would regard it under the circumftances in which Sir Hugh Pallifer went to trial (for it was notoriously at his own requeft, and on his own repeated application, that he was tried) as an acquittal which did him the highest honour, and which it was the duty of the king's minifters to pay proper attention to, and to follow with reward and honour. With regard to the fort of reward that has been bestowed on Sir Hugh Pallifer, his lordfhip faid, he was a little aftonifhed to hear that called in queftion, after what had been faid previous to the fecond court-martial, by the fame honourable gentleman, to whofe fpeech in that House he had before alluded. That gentleman, with his ufual benevolence, had "carneftly recommended it to minifters, to apply to his Majefty to bestow upon Sir Hugh Pallifer, for his long and meritorious fervices previous to the 27th of July, an ample annuity or penfion ;" and this request he had preffed with all the force of his eloquence. How happened it then, that the tone was fo different at prefent, when, if he recollected rightly, the government of Greenwich Hofpital did not make a greater addition to the honourable admiral's income, than about 600 or 700l. a year, his half-pay, as a Vice-Admiral, ceafing, from the hour of his promotion to Greenwich Hofpital? The honourable gentleman had ufed fome very fine words against adminiftration, words which certainly were very strong; but unfortunately there was not the least truth in them. Speaking of thofe officers who refufed to ferve,. and who had been enumerated, he had faid, the reafon for their declining to ferve was, "they had no confidence in adminiftration, guilty of convicted falfehood and of recorded treachery." Thefe expreffions were certainly founding, but to what did they apply? In what did the fallehood and treachery of adminiftration confift? An honourable gentleman who spoke early in the debate, had faid, that Admiral Keppel and other officers, whofe names had been mentioned, would be thought fit for Bedlam, if they ferved under the prefent miniftry; now if it were poffible that the present miniftry stood guilty of convicted falfehood and recorded treachery in the eyes of thofe gentlemen, it was furely equally fair for him to fay, that the prefent miniftry would be fit for Bedlam if they employed thofe admirals; and that if they did, knowing their want of confidence in adminiftration, they ought all to be fent to Bedlam together; but would the honourable gentleman fay, that the having given the office of governor Sir Hugb governor of Greenwich Hofpital to Sir Hugh Pallifer, had operated in Admiral Barrington's mind, and induced him to decline the fervice. If that was the honourale gentleman's deduction, he muft contradi&t it, Admiral Barrington having agreed to ferve fince that promotion took place. Upon its being faid across the Houfe by Mr. Fox, I used no fuch argument," his lordship faid, "I thought the honourable gentleman had; if he did not, I have only thrown away fo many words." .. His lordship, in the courfe of his fpeech, afferted very fully, that if blame was due upon Sir Hugh Pallifer's promotion to Greenwich Hofpital, it was not folely imputable to the Earl of Sandwich; as first Lord of the Admiralty, that noble lord had undoubtedly the tranfaction to manage oftenfibly, but no meffage had been carried to his Majefty upon the fubject, before the whole bufinefs had been confulted and conferred on by others of his Majefty's Minifters; he was one confulted; he advised and acceded to the measure, as well as his brethren in office; he made not the leaft fcruple to avow it; he had ftated generally his motives for having fo acted; he was confcious of having acted a becoming part, and from that confcioufnefs he was ready to meet any enquiry upon the fubject, and he wished that enquiry might be foon inftituted. Sir Hugh Pallifer rofe, and began with a declaration that the honourable member in his eye [Mr. Fox] had given him abundant cause for calling him to order, had he chosen to do it; but that he had fat a patient auditor, that the honourable gentleman might know he was not afraid to hear any thing he could fay of him, at any time, in any place, or on any occafion. Such attacks as the honourable gentleman had now thought proper to make on him, he understood had been frequent in that Houfe, while he was abfent, and incapable of defending himself. The manliness of such conduct he left to the confideration of others; but being aware of his own imperfections, knowing how unqualified he was to speak in public, both from want of cuftom and want of ability, and expecting that the virulence which dictated former attacks would occafion a renewal of them that day, he had committed a few thoughts and obfervations to writing, which he trufted the Houfe would grant him permiffion to read, as fome defence of the most injured character in the kingdom. To the noble Lord [Lord North] who fat near him, he thought himself highly indebted, for the handfome and very able able manner in which he had supported his cause, and controverted the arguments of his enemies; to the noble Lord, therefore, fome apology was due, for the fimilarity to his fpeech that would appear in parts of the manufcript he was about to read, which having been drawn up before he had heard the noble Lord, would undoubtedly ftrike the hearers as containing fomewhat of the fame chain of reafoning. After this exordium, Sir Hugh began to read a long fpeech from written notes. He began with ftating, that he felt the lefs wonder at the mifconception of the public, as to the motives that impelled him to prefer the accufations against Admiral Keppel, which had made fo much noife, and loaded him with fo much misfortune, because he never had explained them himself. When the proper oppor tunity offered for juftifying himself, he had endeavoured to profit by it, but it had been withheld from him. Since that time, various reafons had co-operated to induce him, great as the facrifice was, to remain a filent fufferer, rather than to encrease the popular difcontents, by attempting to oppose a party two powerful for Him to contend with, under any expectation of fuccefs. It was not now his defire to give fresh rage to popular phrenzy ; but not to fay fomething in his own defence, he conceived, would be confidered as a tacit admiffion of that baseness and criminality which had been fo cruelly, fo falfely, and fo unjustly, imputed to him, both within doors and without. The juftification of himfelf, and the defence of the motives upon which he acted, in preferring the accufation against Admiral Keppel, had been committed to paper, and tendered by him in perfon to the court-martial which tried the admiral, immediately after he had declared, he had clofed the evidence he meant to adduce in fupport of the acculation. The Court feemed inclined to admit it, but Admiral Keppel denied his right to make any cominent upon the merits, and faid, he would oppofe it to the laft minute. After fome conference between the members of the court-martial, Admiral' Montagu faid," when the witneffes in fupport of the defence, were all examined, he fhould be ready to hear every thing, the profecutor had to fay" This declaration was apparently acquiefced in by the rest of the court, and therefore Sir Hugh declared, he was inifled into an idea that He fhould be fully heard; in confequence of which he abandoned a defign he had formed of quitting the court immediately upon their denial to admit his paper (of the contents of which they were VOL. XVIII. altogether F f altogether unapprized) and of protesting against the irregularity of their proceedings, of which their condu&t had furnifhed him with various inftances. For the ascertainment of the words of Admiral Montagu, Sir Hugh faid, he was indebted to the admiral's own account of the trial, the words having been, by order of the court, expunged from the judge advocate's minutes published by authority of the court. Having waited till Admiral Keppel had declared his evidence clofed, Sir Hugh faid, he again offered to address the court with fome obfervations, but that Admiral Keppel again refifted the endeavour, and the court, although one of its own members [Admiral Montagu] had promifed he should be heard when the evidence for the defence was clofed, refolved not to hear him; and three days afterwards delivered their judgement, by which, contrary to all juftice, the accused was acquitted, and the accufer convicted without a trial, and without being heard, either in explanation, or juftification of the motives upon which he had grounded his accufation. After a few words upon this part of the conduct of Admiral Keppel's court-martial, Sir Hugh faid, extraordinary as thefe proceedings were, it was on the ground of these proceedings only, that the honourable gentleman who spoke lately had fo frequently attacked him, and had given notice to the Houfe of his intention to purfue him ftill farther, to impeach one of the King's minifters, and give the final blow to his deftruction. Before, however, any honourable gentleman ventured to go fo great a length, he might poffibly think it convenient to confider the difficulty of the task he was about to undertake, and to weigh well the probability of his fuccefs. On a deliberate view of the whole matter, he flattered himself it would be felt, that whoever made the attempt, would have fo many ftrange affertions to fupport, fo many embarraffing propofitions to maintain, that it would not be an easy matter to discover a member of that Houfe fufficiently confident to venture upon the talk. In order to give fome idea of these difficulties, Sir Hugh begged to ask the honourable gentleman oppofite to him a few queftions. Would the honourable gentleman say that it was confonant with justice to deny an, accufer the right to reply to a defence criminating himself? Would he affert, that where, in the courfe of a public trial, there were two accufers, it was fair to hear only one? Would he maintain, that when a perfon accused defends himself by recrimination, it was either juft or candid to refufe to hear his pro 1ecutor, fecutor, in reply to that part of the defence which was founded on recrimination? Would he agree, that it was confonant with conftitutional ideas of law and juftice, to acquit the accufed after a trial, and to condemn the accufer without a trial and without hearing his defence? Had the honourable gentleman forgot, that fince the Revolution, the twelve judges had figned a paper, declaring their unanimous opinion that it was the undoubted right of the profecutor, in cafe of high treafon, to reply after a defence; and had the honourable gentleman forgot that Chief Juftice Holt was one of the twelve? Was the honourable gentleman prepared to say, that the volumes of State Trials did not abound with frequent inftances of the exercife of this right, not merely in cafes of high treafon, but equally in cafes of trial of offences of the higheft, the middle, and the lower order: equally in cafes of mifdemenour, felony, and treafon? Was he ready to controvert the fact, that the late chief justice of the Common Pleas, when folicitor general, exercifed the right in queftion, against a noble lord now living; and the ftill more recent fact, that the prefent chief juftice of the Common Pleas, when folicitor general, apologized in court for not exercifing the fame right on the trial of the Duchefs of Kingfton? Had the honourable gentleman forgot, that in, the cafe of Mr. Horne, the right was challenged by the defendant; that the Court declared it would not bear an argument, and that the prefent lord chancellor, at that time attorney general, was allowed to reply, although no witneffes had been examined by Mr. Horne, with a view to preclude a reply on the part of the crown? Would he deny, that during the laft Parliament, a member of that Houfe, who had preferred a very ferious charge against a noble lord near him, had been indulged with replying to the defence made by the noble lord? Would he deny, that in all land courts martial, the judge advocate, or whoever appeared and acted in the character of profecutor, always replied to the defence? Would he deny, that in naval courts martial the practice was common for the accufer to fpeak to the merits? Would he deny, that Admiral Knowles, when he brought his captains to trial, exercited this right 2 Would he deny that Admiral Knowles's captains, when they complained that their commander had endeavoured to fhift the blame due to himself upon their fhoulders, and demanded a court martial upon him, were allowed to exercife this right without the leaft objection on four fucceffive trials? In cafe of an impeachment of a minifter, would not the honourable gentleman think the managers of that impeachment in the Ff2 Houfe |