution, so well informed on the subject of legal delinquency, and so much in the habit of preparing the defences of others. What did it amount to but the avowal of a principle, which, if the house were once to recognize, would put an end to all the advantages of the constitution, and the most invaluable privileges of that house? It was the same as if the noble lord were at once to say, "I will be greater than the law; I will be superior to the constitution; I will do that.which both prohibit, and I will not be accountable to any authority for the trespass." When our sovereign ascends the throne to which he is entitled by hereditary right, it is required of him to take an oath that he will govern according to the laws. It is equally the law that no money voted by parliament should be expended but as the law directs. The noble lord had spent ten thousand pounds, and perhaps another ten thousand pounds, for which he refused to give any account. It was a libel on the constitution to suppose that any grievance could arise for which it did not point out a remedy. It was a principle of our happy constitution, and that which endeared it most to his enthusiastic love and admiration, that it was as capable of vigour and secrecy on some occasions as of openness and publicity in others. But the noble lord was prevented from any disclosure by considerations of public honour and private convenience. When the noble lord had accepted of a place in this country, he must have enVOL. III. 1805. tered I i tered into an obligation to discharge the duties of it according to law. What country the objectionable principle might be accommodated to, he knew not; but fure he was, that it was not calculated for the meridian of this country. This brought to his mind an anecdote of one of our own princes, who was most unprincipled and unfortunate, James II.; no, he meant another that was more profligate than unfortunate, his immediate predeceffor, Charles II. who, if he had had the benefit of fuch a principle as the noble lord's, need not have employed any chancellor of the exchequer, or reforted to the extraordinary means which he found neceffary to enable him to fupply his extravagancies. It could not be true that fuch a fecrecy was either effential to the dignity of the government or the fafety of the country. The anecdote he alluded to was one which is recorded of the obfervation made by a Mr. Gourney, on an occafion of one of the extraordinary means reforted to, to extract money in the reign of that profligate monarch. His obfervation had been, that a king of England, who governed by the laws, would be the greateft fovereign on earth, but that if he fhould not be the man of his people, he would be the weakeft. This had fuch an effect on the monarch as to put a stop to his extortions for a time. But they should look to the confequences that would refult from the principle of the noble lord, the measures of public corruption, fecret depravity, and undue influence that it would give rife to. The avowal of fuch a principle led one to think that there was fomething dark and myfterious in the tranfaction that would not bear the light, and he should only add that the fimple declaration of it was big with dangers which might not be forefeen. The main queftion was, in his mind, whether Lord Melville had not been already punished? and that would lead them to confider the nature and amount of his lordship's crime. He had formerly flated, that whether it were confidered with refpect to its intrinfic turpitude or its poffible confequences, it was a crime of the greatest magnitude. With relpect to the circumstances that had attended its commiffion, it appeared equally indefenfible. It had been committed by one acquainted with the laws and judicial proceedings of the country; it had not been committed in a hurry nor through paffion, but had been perfevered in for many years; fo that it was characterifed by its intenfity, if the expreffion might be allowed, on one hand, and its continuity on the other. It had been urged that the noble lord had already fuftained much punish ment; ment; but it was his opinion, that the ftriking him out of the lift of privy counfellors was the only punishment which he had yet fuffered. (A cry of no, no, from the treasury benches, and of hear, hear, from the oppofition.) The refolutions that the houfe had voted, pronouncing on his conduct, unquestionably formed no part of his punishment, because they might very properly precede the motion for impeachment. And if the hon. member who had brought forward this motion, had followed up the refolutions with a fimilar one, it would have been right in him to have taken the fenfe of the houfe on the refolutions firft, and on the question of guilt. Under all the circumstances of the cafe, confidering that fuch a crime had been committed, had been fo elucidated, fo juftified, and fo defended, he would rather that they should refcind all that had been done, and allow Lord Melville to be reftored to all his former diftinctions, than that they fhould ftop here, and not adopt any further criminal profecution for obtaining the purposes of fubftantial juftice. It had been argued by the learned gentleman that the criminal profecution would be inconfiftent with the regularity of their proceedings; but though there had been a variety in the measures they had adopted, yet that variety had arisen from the different circumstances in which, at dif ferent times, they had been placed. When the refolutions had been voted, and the vote for carrying them to the foot of the throne, the lights they then had were fufficient to juftify thefe proceedings. They had alfo in view the criminal profecution; and if his right hon. friend (Mr. Pitt) had intended, by advifing the name of the noble lord to be ftruck out of the lift of privy counsellors, to defeat the criminal proceeding, he ought to have ftated it to the houfe and given them a choice. In both these cases they had acted according to the lights they had, and in carrying up their sense of the conduct of the noble lord to the throne, they had only discharged a duty as a branch of the legislature. But he could not conceive that they by that precluded themselves from adopting any further proceedings. With regard to the dif ferent modes of proceeding he was inclined to adopt the amendment that had been propofed by his right hon, and learned friend (Mr. Bond). But he thought that those who were agreed in fubstance, should not differ about the manner of attaining it, and he was therefore of opinion that his right hon. friend would do well not to prefs his amendment on the house, because it was defirable that those who were agreed Ii2 agreed upon the end fhould not appear to differ about the means. He fhould therefore agree in the original motion, though he was difpofed to prefer the amendment. He gladly agreed with his right hon. friend in his eulogiums on the adminiftration of juftice in this country; he alfo with pleasure concurred with his panegyric on that mode of trial which was one of the most valuable rights of the people of this country, and rendered its conftitution the most enviable on earth. He fhould hope that the hon. gentlemen oppofite might be induced to adopt the amendment; but if they fhould perfift in the original motion, he fhould be obliged to vote for it. He begged pardon for trefpaffing at fuch length on the house; but he could not fit down without making one or two obfervations on the arguments of the learned gentleman who had preceded him in the debate. That learned gentleman had faid, that if it had been proved that the fum of ten thousand pounds had not been repaid, he fhould vote for further proceedings. It appeared, therefore, that his difficulty was only a queftion of degree, and refolved itfelf into expediency. If they thought that the punishment already inflicted was not adequate, they were not precluded from adopting further proceedings. The learned gentleman had infifted that no lofs had been fuftained by the public. But there was one lofs which the public had certainly suffered, in the additional falary of two thoufand pounds, that had been granted to the treasurer of the navy, as had been stated by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Whitbread), in lieu of the profits derived from the ufe of the public money. But this he fhould not dwell on as an item of lofs. The great lofs was not in money, it arofe from a caufe much more important and deeper, which ftruck at the root of all thofe principles, which, by being kept pure and uncontaminated, could alone fecure the conftitution against public corruption, and prevent the affections of the people from being alienated from that conftitution which was fo juftly the object of their admiration. He had but one remark more to make. When Lord Melville allowed Mr. Trotter to draw the navy money from the bank for the purpofe of placing it at a private banker's to derive profit from a participation in the intereft of it, he ought naturally to have warned him against hazarding the public money by fpeculations in ftock jobbing; yet no fuch evidence had appeared in the ftatement of the noble lord. When alfo the noble lord could, if the cafe had admitted of it, have juftified his conduct, and had omitted to do fo, fo, he was juftified in concluding that he could not. The main question, therefore, for the houfe to afk themselves was, whether, as this motion had been brought forward, the punishment already inflicted was fufficient, or whether, without conniving at the conduct of Lord Melville, they could vote against the motion? he had been doubtful at firft, but after having heard the defence of his lordthip, he felt that he had no option. He thought he understood from the learned gentleman that they might come at a knowledge of further circumftances relative to the ten thousand pounds, by the evidence of Mr. Trotter, and that alone was fufficient to juftify further proceedings. If all perfons in office who bad the difpofal or care of public money were to imitate the example of Lord Melville, by diverting the public money to private purposes, crimes would be multiplied, and there would be no end to the delinquency. As to the application of money to fecret fervices, he begged to remark, that only ten thousand pounds were allowed annually for England, and that fums voted for foreign fecret fervice money were to be accounted for by the oath of the fecretary of tre that they had been expended. If fuch practices as formed the charges against Lord Melville were to be fuffered to pass with impunity, it would be vain to adopt or enact regulations for the fecurity of the public money or the direction of public offices. Lord Melville fhould account for the fums of public money which he received. The learned member had said, that his defence had extenuated his guilt, but he was convinced, on the contrary, that by it it had been aggravated. The learned gentleman had also stated, that this was not a time for going into inquiries; but it was to be confidered, that the neceffity had been impofed upon them by those who would not let them know what their guilt was. He depended on the ftrength and refources of the empire for its protection, on the fuperiority of our navy, and the valour of our forces; but he depended more on the affection and attachment of the people of the country; on their love for the conftitution, and their loyalty to their fovereign, which would be enfured more effectually, if they should fee that there was no impunity for crimes committed against the public, and that their rights were refpected, their liberties fecured, and the laws equally adminiftered on the eternal principles of found policy and impartial juftice. Lord Caftlereagh felt himself peculiarly called upon to ftate the grounds on which he must give his decided nega tive |