Star.
London, England, 1805-04-10 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL 8.

Mr. HUSKISSON brought up a Bill for amending and rendering
more e&ilual the Property Bill, which was read a firft, and or-
dered to be read a fccond time to-morrow.

COMMITTIS OF SUPPLY.
The Houfe refolved Welt into a Committee of Supply. Mr.
ALIXANLMIL in the Chair.
Mr. FosTFR moved, that an account of the unfunded debt of
Ireland be referred to the raid Committee.—Ordered.
He then moved, that a rum not eicecding 80o,nonl. be granted
to his fAajeft) for paying off Treafury Bill., for the year
which wti agreed to, and the Report ordered to be received
to-morrow. •
alto moved, that the Houle will to-morrow refolveltfelf into
a Committee of the whole Houle, to confider of empowering the
Lord Lieutenant of Inland to pay money on. the prefenthtents
of Grand knits, fur improvement of the Roads in Ireland.
Ordered.
And 'hat it he an infirudlon to the Md Committee to move for
leave to bring in a Bill to mile money by Debenture. for making
a new line of Roads, for the more fate and fpeedy conveyance of
the
Mr. Sru c Key „from the frxe:fe Office in Scotland, patented at
the Bar an account of the Arrears and current Balances in that
Department—Ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. JOHNTONE begged leave to alit Mr. Sheridan, whether
he had abandoned his motion relative to the Affairs of the Corsa-
tie f If he meant to do it, he would, Inadequate as he confeffed
I'4 abifitics to be to a fulled of fuck Tall importance, bring It
forward.
Mr. SHERIDAN fall, though the matter had long lain doe-
mam, he certainly did not mean to abandon it ; etre-LOT as a
Noble Lord onpofate had famed to hint, tome Ihort time back,
that theft affairs bad been fo happily fettled, that all inquiry was
tnneecitary. He meant, immediately after the holidays, to fix a
padre day for bringing forward his motion on that fubjed.
MOTION AGAINST LORD MELVILLE.

[Our Readers are requefted to make :he following eorrealon in
cur Paper of yefterday in Lord HillaT Parry's Speech, page 4,
t, tine sa, For, " he could not help remarking with Pilo—
Wka is more criminal tbau be who cannot either (peak or write
Innielf guiity read, "he could not help remarking with Cicero,
in his oration aztainit Plf•-t-Who Is more criminal than he who
cautiot either Irak or write hinielfinnecent
After Mr. Tim IlleS explanation,
Mr. GEO. PONSONBY role, and (poke to the
following etre4l:—.' Sir, I am fatisfied that the Right
Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Canning), thisks, as he
(peaks, that there is matter in this bufinefs, highly
decaying of the moll ferious conlideration of this
Houk. lam lure he thinks it a queffion highly de.
!crying of a Committee, for the purpofe of proving
the innocence and purity of Mr. Trotter; for, floc's
all I hive heard of his charader, I am certain, if
he did not think Mr. Trotter pure and innocent, he
would not ccntinue him in office. I think it right,
Sir, to quote the Right Hon. Gentleman's conduit,
in proof of his fincetity ; for, I am fure he would
not vote for farther delay, if not from a confcinuf-
I.::: that it was neceffary to the exculpation of Mr.
rtuttcr. He Purely would not continue him in of-

nee, or att is any 161, merely for the purpofe of
fcreening an accofed perfon from juftice. But,
while I gave the Right Hnn. Gentleman credit for all
this candour and regard for truth, there is one cir-
cumftance which ftrikes the as fome what extraor-
dinary. The Right Han. Gentleman, through the
whole of his fpeech, tiles the phrafe, ski: champ, as
if it were limited to one. Now, this is an error ; for
there are feveral diftin& and feparate charges com-
prifed in the offence. For example, dile of • the
heads of accufation is, that Lord Melville, the very
man who propofed the law in queftion, and after-
wards Treafurer of the Navy, did violate the pro-
vifions of that law, by conniving at the conduit of
his Paymafter, taking the public money from the
Bank, and applying it to his own private profit and
emolument. Is not this a Ingle, diftinet, and rub-
Itantive charge ? Has that any thing to do, in the
remoteft degree, with accommodation afforded to
another office ? or with the charge of a participa-
tion of gain with Lord Melville ? Is not this, then,
a diftinft and feparate accufation ? and, if fo, how
does it become neceffary to its afeertainment, to en-
quire what office received the loan ? or whether Mr.
Trotter divided the profits with Lord Melville ? The
Right Hon. Gentleman, purfuing this errror, rays,
as a reafon for farther time and enquiry, it is diffi-
cult to decide upon complex and intricate accounts,
meaning thereby the accounts of Mr. Trotter. Sir,
there accounts have nothing to do with the charge
which I have Rated : I ark the Houfe, Will they,
after ten years of confideration and examination,
enable you to fay that Lord Melville did not con-
nive at Mr. Trotter, his paymafter, taking money
out of the Bank, and applying it to the purpofes of
private emolument ? You know they will not ; and,
therefore, as to this charge, no delay is neceffary.—
But it has been raid, that the accounts are not
cone& ; as it will appear that the fume transferred
to the Bank of Marrs. Coutts were only fevea mil-
lions, and not fifteen millions, as therein Rated.—
But how will this, admitting the fait to be fo, ac-
quit that Noble perfonage of corrupt connivance at
the breach of the law ? Is he innocent, becaufe he
only connived at the mifapplication of (even mil-
lions oTthe public money ? The next objetion urged
is, that the charge againft the Noble Lord and Mr.
Trotter is fupported only by ex parse evidence. Why,
this is indeed a curious oblation. The Gentlemen
chore favourite terms for themfelves, and then they
quarrel with their own phrafe. Iris indeedexporteevi.
dence, but of what party ? Is it of the accufer ? No.
It is the evidence of the party accufed Rating every
thing be thinks proper in his own defence and juf
tilleation. But it has been raid, that thefe parties
have been hardly dealt with ; they have been taken
by furprife, and have had no notice of what was gc-
ing forward. What ! I thought that Coturniffion
&tied for the purpofe of inquiring into abufes, with
a view to correction and amendment. Have I been
miftaken, and was it then for the purpofe of inquir-
ing into the tranfcendent merits and virtues of the
Treafurer and Paymafter of the Navy, and to after
rain what farther honours and rewards they defery
ed for their diftinguiffied fervices ? Thefe worthy
parties, it now teems, were moll cruelly deceived.
They attended the Commiffioners, never once dream.
ing that abufes could have crept into their office,
which the Commiffioners wilhed to inveftigate, but
fancying it was to be only an examination, to afcer-
tain the degree of their merits and virtues, and con-
fidently anticipating a brilliant reward. Now, to
come to this ex parte evidence, as it is called: Lord
Melville being afked, did you permit Mr. Trotter to
draw the money from the Bank of England, and
place it in hi, private banker's hands ? his Lordfhip
anfwers, " I never gave him a dire& authority, but
I knew he did.it." Now finely, it would have been
more manly in his Lordfhip to have raid at once—
" I did," than to admit that he knew what was go-
ing on, and did not prevent it. It was fkulking
from his duty. It was as much as laying to Mr.
Trotter, make money of your office as you can, and
1 will prote& you. And who is this Mr. Trotter,
with whom Lord Melville cannot be prefumed to
have any fellow feeling ? Why, the general agent of
Lord Melville. Why, knowing him to be ating in
this illegal way, did he continue him in the make?
Can any man believe it was exclufively for Mr. Trot-
ter's foie benefit ? But even though it were, Lord
Melville would not be the lets rcfponfible ; as princi-
pal, he was as corrupt as if the a& of his agent had
heeri done perfonally by himfelf. The next argument
advanced is that no tors has been (Whined by the
prailice., This I can eafily conceive, without giving
the parties much credit for their innocence. Mr.
Alexander Trotter is ac expert calcillator. He might
know very well, how far be might ufe the public
money, before the demands for it Ibould come round
upon him. It was only the common fcience of every
Banker, who knows when his bills are payable, and
to *hat itliount, and regulates his iffues in the
mean time, accordingly. This argument, of no lois
to the public from this pra&ice, is an extraordinary
excufe from a Right Hon. Gentleman, fo well veil-
ed inthe financial fyftem of the country, and the laws
that particularly relate to it. Does he recoiled the
a& which prefcribes the form of the bills, and the
mode of drawing them ? That a& rays, " any man
Counterfeiting one of there bills, that! be guilty of a
felony, without benefit of Clergy." Now, fun ore
an expert forger, and many fuch there are, had forg-
ed a bill of sooasool. but bad the money to replace
it, when it became due; and, fuppofing this trent-
anon to be afterwards dircovered, would or could i
the Right Honourable Gentleman advife his Majefty
to pardon that man, becaufe the money was made
good ? To excufe, therefore, a public officer, guilty
of mal-pratices, upon the ground of no lofts is
monftrous language. It is language that puts an
end to the definite provifions of the law, and the
conftitution of the Houfe of Commons. What ! no
lots ? Is then every public officer to (peculate with
the public money, for private profit, and, if no tors
enfues, is there no criminality ? What is the tale of
your laws, if they may be thus difpenfed with at
&afore I What becomes of the Houle and its duties?
Is the Houle to vote a rum of money for one parti-
cular fervice, and may any Officer apply it to ano-
ther as he pleafes, and if no lofs follows, is be to
remain guilders ? The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Pitt) lays he knows of one rum of ao,oool. that was
thus applied to a purpofe different from that for
which it was voted, and be adds, judicionfly appli-
ed, of which I have no doubt. I afk, however, i 4
any regard were paid to the votes of the Houk why

was not that Payment afterwards difclofed, and a Bill
of indemnity demanded for thole that made it ? It
is rnonftrous that any Miniffer fhould think himfelf
joftified in taking fuch a liberty with the public mo-
ney, and not call for a Bill of Indemnity. It is (aid
that the accounts are not cornea ; that the rums
lodged with Mars. Coutts arc not fo great as they
are Rated. This does not fignify. It appears that
Mr. Trotter took all he could. He was a good cal-
culator ; and if he took only five millions, inftead of
fitted) millions, it was becaufe he could not make
free with more. It is a proof of his (kill, not of his
innocence, and, perhaps, it is for that (kill he is re-
inftated in office. Great pains, we are told, have
been taken to inflame the public mind. It is raid,
that hand-bills and publicatiini have been circulated,
for the purpofe of exciting odinm again!' the parties.
If fo, it is bale. The Right Hon. Gentleman oppo-
fite (the Attorney General) will feel it his duty, I
am Cure, to afccrtain the fall, and punifh thefe
bellers ; but why are we to flop the proceedings of
the Houle, becaufe offenfive and libellous publica-
tions have been circulated ? That was an argument
which could not be relied on. The proceedings of
the Commiffioners in 1782 had been referred to, but
they had nothing to do with the preterit bufinefs.—
The queftion was, whether the Mt of 1785 had been
violated ? The condutt of the Commiffioners in

1782, he would venture to fay, did not fandion the
conduft of Mr. Trotter. The gill of their recom-
mendations was, that none of thefe public officers
fhould have public money in their hands, or be ex
pofed to the temptation of private gain, that might
end in public lots. He could not conceive why we
(bould pollpone the Refolutiuns. Can you obtain
evidence from a Committee, that the law has not
been violated ? This is the firit inQance of an appli-
cation to Parliament in a grave bufinefs for delay,
without Rating any grounds. If you have any
ground, why not (late it ! I think the Gentlemen
are not aware of the confequences of delay, if any
is to take place. In fuch event, I think bills of in•
demnity ought to be brought in to reftrain Lord
Melville and Mr. Trotter from leaving the country.
The proceedings of a Committee will occupy a great
length of time. What is to become of Lord Mel
ville and Mr. Trotter in the mean while ! If it (hall
appear that the firms have been great, it will not be
fit that they fhould be allowed to walk the ftreets at
large, and be at liberty
,to convey in anti to
their friends thofe funds from which reftitution
ought to be made to the country. The Right
Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Pitt) will therefore
find it due to his charader to tollow the cafe
of Sir Thomas Rumbold, and take care that
any funds they now poffefs (hall be forthcoming to
fatisfy the public demands. And now, Sir, let me
tell you there never was a moment in the hillory of
the country where the chars ter of the Government
was fo effential to its welfare and fecurity. By a
meafure, of which I own I did not approve, this Houle
has received an addition of too Members from Ire-
land. I own, Sir, I am anxious that they fhoold
give this night a proof of their fpirit and purity. Pub-
lic rumour Rated that at the time of the union many
were induced by large films to part with their legif-
lature too eafily, and their integrity was not free from
doubt a'ad fufpicion. They have now an opportunity
of throwing from them that imputation. I fbould
be deeply aided if that meafure were only to give
the Minifter an encreafe of influence, and not of pu-
rity and virtue. I fhould be afhamed to walk the
ftreets of London, if it were the general opinion that
the Members from Ireland were not as clear from
corruption as the Members of this country, and that
there was any virtue in the one from which the other
was !hut out. Sorry fhould Ibe were the two repre-
fentations to meet like two running (ores, wafting the
ftrength and vigour of the body by their confluent
corruption. This is the firft opportunity they have
had of giving a proof of the virtue and integrity of
my countrymen, and I hope they will not lofe it.—
You are now engaged in a war alone, without an ally
—with a great nation, led by the molt extraordinary
man the world has produced. You have impofed
heavy taxes upon the people. This Setlion you have
followed the poor man's laft luxury into his cottage ;
you have taxed his fah. Will it not then be wife to
thew, that if you call upon him to make great fAcri-
&es, you will take care that they (ball be adminifter
ed with integrity and ceconomy ? Is it not incum-
bent upon you to thew, that no rank, power, or in-
fluence, can fcreen a public malefador ? and that the
man who would abufe his truft, and mifspply the
hard earnings of the people, cannot be fcreened from
the jullice of the country ? When you have eftablilh-
ed this charader, as I hope and trult you will this
night, you may carry on the conteft as long as you
may think it neceffary for your hanour or your fafe
ty ; but, if the amendment be adopted, you will in-
cur a very different opinion. I put it to you, whe-
ther it will be confidered as a mode to afcertain the
innocence of a man, who (lands coneided upon his
own oath, or a Ilratagem to Ihelter him from punilb-
mem by delay ? I can make great allowance for
private friendfhip. lam Pure, however, it is the fen-
timent of the Houfe that Lord Melville cannot be
defended ; for I obferve that not one Gentleman has
arifen this night to (peak for him, but Inch as have
been his colleagues in office. I cannot find fault with
that friendfhip—but lure I am, that if they cannot
acquit him upon oath, of what he has admitted up-
on oath, they cannot acquit him of a corrupt breach
of the law."
Mr. CANNING role to explain the caufe of Mr.
Trotter's continuance in office. He raid he had never
feen him until he was appointed Paymafter under him.
He reftored him becaufe he was a ufeful man. And
he had not removed him from office, becaufe his cafe
was lab jettice.
The MASTER of the ROLLS argued very ably
in favour of an enquiry, becaufe he faid it had ever
been the principle and praoice of our jurifprudence
to have the whole of a cafe before any man was pro-
nounced guilty. It was not fufficient to Rate that
the law had been violated by Lord Melville ; but be-
fore the Houle could pronounce a judgment againft
hint, it would be neceffary to Phew that he had vin
lated the law from corrupt motives. The law might
be broken, and the motives not corrupt. It had
never been the objea of the Naval CommiffiGners to
try criminals, or to convid men on their own con
fcffion. Their objed merely was to inquire into
abufes, and it was for that purpofe alone that they
had put queflions to thofe who came before them.
The limit then could not, on the report of men hay

ing filch a,. rilieft in view, convia prrfon without
healing eviclence at the bar. Such war the proceed-
ing in the cafe of Sir Robt.rt Walpole, the Duke of
Marlborough, and various other perfons. He would
not now fay one word concerning thc merits of the
cafe ; but he contended that the whole of it ought to
be heard before the Houle proceeded to •come to a
decition upon it. It would be impolible for any man
to be as capable at this moment i.fdetermining upon
the various fhades of guilt belonging to the cafe, as
he would be after an inquiry was gone into. From
the Report now before the Houle, it was impotlible
for any man to fay that Lord Melville was perfonally
guilty of corruption—that he was corrupt for the
fake of pi ivate emolument. In a Committee of In•
quirt' he himfelf might find many things to alter his
view of the fubjeet.
Mr. FOR began by Rating, that he would be ex-
tremely unwilling to fuffer this queftion to he put,
without exprelling his tentiments upon it. For, if .
unhappily the vote of the Houfe Ihould be oppokte
to that which he hoped and withed, he would feel
very uneafy indeed that his name Ihould partake of
the univerfal odium that mutt attach to any decilion
tending to fecond fuch notorious delinquency as the
Report on the Table declared. He could never re-
concile it to his mind to be lilent upon fuch an occa-
len h!fhould be fufpetted of declining to mark,
with the ttrongett reprobation, guilt of a nature fo
glaring, that any man who gave it the fanttion of
his vote, or attempted to protein it from punifhment,
mull be viewed in the light of an accomplice, or one
at lealt &poled to become the accomplice of fimilar
tranfatlions. Before he would proceed to the merits
of the charges under confideration, he thought it
proper to notice the arguments of the Gentlemen on
the other fide, not becaufe he confidered thofe argu-
ments poffeffed of any intrinfic force, but left from the
authority of the perfons from whom they proceeded,
they might have the drat of leading the Houle to a
decifion which, if it firould correfpond with the willies
of thofe by whom fuch arguments were ufed, mutt
deltroy its character with the country, and with all
Europe. The firfi Gentleman with whom he would
begin was the latt who fpoke. The Learned Gentle-
man direEled the whole of his obfervations to thew,
that the Houfe fhould go into a Committee, in
order to afcertain whether the breach of the Atl of
Parliament, not of which Lord Melville flood char-
ged, but of which he confelfed himfelf guilty, pro.
ceeded from corrupt motives. If corruption confin-
ed merely in a man putting money into his own poc-
ket, according to the vulgar conception, perhaps
fome deduCtions of the Learned Gentleman would be
right. But he would contend, that nothing could be
more corrupt, in his opinion, than to permit a man's
own agent to convert the money of others to his own
private emolument. This was the amount of Lord
Melville's confeffion ; and although it might be pof-
fible,from a further examination, to prove the Noble
Lord more guilty, it did appear to him utterly im-
poible to prove him lcfs fo. For the mon conclufive
evidence of the Noble Lord's corruption, he would
• only refer to iLat paragraph in the 149th page of the
Report, in which the Noble Lord Rated, " that al-

though he knew his agent Trotter was applying the
public money to other purpofes than that for which
it was legally intended, that he did not prohibit him
from doing fo." What was that, he would ark, but
complete corruption, even taking the cafefimplisiter ;
bnt combining it with other circumtlances, could any
man entertain a doubt upon the fubjea of his guilt ?
What greater aggravation of his delinquency in to-
lerating the breach of his own Aft of Parliament,
could be imagined than allowing his agent to milap.
ply the public money, for the fate cuftody of which
that Aft was intended ? But it is pretended that no
lots had accrued to the public from this malverfation,
and a very fingular argument was advanced, that as
there was no loft there was no rifk. Now (laid Mr.
Fox) it happened in certain parts of my life, which I
do not quote with a view to recommend my example
to others, that I was in the habits of engaging in certain
fpecularions which are commonly called gaming (a
laugh) 11 a man thould, in that kind of (peculation,
win a large fum of money, I am lure that an argument
would not thence arife that he had made no ri(k. I
rather think the natural 'inference would be that his
rifle was confiderable. Probably however in this cafe,
Lord Melville did take care that Mr. Trotter &mid
not lofe any money. Trotter was the confidential agent
of Lord Melville, aril Lord Melville was the confiden-
tial agent of the State. Therefore, in this fort of fpc-
culations in which Trotter engaged, Lord Melville
could guard againft much rifle. If two men play
catds together, and a third perfon Rands behind
one of them and throws hints to the other, he that
receives the hints is tolerably Pure of winning. Jutt
fo in this buftnefs ; Lord Melville knew when the
Navy Bills were likely to be funded, and Mr. Trot-
ter could an upon the information he might receive.
Will any one fay then, that from fuch aCtions upon
filch information, no lots would accrue to the pub.
lie? On the contrary, I maintain, that the public
would fuller a lots of t per Cent. upon the difcount
of fuch Bills. But, then, ohferved the Honourable
Member, the Learned Gentleman defired the Houfe
to go into an Inquiry, in order to obtain farther evi-
dence. He would apreal to the judgment of the
Houle, whether any farther evidence could be ne-
ceffary to enable it to come to a decided opinion
upon the breach of law, which the Noble Lord him-
felf eonfeffed ? That opinion the Houfe was called
on to declare. The public had a right to demand it
from them. It was laid, that the Houle ought not
to think of ating judicially, of infliding pundhment
without the lulleft examination into the merits of the
ateufation, and affording the accufed the fulleft op-
portunity of vindicating himfelf. And fo far as the
confelLun of Lord Melville went, he had been al-
ready tried. He would, however, defy thole Gen-
tlemen who relied their objeCtion fu much upon the
queftion of punithment, to thew, that it was at all
in the power of that Houle to inflift any punifnment
on fuch delinquents as Lord Melville and Trotter.--
But if the Houle Ihould determine on profecution in
any way with a view to punifbment ; whether by
direiting the Attorney General to profecrite ; whe-
ther by moving an Impeachment, or preparint•, a
Bill of Pains and Penalties, which perhaps woula be
the more proper mode of proceeding, he would
maintain that the confeffion of the party accufed,
would be evidence to proceed upon, and that the
Houle was now called on to a 9, as it muft in every
fimilar cafe, as the Grand Jury, to pronounce noon
the guilt of the accufed. it was ttrange to hea: it
Turn rotr.

Ofierted that the accufed was not guilty, becaufe no)
lois accrued from this fcandalous tranfaCtion. To
tbufe to whom the lofs of honour was nothing, per-I
haps it might be faid that no lots had arifea. But
what was the lots of honour to that Government
which, after fuch a palpable inflance cf delinquency,
Ihould preferve its connalion!with the delinquent.?
and what the lofs of charaCler and honour to that
Bonfe, fhould it attempt by its vote, to fcreen fuch
a delincrent ? infinitely more than any fum of money
could amount to.
Whatever the learned Gentleman to whom he had
already adverted might affert, he could not fee that
any farther inquiry could he neceffary to enable the
Houfe to decide that a great public Officer who al-
- lowed his fervants to make illicit profits from the
public money, in the teeth of an Aft of Parliament,
was guilty of a molt tenons offence. The guilt con-
fined in the violation of the law, and it never could
be pretended that any fuch violation could be inro-
cent. There woe, indeed, many cafes in which the
fevere punifliments attached to offences to which
the charge of moral turpitude did not apply. but
which were criminal in confequence of the precept of
the law. Such were many of the offences againil our
revenue laws. Not two years ago an aft was paffid
declining a man guilty of felony, without benefit
ot7clergy, if paper of a certain fun fhould be found
in his rffetlicn. this fart of paper being tiled for the
tflanitfaElure f Bank n. tes. Now the reafon of this
thoute was this, that a roan could not be prefumed
to have filch paper in his polfeffion but with a crimi-
nal Intention. Thera, re the breach of the Ale was
L proof againit him. Ard the Aa of the 25th of the
r King, which applied to the cafe under cotilideta:inn,
was drawn up upon a firoilar pi inciple, and the breach
of it was In lie deemed the proof of the criminal in-
tention. Upon this proof, thole which arofe out of
t' •.e re:don of the law, he had no hefitation in pro
flouncing the Noble Lord guilty. At all events, there
L was no man who could fay that flrong fufpicion did
not attach to him. When private individuals became
the objets of fufpicion, it was their own affair—bit
when fufpicion attached to men of high rank in the
State, it became a matter of great public
iotere .
Putting all the circumtlances of the cafe together, tie
could net fee that ary thin, could be (lit:tined to
avert the judgment of the Houle from farther in
quity. Whatever delay might take place, there was
only one mode of confit ming dill farther the guilt of
Lord Melville, and that was in care Trotter lhould
teach ; but there was no mode or evidence poffible to
be imagined that could refute that which Lot d Mel-
ville himfelf conl.cfred. On that confe(llon, than, be'
called upon the Houle to proceed, by adopting the
motion of his Honourable Friend. With refpel
the charge of Lord Melville's having participated 11
the profits refulting from T.'s application of the pub.
lic money, he could not fay that there was dired evi•
dente before the Houfe ; but there certainly was j
firong ground of fufpicion. The Noble Lord, it
would be recollefied, retained the office of Treafurer
of tot Navy for nine years after he was apvinted to
Cht of Secretary of State wit denied by the
ancellor of the Exchequer acrofs the table.) No
!natter, returned Mr. Fox, as to the precite time.—
The Noble Lord retained the office for feveral years;
and when in that Houle allnlinn was made to the cir-
cumflance of his holding the two offices, the anferer
from the other file of the Houle was, that although
he held thofe offices, he only received the lalary cf
Secretary of State, and nothing from the 'Frafttry
of the Navy. Ay, that is nothing of the legal falary.
Did slot this julitly fornething more than fufpicion ?
Why thoold the N hie Lord to fondly cling to this
office of his Friend, Mr. Tro•ter ? There many other
perlons among even his own relations win would have
been glaS to occupy this foliation. But no—Lord
Melville teemed particulerly attached to it, and
would common fenfe, in conlidering a thing of this
kind, make no inference from that attachment
Another objeCtien mit againft the propofed Corn-
rnittee, from this confideratim, that be did not fee'
that any of the diffirthies which fume Gentlemen
complained of could be removed—that any of the ob-
(cure accounts could be explained. Thule accounts I
were indeed of tech a nature, that the patties them-
felves could not underhand them, and how, then,
could it be poffible for a Committee of that Houle to
make .sne thing of them ?
It had been laid that the Houfe fhould proceed
with the Minna deliberation in deciding upon cha-
rafter. But upon whole charaEter were they to de-
cide upon this meat, n ?" Not certainly upon that
of L-'rd Melville, for his charader was entirely gone
(a load cry f tear! /'tar !) but upon the chataaer of
the Horife and the Government, which mull depend
upon the vote of this right. As to the charaetcr
of Lord Melville it was fo completely deflroyed
in public eftimation for ever, that he would venture
to fay, that were the vote of the Houle unanimous in
his favour, it wouiei not have the flighteß effeft in
wiping away the fligma that was muverfally affixed
to his name. 'What then mull the world think of
retaining loch a man at the head of the gl,,sy of the
counts y ? It was dreadful to reflea that the moll
honourable claim, (a ontirob:c profcßions) fhould
be placed at the ditp.,fil of a man, with whole name
difhonour was infeparahly off,crated—who had con-
' felled himfelf guilty ()fan aft of cot rupt illegality.
The finnootal):e Gentleman took notice of an in-
genious and forcible ar7,lnrient advanced by a Noble
Friend bitiod him (Lord Hem y Petty) thole
fpeech It! confldeted, .trol he was fore the Houle I, h
it to be, the bell that had been delivered in the
courfe of the debate. He recollated that when the
Right Honoarabit Gentleman on the other fide,
(Mr. Pitt) made his r::o re in that Houle., his fir ft el
(Ay was in favour of ref, ‘rm, and aphid corropzion.
With what pleaturc did the Houfe linen to him up-
on that occatten—but how bon was the promife of
his eat ly years abantiorcd—
t fizantum mnt.aue chub .'
Lef the fpeechuhich the Right Hnnemrable Gen-
tleman delivered en that necalivon be controlled with
that of this evening, and what a change would be
glaring ? Suppnle the Committee were agreed to,
what defence could be immagined for the accufed ?
Was it any thing like that mentioned with refpeet to
final! payments which the Houle had heard from the
prefent Treafurer of the Navy ? If nothing better
could be deviled, it would amount to no defence, for
the (mall paymetits fltoold he made by the Soh-ac-
countants. The Treafurer of the Navy, or the Pay-
:way, had nothing to do with them. What was

Rated as to the one million, alto amounted to nothing
like defence, for that money might as well have been
paid from the Bank. And here he' could not help ob-
ferving upon the whimfical pretence of cra- sferring
the money from the National Bank to the bank of
Mars. Coutts, for the purpofe of fecarit ?, as if it
was not more Cafe to carry the money foot: the Bank
at once to Somerfet Houle, than to fend it to Mars.
Coutts to be hrought back again. There was fome-
thing alto in the dying legacy of Trotter, to the Na-
vy Office, that was particularly deferving of a re•
mark. It amounted to this, that Trotter laid to his
fucceffors, " Now, as I am leaving the Paymaller's
Office, I (hall provide that not one of you than ever
make a :haling by the fame means that limit done."
Bat this he left as a bequeti after the death of his
own power. He did not even offer it while living.
(4 latish.)
An Honourable Gentleman had expreffed a hope
that tome meaftire would he adopted to prevent the
recurrence of fuch a praCtice as the Report on the
Table difelofed. But there was no meafure in the
&ape of an Aft of Parliament could be efficient, if this
precedent were to be elfablilhed, that an Aft of Par-
liament was to he violated with impunity. Into the
particulars of this Report he could not enter without
difguit. It diul certainly difgult him to think that a
man with whom he had any conneftion, although
that conneftion was even of a hoflile nature—that a
man belonging to fuch a clafs in fociety—that any
man of rank would, upon being diked a queflion, re-
fute to anfwer left he fhould criminate himfelf "
He would appeal to any man who had a fpatk of Ito.
nrair in his bolorn, and rarely it was not unreafona-
ble to expeft fume in the brealt of a man holding the
rank of Lord'Mclvile, whether lie would not fuhmit
to any ponifliment fri,:ner than return fuch an anfwer
(a cry ef Lar ! hear!) Bin the Noble Lord had hated
in his tall attempt at defence, that he did not autho-
rife Mr. Trotter to apply any of the public money
for his benefit or advantage, " to the belt of his re-
collet-lion." Naw, faid Mr. Fox my objeetion to
this is, that the Noble Lord lhould have occalion at
all to mention his rec alletlion on the fubjed. lie
thould have been confident. There are Tome cafes
.where a man may be allowed to (peak as to his re-
colleEtion, while in others to mention it is to betray
him. if a man were afited whether he was on a par-
ticular nip ht in a particular room with John a Noakes,
it might be very well to anfwer, that to the bell of
his recolleflion he was not, but if he were alked whe-
ther John a Noakes did not charge him will an at-
tempt to pick his pockets, and kick him cut of the
room—what would be the inference if he were to an-
fwer that John a Noakes did not, " to the bttt of his
recolleftion." genera! latizh.) With rtfpe& to the
Noble Lord's offer to fwear potitively that he did not
profit from the mifappropriation of the public money,
it was remarkable that his offer was confined to the
period in which Sir Andrew Douglas, who was now
dead, was Paymafter of the Navy, but did not at all
extend to the Paymafterthip of Mr. Trotter.: What
was the conclufion then to be drawn from this ? Why,
that be was ready to make ~ath a• to the Paymaliet-
lhip of Douglas becau!c he was dead, but did not think
proper to (wear as to T. o: ter, becaufe he was alive.

. .
The Honourable Gelllicrflan made an animated
appeal to the pride and feelings of the Houle, and
particularly to that of Mr. Pitt, advifing him not to
rifle the little of reputation that remained to him upon
this nceation—not to take this card for his lark He
concluded with exprefling a hope that the fails ex-
pofed in the Tenth and Eleventh Reports would pro-
voke an inquiry into, and a reform of, the feveral
departments of the public expenditure. He trulled
that there were men around him who would promote
an invefiigation fo defirable fur the caufe of jullice
and the interetts of the country.
Lord CAS IsLEREAGH, in the molt Aliphatic
tanginge, exhorted the Houle to recollee, that, be-
lidos great duty which they had to ditcharge to
the public, in fitting the whole of this bufinefs to the
bottom, there was another duty, which was equally
incumbent on them, namely, that of doing indivi-
dual jullice to an old and faithful fervant of the
Public.

Lord ANDOVER (imported the motion.
Mr. WILBERFORCE expreffed himfelf in the
molt clear and decifive terms in favour of the motion.
Though it was not fully evident to the Houle that
Lord Melville had any dire& gain from the tranfac-
lions which were alluded to, yet he could not fay
that his Lordthip had not received accommodation
from them. It was, however, very clearly in evi-
dence, that Mr. Trotter had afted on a very large and
eztenfive fcale. If the Houfe was once to fuffer a
Miniiter to Fay that he had connived at the breach of
a law, by his deputy, a confidential fervant, con-
dandy for a number of years, and that the fuperior
was to be allowed to pats uncenfured, becaufe nu
perfonal corruption bad been proved againft himfelf ;
if that was once to be admitted as a principle by
which the conduit of the Houfe of Commons was to
be direeed, there was no fecurity remaining for the
faithful difcharge of any public truft. Such was the
opinion which he entertained of the confequencessef
the lot's of confidence and honour, that it was beyond
the value of any thing die which could be let in ba-
lance againit it. Much as the people of England
difliked the conduit of King Charles I. in levying
Chip money without the confent of Parliament, they
thou ht it ten times worfe that the Judges gave their
opinion in favour of the meafiire. When the body
that they looked to for protc&ion had declared againit
them, they raw no refonrce to which they could then
lawfully turn, and the confecrences were too well
known for him to think it need-ail to repeat thi.m
The Houle was now applied to as the Contlitutional
Guardians of the People's Right; and he fhould
charge his duty to the people to jhe hell of his judg•
mint as ;in upright Member of that Houle, and as a
,•unfcientious man in giving his vote this night. He
thought that the cafe was broad, plain, and palpa-
ble before them, and gave the motion his molt lin-
Cere fupport.
Sir C. PRICE obferved, that as a Magiftrate and as
a man, he felt hinsfelf molt fully jultified in declaring,
that if Lord Melville had been entirely free from any
criminality, he would have anfweted more fully and
unequivocally than he had done. He therefore fup-
potted the original motion.
Mr. WALI.ACE (one of the Lords .f the Ad
miralty) defended Lord Melville.
Lord ARCHIBALD HAMILTON role, he raid,
at that late hour only to remark, that no one Scots
Member had fpoken againft the nefarious proceedings

of die two SAffirolen, whole condo& had been the
fubjeft of the debate, He rofe, therefore, to declare,
that he should vote for the original motion.
The Houfe then divided on the original motion.
Ayes 216—Noes 216.
The numbers being thus even, the Honlitrable
Speaker gave the carting vote—Aye, Oae. Which
made 217 for the original queßion.

From Ile LOWDOP: G4ZE77E, APRIL 9.

LORD CHAMUERLAIN'S OZFICE, APRIL 9.

Orders for the Court to change the mourning nn
Sunday the 2ift inftant, for the late Q2een Dowager
of PRUSSIA, viz.

The ladies to wear black filk, fringed or plain linen, white
glares, necklaces, and car-rings, black or white (hoes, fans, and
tippets.
Undrefs—white or grey lateltrings, tabbies, or damafks.
. .

The gentlernm to wta'r black talltrinusted, tring,d, or plain
linen, black (words, and buckles.
Undrefs—grey frocks.
The Coot t to change the mourning further on Sun-
day the zBth initant, viz.

The ladies to wear black filk or velvet, coloured ribbons, fans,
and tippets, or plain white, or white and gold, or white and Inver
fluffs, with black ribbons.

The gentlemen to wear black coats, and black or plain white,
or white and gold, or white and flyer Ruff wailtcoats full trim-
med, coloured (words, and buckles. _

And on Sunday the sth of May, the Court to go
out of mourning.

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

Elizabeth Harvey and hlicabeth Cattle, coach-matter:, Rozhcf•
ter. Kent, Jan. 6. 1805.
Oliver litirke Smyth and Jafper Richards, fur..eons, Jermyn-
ftreet, Walmisittcr, April 5, taG5.
Edward Congdon Mackniurdo, Francis Hickei, at d Williatn
Fowler, merchants. London, Feb t 4, 1805.
Richard Marriott and Samuel Stanton. drapers. Northampton,
March 28,1805.

Thomas Newberry and Edward T linen-drapers, Fleet-
ltreet, March 30, sYos.. .

Reuben Reinlle and William Jones, pawnbrokers, Plymouth-
Dock, April I, sBos.
Thomas &won and William Calk, fpitit merchants, Thirik,
Yorklhire, Feb. 8, ans.
William Franklin, John Bourne, and Thomas Adams Franklin,
bankers, Splay and Horncaltic, Lincoldhire, April 5, 5805.

. .
Charles Hitchcock, and 1:1e. ward Holmes Baldock, chitamen,
Han way-ftreet, Oxford- ttrer t , March 5, i 80,5.
Nicholas Higginbotham, and Richard Johnlion, cotton. fpinners,
Newtam,Chefhireian. r, altos.
John Shakelbatt, Se:h German, and Jofeph Robinfon, brick-
makers, Pram', Laneafhire, April 1, 1305.
Samuel Uroolty, anti Joieph Hall, hollers, Nottingham, March
25, 18c5.
Jofeph Garnett, and Thomas Layeock, maltfttss, Wakefield,
York flare. July 3 t , iBl4.
Jol.n Buint oi. and Jofeph Hickman, rutty,' manufadurcrs,
Great Ptarl-ar, et, Spittal!fielda,Apt it 5, a 8. j.