Star. — London, England, 1805-06-13 00:00:00

.--- there were fupplied. An item Of 46,6001. efts railed to accommodate Mr. Boyd ; 22,0001. was received by Mr. Trotter : a multiplicity of fmaller fums fwel led the general aggregate—and it was beyond all the limits of credibility that Lord Melville Ibould be un tuf nmed on this firbjea. Lord Harrowby had been one o f the C mitrittee, and yet he knew nothing of the irregularities in the office. In the anfwer to the pre cept t•f - 1782, there was no notice given of the profits of Mr. Tiotter. The whole was a fyftern of con cealment, which hid almoft every thing eireelually but ti e criminality of the party. Then he mud ad vet t !O the famous trantaaion of the Mutual Releafes. 'I he c ircumllance of thete being prepared a little pd. terror to the precept., was a molt firfpicious But tire N , i)lt: Lot d Paid, the claufe regarding the Teri • tr (tir' would thew that no concealment was ttempted hat, becatife there inftruments were to 2 . What, depAreal among the archives of a Court of Record, was this no concealment ? they might remain ;or centuries in filch a place, unknown to every hu rian being. Again, his Lordthip denies that he :::few any thing of the porchafe of Navy and Exche tiller 13:11, of India Stuck, and of fpeculation in the Funds, with the money of his office. It was eafy to dem& the evatlon here attempted. He might enjoy the profits, and yet be uninformed of the particular :nvetlments out of which that profit emanated. The account of Lord Melville, from the form of it, fur nilhed additional grounds of accufation. if the pay ?nuts had been made by Mr. Trotter from funds of his own, !t was highly probable there would both have been fomc fimilarity, and fame moderation in the mum; ; but the; Painuate from Soul. to 19,c001. ; and although there were thee outgoings to Lord Mel ville, there was no income whatever in his favour to balance the account. But further, it was afcertained, that Mr. Trotter was wholly incompetent to make thef: advances nut of his private property, and that, therefore, it mull be wholly drawn from the public iii • wc y Every flep that was taken feemed to con fiim the brit impretlion that the whole was a cot ] opt proceeding. Then there appeared lulus of nag. nitride in the public funds, in the name of Mr Dun das. One amount was upwards oft r,oocl. another cecceded 400c1. and a third was 8333 i• in the Re ed Annuities. As loon as he quitted the office, thefe (urns difappeared, and were applied, no doubt, • to pay the balance due on the official account, lowered by their fuliflraelion. The double capacity in which Mr. Trotter afted, as dependent in the office, and private agent to Lord Melville, was vet y ti r iking, and it would have been thought that every !move of prudence, if not of decency, direded, that th e flotations thould have been kept perfeell) ditlinet. A Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman (the ll.oler of the Rolls) had Lill the evi,'ence was merdy prvfornptive in the lira leages of this inquiry, ard Aid remained in the fatne Inflation. l'hat Learned Gzallernan, he wit fure, need not be told there were degrees of te tlimany, ard on the premises now Clt.ibilihed, he (Mr. Grey) confi tently affected there was a thong and irrefra:eabie chain of pro, f, which neither force nor ingefirity could dellroy. Palling by tee 22,0031. as a limiter of leparate coati atioir, he was warranted in faying, that the to,ccol. 1.•:1S concealed even to the time of the &led Corn• 'Mute. There was not the fmalleft trace of this before. Taking, then, this infolated fill, and c,,n rie"ling with it the broad declaration of the Noble Lord, ;hat Le never would give any explanation con cerning what Itiouid be the conduit of Parliament? If ;he Commons of England lhould leave unexamined fuch a circumitance, there was an end of its authori ty: What were our flatines dirdling the appro. pration of the purfe, plefcribing oaths to the officers with whom it was ante rifled, if the Ti ea finer of ti.e Navy could efcape cll inquiry, by loch a bold avowal ? If the Treafurer of the Navy might do this, whyrt the Chancellor of the Exchequer, why net every Officer fuperior and fubordinate ? Here seenld be a full licence for every ahufe, whether by frof: dignified or the molt contemptible ler van' • • ' 6 State Cie He did not perfeelly coincide with what int:! Decn laid, that example was the only en d an d a i m o f puniiliment.. There were two other objeas at leap frequently :n view, to reform the offender himfelf, and to prevent the repetition of his off.nice. Again, the punifhment for the fame crime was not always the fame. The time, the manner, the fituation, and Alb the rank, charader. arid cen dition of the r,ffender fometimes rot ooiy the degree, but the nature of the penalty. This is t Laid in anf , •:er to thofe that argued that too much had been ~:t•Eajty eodured by the Noble Lord. Sup poling he had been Oilty tl forgery, his degrada tion from thole places of will he occupied, and the honours he enj ,, yed, would be a neceffary conk (pence, but would there preclude Lim frnrn the fen tence and execution of the law ? Would it be laid, as now it was contended, that the delicacy of his f:n timent, and the refinement of his moral renitude, had occolarred him to fuffer fo much, that no further pains therld tae ictfliaed ? There was this material error in all loch reafoning, that where pec.l%l:iun was prattife, . ot forgery cnninntLed, there was no por• twit of that acute fentibility and virtuous pin ity i which nflins that mental piiiiirlirrient. Let Gentle men apply this to Lord Melville, aceoriiieg to the leveral opieiens they entertain of his deletes. But, frappe:tog tare affertinn were cerred, that exam:•l,: were the only legitimate motive for the putiiffirnelit of the cr:mii,al, Gerol.erren might then Ice how it would ope , ate if this enquiry were not to he purftie::. A triune Treafurer of the Navy svoold dil'e over that theft pradicee had been continued with impunity for f outeen years, that an unlucky accident only led to 'he detcdion of them : he would learn, that when they were difcovered, the delinquent was permitted to efeape the fword of iiitEce, with :tie property inifhed, and his atillocrat: honouis unimpaired. mutt fingular areirment that ever was denifed had been fuggetled by the Noble Lord (Lord Caf tlereagh) : Lord Melville was not to be tried, be caul.: he had violated the law, and could not elude conviction. Here the very mot.ve for a criminal proceedin ! „ the acknowledged delinquency. was af figned as the reafon for avoiding it. Mr. Grey then conclude 1 in neatly theft words: " I ditelaim all perforial animofity, and I lhould be extremely hap:nr if Noble Lord fhtaild be acquitted honou rably at the Bar cf his Country. I confefs I did rot underhand the Noble Lord, when lie laid, the lathes lie felt were more 'revere, on ac count ‘.l the hand horn whirl; they were direded.- 11.1ie fence received an iwirnation, by winch my uncertainty has been removed. If the Noble Lord has defended that perfon, (Sir Chat!vs Grey,) who is moll dear to me, I fuppofe he has done Co from a fenfe of duty, and the fulfilment of his duty can be no argument why I thould abandon mine. On the oecation I now refer to, in one refpoi: at lea ft, my condo& has been direCtly oppnfed to that of the Noble Lord; by every means I fought and courted that enquiry, which has been fo fedeilettfly avoided, In anxioufly deprecated by Lord Melville. My beha viour to the Noble Lord is not different from that 1 have (hewn to the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pitt) although he adopted the fame favourable conduit to which I have alluded. I have fince n sowed refOlu tions Of a criminal nature againtt him, and have ne• vcr permitted my feelings, from facto x caufe, to in terfere with my facred obligations as a Member of Parliament. On thefe principles I !hall live my vote 14 the motion of my Honourabla Fries J, in its ori ginal form. Lord CASTLEREAGH raid, in explanation, he had not afferted the confeqUence of the trial mull be the convietion of the Noble Lord. Mr. R. DUNDAS, adverting to fcatie alluflons that had been made to the obfervations of Lord Melville in his addrets to the Houfe, declared his conviction that nothing could be further from the mind of that Noble Lord than to impeach the right of any Member to deliver his opinion f ully upon any public topic. However, he could not help juflifying the complaint of the Noble Lord as ti r the manner in which the right of public difeuffine, had been ex• ercifed elfewhere. The Noble Lora was entitled to complain of the condo& of thefe Genie lemen who had made flatements and delivered opinions upon his cafe before perfuns who were not competent to form acor re& deci fi on—before ati mblies which were no t qua lified from capacity to invelligate and determine upon the quellion. This conduit was the more deferving of complaint and cenfure, becanie many of the nate ments that bad been made were the very reverie of the truth. It was underflood that at one of the late public meetings, in the neighbourhood of the metro• poiis, a perfon of high rank and confideration was heard to ray, " that high loans and burthenfome taxes proceeded from the peculations of Lard Melville and Trotter." Now, in point of fail, nothing could be more untrue, and yet could any thing be more particularly calculated to miflead perfnas incapable of judging, and to inflame popular prejudices?— There were other points to which he was not difpofed to allude, and to which, indeed, from the able t lan net in which they had been treated in the courfe of die. debate, by Come gentlemen who concurred with him in feotiment, he did not think it neeeffary on his part to call the attention of the Houle, although they appeared to him peculiarly delufive. Of thefe points, however, there were loom which he could not per trade himlelf intirely to overlook. It was hated in the Refalutions before the Houfe, and the flatement was Inecnently echoed by the gentlemen on the other tide, that Lord Melville poflponed the execution of the Alt of the 25th of His Majelly, for about half a year, and front this alledged pottponement, fevcral very injurious inferences were drawn. Bat, how did the cafe (fond ?—The Gentlemen who made the flatement had not, it appeared, ever petaled the ACl. nor in the very tint claufe it is prefcribed that the Treacurer of the Navy lliould make out an nual accompts. Now, the Alt patted in July, 5785 ; the annual accompt was direlted to dole on the 3 1 it of December, 1786—0 f courfe it could not commence before January ; and from this proceeded the pott ponernent complained of. Had the Noble Lord (-pelted the account immediately on the paffing of the ACt, lie could have opened the firft account only for lix months, which he was not competent to do, as the nature of the accounts and the time for the fill ac count to dole was exprefsly mentioned in the Aft. With this ftatement he left the Houfe to conclude, whether the charge againtt Lord Melville, in this inftatice, of delaying the execration of a Ilatute for finifter purpofes, was at all applicable ? With regard to the allegation, that Lord Melville had been guilty of proftifing a wilful and fraudulent de. ceit upon the public and individuals refpeCting the mode of withdrawing naval money from the Bank and transferring it to a private banking.houfe he mutt obferve, that no t withlt an di ng a ll t h at had been urged on the othe r tid e , t h e natura l an d f a i r conclufion from the Noble Lord's conduit, on being infnimed of the communication from Mr. Raikes was this. that lie was enCrely unc.'nfcious of any illegality, fo far as he knew of the proceedings of Trotter. The im. preffion on the Noble Lord's mind appeanid to be, that no mote money was drawn from the Bank by T. ter than was necetfAry for the convenient dill charge of the bufinefs of the Navy Office. That large were transferred by Trotter to a private hank, for his own private ptotit with the knowledge of Lord Melville, really did not appear from this part of the cafe, upon which fume Gentlemen dwelt In much.— An Hon. Gentleman had taken notice of fume films of money which were in different defcription of flock in the na , ne <4 . Lord Melville, at the time the Noble Lord retired from office. But he could attune the I lonic and that Hon. Gentleman, that if it were not that Lord Melville was unwilling to trefpafs on the asteni inn of the Iloufe, when he was before it yeller c:ay, by a difyufling detail of family tranfaCtions, he mild have eafily !hewn, that of thefe feeeral fums, there was not one which had the leaft tormation ith public money or public affairs, excepting that w?,ich related to the loyalty loan. There was, indeed, a pat ot the property alluded to, with which he had himfelf fame connettion, and that part the Houle might be allured was never puichafed with public money. The Honourable Gentleman, therefore, was tot founded in the intonations he threw out with re fire& to this Stock. Now as to the releafe, of which fo much had been (aid, lie could Rate, that Gentle. men were under a conliderable millake when they imag;.ned that fuck an inltnitment could be regiflered without ptiVcity. The fait was, that like all other deeds in Scotland, where there was a claufe of regif tration, it might be initiated at the Regitler Office ; and as to the ()ninon of the names of the procurators in the body of the releafe, which a Noble Lord (Lord Henry Petty) had loft night remarked upon, a (Unita, ornidion was to be found ?n every Scots deed—the names of the 'nominators never Acing 'anowa until the deed was abort tat be prreerded upon. It had been argued by the Hnnourable Gen. ticman who moved the impeachment, that a con cert between Lord Melville-and Mr. Trotter retina jog this releafe was fairly to hat pretutited i btcaule, as the Hon. Gentleman Rated it, a precept from the Naval Commilnoners was iffued on the 17th of Ja nuary, ►So3, requiring a return of the balances of public money, at feveral periods, in the hands of the Treafurcr of the Navy, &c. to which precept a re turn as made early in February, juft about the time of the execution cf the releafe. In this aatement he conceived that there mull have been a midake—for Lord Melville being at that period in Scotland, it was impolfible that the precept could have been ferved upon him and the return received within the time mentioned. Having mark inquiry upon this point, he was enabled to date pnfitively that no fuch pre cept was ever fersed upon Lord Melville, nor did he know of any precept whatever from the Naval Corn miffmners until that in July, 1804., which was men tioned in the Tenth Mepot t. The train cfrufpicious circumgances, therefore, which the Honourable Mover would deduce, from the precept alledged to have been allied in January, 1803, was, with refped to Lord Melville, totally unfnunded. Mr. BOND and Mr. GEM' feverally explalned. Mr. ELLISON confidered the Finufe in the litua. don of a Grand Jury, and felt Limfelf bound to fay as one of their number, that the qaeftion fhould go to a Jury. He had come into the Houle delegated to wa.cl► over the interefts of the country, and fhould think himfelf very deficient in the eiercife of his duty in that capacity, if he did not endcavonr to promote the end: of public jun ice by voting for farther inquiry. He was lorry that this inquiry was confidered as Co hollile by the Noble Lord, but it was what the people erpeted and had a tight to. It was neceffary to the dignity of the country that fume farther inquiry fhould be made. He would therefore give his vote for the 'notion. Mr. GEORGE VANSlTTART,recommended a criminal profecution in preference to an impeach merry, on account of the expence and public iriconte nience attending the latter. Mr. BANKES regretted that the Houk had not come at fire to the refolution of a criminal profecu cution, as he had recommended on a former occa lion. It bad always appeared to him, he confeffed, that a civil profecution could be attended with no ultimate advantage, and that the only way to invef tigate and lift the matter, was by a criminal and not a civil fuit. He was led on various grounds to pre fer this mode of proceeding to an impeachment, though that he argued was fill open.—The Hon. Member laid, he had taken pains to examine into the Parliamentary precedents on this fubjeft, and had found one that was very applicable. It was the cafe of the Lord Halifax, when Auditor of the Exchequer, againfl whom Refolutions were palled by the Houfe, for not examining the Tellers Vouchers, &c. The Ref)lotions paffed January 27, 17c2. the Houfe de termining, naturally, on the c•iminality before the ttial, as it was neceffary to fee that a crime exitled in the fill inflame. The Regulations were afterwards carried up to the font of the Throne. It was then ufual not to order the Attorney-General, lon to ad• chefs the Throne to dircil the Attorney-General to prorecote the delinquent, and the Q2een was addict lcd accordingly. Here was a complete precedent for all the Houfe had done in the pretent instance, ex cept the civil fuit ; and lie thought the Houfe Ihould now di, ea the criminal profecution. He then noticed the cenfures palf.d on the Duke of Marlborough, which were all', laid before the Qt ... teen, who ordered a profecution thereon. H e was extremely furprifed to hear from any Gentleman who had been upon the Committee of Enquiry, that enough had been done towards Lord Melville. He wts of opinion, that there was quite enough of new matter for further pro ceedings. He feverely condemned the cordttet of the Noble Lord, in his avowal of his determination not to difclofe to any Court or Tribunal, the tife to which he had api‘lied a fum of public money—a dill cloture vatic!' he had deemed incontinent with private honour and perfonal convenience. Mr. CANNING contended that, even admitting the fuppofed extent of Lord Melville's guilt, punith men' enough had been inflifted, either tor the pur pofes of public juaice, as to the delinquent, or any benefit to be derived from it by way of example.— After the confequences which had refulted from the vote of cenfure, furely no mart would afterwards think of employing his private agent in any fitnation conneded with the di9ribution of public money ; and every principal would henceforth look more narrow ly into the appropriation of money by hht deputy.— After all that had been Rated, he would bill con tend that nothing had occurred which materially va ried the cafe of Lord Melville, from that cn which the Houfe had firft come to a vote of cenfure. Was not the principal offence alledged againit him then, the divertion of 60,0001. to purpofes not naval ? Had any thing occurred from which it could be ar gued, that the so,oool. fo much dwelt on, was not a part of that funs, of which 40,0001. had been ac counted for by his Right Honourable Friend, (Mr. Pitt.) Before the Houfe voted an Impeachment, they should a& whether they had proofs to alledge in fupport of it? At prefent they had nothing of the fubjeft but the explanations given by Lord Melville and Mr. Trotter, of which the Honourable Gentle man feemed difpcfed to take jolt as much as he pleaf ed, allowing the strong declarations of the former as to his innocence to pals unnoticed. But fomething more definitive and fubQantial molt be adduced in a court of jultice. What lofs had been fultained by the Public ? The 7 cool .of additional falary given as a compenfition in lieu of former emoluments. He would afk,whether this was the meaning in which the term lols was applied by the Honourable Gentleman when he &ft brought forward the fubjeft. In the fame man ner he would atk, whether the balance of 50001. lately p.:id over by Lord Melville, was what he had in view when he alluded to enormous defalcations. The Honourable Member then particularly adverted to an amendment, which, he Paid, under the pretence of lenity, would inkjet Lord Melville to a much more rigorous proceeding than that of impeachMent. He trotted, however, that after what had already pag ed, the Houle would think it unneceffary to refort to either. Mr. BRAGGE BATHURST faid,•that from the refpell he entertained for the Houfe, and for a Right Honourahle Friend of his, with whom the Right Ho nourable Gentleman who had jug fat down was par ticularl• conneCted, he would decline to enter into tome contentious topics which that Right Hon. Gen tleman had thought proper to intrcduce. If that Right Hon. Gentleman fancied that he could fern the cafe of Lord Melvilh, hit him indulge himfclf,or if any of the Noble Lord's friends hoped to derive any advantage from the mode of arournent which the Right Hon. Gentleman had adopted, he lhould not attempt to diflurb their hopes—i le would con fine the remarks he had to futooir to a f e w point ! , ! which referred principally to a comp.rri6m (it' the two I modes of proceeding againfi the Noldc Lord, which i were before the Houfe. Before he adverted to this t comparifon he begged to fay that the Right ifon. ! Gentleman was under a mistake, as to what his Right I Hon. Friend who moved the Amendment had ft ated, 1 refpeaing the regiltration of the Releafe. For it ap peared that although this releafe might be recorded, .1 its publicity wou'd not neceffarily follow, and from . a flatement which th e H ou f e h a d h eard this night, it i was clear that the names of the prolecutors were not • to be known lintels a fuit fhoold arife on the deed. —So that, lusters in the s.. eat of a law fuit be tween Lord Melville and Trotter, this releafe might never become a matter of notoriety. It was loco:- rea, therefore, to alien that this releafe was a public instrument, and not at all meant to he concealed.— k As to the form of proceeding in the Court below, in cafe the amendment was adopted, that mull be left to the difcretion of the Attorney General, who would, no doubt, make ufe of all thofe materials in the two i reports on the table, i• liich mit,ht be necelfary to further the ends of jultice. The 9tieflion for the Houle to confider was, not how to decide upon the guilt of Lord Melville, but what was the bell way of bringing him to trial. That any thing could he ob. tained to fatisfy juftice or the country from a civil fuit, he thought quite idle to tiippote. A criminal profecution alone could avail, particularly againli a perfon who declared in that Houle, that he had di verted the public money irons the objei't for which it was voted by Parliament, and applied it to Nitrites, " the nature of which he would not explain to any perfon or power in the country." He contended that much new matter had come out from the Report of the l'elea Committee ; that many new faits, in allega- tion, as well as in p roo f, appeared ; and with fuch ffaitsl before the Houfe, it could not be laid to do its duty, if it flopped where it then WAS with regard to Lord Melville. The Right Hon. Gentleman (fated that a • precept from the Naval Commillionet shad been ferved in January, stzo3, as the Hon. Moyer had flated, upon him as Treafurer of the Navy, and upon Mr. Trotter; and from the return to that precept it ap peared, that there was a continual deficiency in the public balances during the whole period of Lord Mel ville's continuance in the No, y oliice, although dur ing three fucceedino 'Freaturers there was 110 defiei. ency whatever. The refufal of Lord Mtlville to ac count for the public money he had withdrawn :tom its legal deflination, furnifhed mrre than a ground of folpicion again!' li;rn. In lac?, tiie charge r.f public money coming into his hands being proved, unlefs he explained the manner in which he applied it, there was prima facie evidence against him that he made ufe of it for his own benefit. If it were maintained that the punifhment already infraed was quite fulficiento thee he would fay, that civil procefs, ordered by the Houfe, was fuperfluous, and that no queflinn remain ed for the Houfe but as to the total abfolutinn of the Noble Lord. The Right Honourabl e G ent l eman who had jolt fat down aliened that Lord hfelVille had been guilty of no infraction of the law. Then, if fo, all that the Houle had done (hould he retracted. But upon this he would only lay, that if the Noble Lord were guilty, fufficient punithment had not been in. Aided, while, if innocent, he was m All horrid y treat ed. With a view to afcertain this quettion—to do juflice to the Noble Lord and the country, it was hie with to fend him to trial, in order that if he was guilty the fentence of that Hoof: might have a legal fanc. tioo—if innocent, that he thould be acquitted—that his character (tumid be vindicated and his honours re ilored. The Ri g ht H onoura bl e G ent l eman declared ' that from his knowledge of the Navy Office, the prac tice of Trotter, which Lord Melville fanetiored, was not at all neceffary for any purpole of convenience, while he deemed it equally oppolite to law as incon. fiflent with propriety. Upon the whole he thought juflice would not be done if Lord Melville were not lent to trial. In cafe of his cooviftion any Coffering* he bad heretofore undergone would of comic be taken ipto confederation, as in all other cafes, in the . infliction of the punifhment. But it would be idle to maintain that enough has been already done. Lord Melville had met with nothing that could be called a permanent punifhment. All that had yet been done might be reverted; and, indeed, from the dif pofition that had been manileiled ; from the opinions that the Houfe had heard, and from the quarter whence thofe opinions proceeded, it was impotlible to fay how loon the attempt at rcoerfal might be made. To guard again(' inch an event, and to ac complifh the defires of jultice and the country, he felt it his duty to vote for the criminal profecution. Mr. RYDER contended, that the condo now pro. poled was contrary to all the principles and the ana logy of the law of England, namely, that after 4 man had received a fencence, and that fentence was infliaed on him, for any thing, he WAi puni(hed fur ther for what might be called the ag oreation of his offence. The Horife had patrol a re:*.lutino, decla ring that the Noble Lord had mirappliei the public money, that was the corpus deli .-.'2 ; what had since beers dilcovered in the fait Report was only an aggra vation of that offence. Mr. WILBERFORCE exolaire I. (4 great call for Oki qujlion.) Mr. WHITBREAD role to reply. He fat down again immediately, to give Maw to The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Fated, in anfwae to a queflion from the Honourable Mover, that the civil profecution ordered by the Houle was in pro. grefs, although not yet entered on the file of the Ex chequer. It would have been much more forward if it were not that he had waited for the Report of the Seidl Committee, in the expectation that that Wooll throw more light upon the lubjeCt. If tire amend: 'pent were carried, he confelfed, that he would feel hirnfelf much embai rallied as to the mode of proCeeda ing, unlefs it were precifely chalked ont by the Houfe, he meant as to the points upon which he should refk for the proof of Lord Melville's criminality. The fubflantive ground of charge mull of courfe be its uponviolal t r at eif the in law, his judgment,that wasn Lord Melville corpus m h elvile hda,d/ita already a r , ea nd dr been putAted. After fuels punilhnient for an offence he was decidedly of opinion, that it would not be. enalosous to the fpirit of jultice Or any principle of Britith law, to punifh him again for any circ,umlian-• ens of aggraysitiom &Leh a mode of Proteeding roar A