VOL. VII. No. 15.] LONDON, SATURDAY, APRIL 13, 1805. An ANT there was, whose forward prate Controll'd all matters in debate: Whether he knew the thing or no, His tongue eternally would go He brought (since he could not refuse 'em) PARLIAMENTARY CENSURE ON LORD VISCOUNT MELVILLE. In justice to the public weal, [PRICE 10D. Thus spoke "The nation's hoard is low. I know our annual fund's amount. The ANT in office thus replied. "How could the best schemed projects hold? [540 and further legislative proceedings, which are now become obviously necessary to the safety of the nation:-On Monday, the 8th instant, Mr. Whitbread, agreeably to great length, into the subject of the conduct of Lord Melville, as exhibited in the Tenth Report of the Naval Commissioners, at the end of which speech he submitted the fol lowing resolutions to the House. Previous to any remarks upon this impor-notice before given, entered, in a speech of tant proceeding, it may not, with respect to foreigners, and even with respect to many of our own countrymen, be unnecessary to observe, that the person, now known by the title of LORD VISCOUNT MELVILLE, is that HENRY DUNDAS, Esq. who was formerly a lawyer in Edinburgh; who became Lord Advocate of Scotland during the Ame rican war, who was a supporter of Lord North's administration; who was made Treasurer of the Navy at the same time that Mr. Pitt first became Chancellor of the Exchequer, in Lord Shelburne's administration; who again became Treasurer of the Navy in the administration of Mr. Pitt, in 17843 who afterwards became President of the Board of Control for India affairs, and afterwards Secretary of State for the depart ment of war, retaining all the three offices in his own person, 'till the year 1800, when he gave up the Treasurership of the Navy, still retaining the other two offices, till he resigned together with Mr. Pitt and the rest of that ministry in the month of March, 1801.This is the person, who, being again brought into place by Mr. Pitt, and put in possession of greater power than ever, has now been degraded by a censure, inflicted by a solemn decision of the Com mons House of Parliament, of which pro ceeding I shall first give an account, and shall then trouble the reader with such re marks as appear to me calculated to turn his attention towards those further inquiries I. That it appears to this Committee, that on the 18th of June, 1782, the House of Commons in a Committee of the whole House came, amongst others, to the follow ing Resolutions:-That it is the opinion of this Committee, that some regulations ought to be adopted for the purpose of lessening and keeping down the balances of public money which appear to have usually been in the hands of the Treasurer of the Navy and it would be beneficial to the public if the first and other Clerks in the different branches belonging to the said Office were paid by fixed and permanent salaries in lieu of all fees, gratuities, and other perquisites whatsoever. That it is the opinion of this Committee, that from henceforward the Paymaster General of his Majesty's Land Forces, and the Trea-. surer of the Navy, for the time being, shall not apply any sum or sums of money imprested to them, or either of them, to any purpose of advantage or interest to themselves, either directly or indirectly. That it appears to this Committee, that the Commissioners appointed to examine, take and state the public accounts of the king-dom, have, so far as appears from the re ports which they have hitherto made, dis charged the duty entrusted to them with great diligence, accuracy and ability; and if Parliament shall carry into execution those plans of reform and regulation which are suggested by the matter contained in the Reports of the said Commissioners, it cannot but be attended with the most beneficial consequences to the future welfare and prosperity of this kingdom. II. That in furtherance of the intention. of the House of Commons expressed in such resolutions, his Majesty by his warrant dated June 26th, 1782, directed that the salary of the Treasurer of the Navy should be increased to the sum of 4000 1. per annum, in full satisfaction of all wages and fees, and other profits and emoluments theretofore enjoyed by former Treasurers. III. That it appears to this Committee, that during the Treasurership of the Right Honourable Isaac Barre, the conditions of the aforesaid warrant were strictly complied with; that the whole of the money issued from the Exchequer to Mr. Barre for naval services was lodged in the Bank : that it was never drawn from thence previously to its being advanced to the SubAccountants, to be applied to the public service that during the time Mr. Barre acted as Treasurer and Ex-Treasurer, he had not in his possession or custody any of the public money, and that neither he nor the Paymaster of the Navy did derive any profit or advantage from the use or employment thereof. IV. That the Right Honourable Henry Dundas, now Lord Viscount Melville, succeeded to the office of Treasurer of the Navy on the 19th of August, 1782, when a further addition was made to the salary of the said office, in order to produce a net annual income of 4,000l. after the payment of all taxes and charges on the same; and that this additional salary was considered by the said Lord Viscount Melville as granted to him in lieu of all wages, fees, profits and other emoluments enjoyed by former Treasurers. V. That the said Lord Viscount Melville continued in the said office till the 10th of April, 1783; that being asked whether he derived any advantage from the use of the public money during that period, he in his examination before the Commissioners of Naval Inquiry, declined answering any question on that head; but that he has in a Jetter since written to the said Commissioners, and dated the 28th of March last, declared that previous to 1786, "He did not derive any advantage from the use or employment of any money issued for carrying, on the service of the Navy;" but Mr. Douglas, who was Paymaster, being dead, and his Lordship having refused to answer any questions on this head as aforesaid, no evidence has been obtained as to the application of monies issued for the service of the Navy, or the mode of drawing the same from the Bank during this period. VI. That the Honourable C. Townse hend, now Lord Bayning, held the office of Treasurer of the Navy, from the 11th April, 1783, to the 4th of January, 1784, and that from the examination of his Lordship it ap pears that during his Treasurership no part of the money issued for the service of the Navy, was applied to his private use or advantage, and that he does not believe that Mr. Douglas, who acted under him as paymaster, derived any profit or advantage from the use or employment of the public money, except the money issued for the payment of Exchequer fees. VII. That the Right Honourable Henry Dundas was re-appointed Treasurer of the Navy on the 5th of January, 1784, and continued in the said office until the 1st of Jane, 1800. VIII. That in the year 1785 an Act of Parliament was passed 25 Geo. 3. chap. 31, intituled "An Act for better regulating the Office of the Treasurer of his Majesty's Navy;" whereby it is directed, that no money shall be issued from the Treasury to the Treasurers of the Navy; but that all monies issued for naval services shall be paid to the Bank on account of naval services, and placed to the account of the Treasurer of the Navy, and shall not be paid out of the Bank unless for naval services, and in pursuance of drafts signed by the Treasurer, or some person or persons authorised by him; which drafts shall specify the heads of service to which such sums are to be applied, and that the regu lations under the said Act shall take place from the 31st July, 1785. IX. That the execution of the said act was postponed till the month of January, 1784, and that, from that time till the month of June, 1800, when Lord Melville left the office of Treasurer, contrary to the practiceestablished in the Treasurership of the Right Honourable Isaac Barre, contrary to the resolutions of the House of Commons, of the 18th of June, 1782, and in defiance of the provisions of the above-mentioned Act, of the 25th Geo. II. Chap. 31. large sums of money were, under pretence of Naval Services, and by a manifest evasion of the Act, at various times drawn from the Bank and invested in Exchequer and Navy Bills, lent upon the security of Stock, employed in discounting private bills, in purchasing Bark and East India Stock, and used in various ways for the purposes of private emolument. X. That Alexander Trotter, Esq. the Paymaster of the Navy, was the person, by whom, or in whose naine the Public Mone) ey was thus employed, and that in so doing he acted with the knowledge and consent of Lord V. Melville, to whom he was at the same time private agent, and for whose use or benefit he occasionally laid out from 10 to 20,000l. without considering whether he was previously in advance to his Lordship, and whether such advances were made from his public or private balance. XI. That the Right Honourable Lord Viscount Melville having been privy to, and connived at the withdrawing from the Bank of England, for purposes of private interest or emolament, sums issued to him as Treasurer of the Navy, and placed to his account in the Bank, according to the provisions of the 25th of Geo. III. Chap. 31, has been guilty of a gross violation of the law, and a high breach of duty. XII. That it further appears, that subsequent to the appointment of Lord Melville, as Treasurer of the Navy in 1784, and during the time he held that office, large sums of Money issued for the service of the Navy, were applied to other services, and that the said Lord Melville, in a letter, written in answer to a Precept issued by the Commissioners of Naval Inquiry, requiring an Account of Money received by him, er any person on his account, or by his order from the Paymaster of the Navy, and also of the time when, and the persons by whom the same were returned to the Bank, or Paymaster; has declared that he has no materials by which he could make up such an Account, and that if he had materials, he could not do it without disclosing delicate and confidential transactions of Government, which his duty to the Public must have restrained him from revealing. XIII. That Lord Melville in applying Monies issued for the service of the Navy to other services, stated to have been of so delicate and confidential a nature, that in his opinion, no Account can, or ought to be given of them, has acted in a manner inconsistent with his duty, and incompatible with those securities which the Legislature has provided for the proper application of the Public Money. The Speaker having put the question upon the first of the resolutions, Mr. Pitt rose, and, in a speech of several hours, urged the necessity of further inquiry, previous to any decision on the part of the House; and, in order to make such inquiry, he proposed to appoint a select committee consisting of members of the House. The motion he proposed was as follows: "That a select com itice be appointed to consider thẻ "Tenth Report of the Commissioners of "Naval Inquiry, and the documents there "with connected; that they examine the "same, and report their opinion thereon." This motion Mr. Fox objected to altogether, because, if it were carried, the resolutions of Mr. Whitbread would not be recorded in the journals of the House. Whereupon Mr. Pitt agreed first to move the previous question. Lord Henry Petty (son of the Marquis of Lansdowne) opposed the motion of Mr. Pitt, and, in a very animated and masterly speech answered the arguments of that gentleman. The Attorney General followed Lord Henry Petty, and took the side of the ministers. Mr. Tierney spoke on the side of Mr, Whitbread. Mr. Canning (the present treasurer of the navy) spoke for the ministers; Mr. George Ponsonby spoke against the ministers. The Master of the Rolls followed on the side of the ministers; Mr Fox spoke against the ministers; Lord Castlereagh (the president of the Board of Controul) for the ministers; Lord Audover against the ministers; Mr. Wilberforce against the ministers; Sir C. Trice against the ministers; Mr. Wallace (one of the lords of the admiralty) for the ministers ; Lord Archibald Hamilton against the mibisters. A division then took place For Mr. Pitt's motion of the previous 216 210 The numbers being even, the Speaker, after a short and dignified speech, in which he stated the reasons for the vote he was about to give, gave his vote against the motion of Mr. Fitt; and thus were the ministers left in a ininority of ONE.The House then returned to Mr. Whitbread's resolutions, the first ten of which were carried without opposition; but, when the Speaker put the eleventh, Mr. Pitt moved, by way of amendment, to leave out the words, " gross viole "tion of the law and a high breach of duty," and to insert in lieu of them, the words, contrary to the intention of the "law." On this a debate of short speeches took place. Mr. Grey contended for tie original resolution; and Mr. Pitt withdrew his amendment, and moved to insert, after the word "emolument," the words, "Mr. Trotter." Sir William Pultney said, he thought this would be reasonable, pro 66 to " 66 vided the words," as acknowledged by refrained from urging his motion, and top- On Wednesday, when the House met, Mr. Pitt informed them, that, in consequence of the resolutions of the House, passed on Monday, Lord Melville had tendered his resignation to His Majesty, by whom it had been graciously accepted. Mr. Whitbread thereupon said, that it would, nevertheless, be necessary to address the King to remove that Lord from his presence and councils for ever; but, it appearing to the House, that that object was already substantially secured, and Mr. Pitt declaring, that it was to be, as a matter of course, understood, that Lord Melville never could again enjoy any post of public trust or confidence, Mr. Whitbread Mr. Serjeant Best gave notice of a motion it appears to me an outrageous insult to the public, to a burdened and a wronged peo ple, to ascribe their resentment against Lord Melville to any thing but a due sense of the injuries they have suffered at his hands. Mr. Canning conjured the House "not to "be led away by prejudice within and by "intimidation and clamour from without." What could that gentleman mean by clamour and intimidation? What clamour has been heard? What attempt at intimidation has been made? But, let us hear Mr. Pitt." I "complain," said he, "that the hon. gent. "has endeavoured to mislead the public by "endeavouring to circulate the notion that 86 great additions have been made to the "public burdens, when no such additions be fairly attributed to nobody but the persons, whose established malversation created the suspicion. As to the press, let any one, who is able, point out the passage, where the conduct of Lord Melville has been misrepresented to his disadvantage, The Morning Chronicle, The Times, and The Morning Advertiser, have, with a degree of talent and zeal that does them great honour, espoused the cause of the nation; but, has Lord Melville and the ministry been without their advocates? Has not the Morning Post, the Sun, the Oracle, the Courier, and the Morning Herald, been engaged in a defence of his lordship from the moment his conduct was attacked? Will it be believed that the means of procuring defenders of this sort have been spared? And, as to "clamour," let the language of these latter prints be reverted to; and, if any thing half so clamorous, so abusive, so menacing, so evidently intended to intimidate, can be found in any other prints, upon any occasion whatever, then will I confess, that Lord Melville has been unfairly treated. Of pamphlets none has been published against Lord Melville. Even the Tenth Report itself has found no bookseller bold enough to furnish an edition to gratify the curiosity of the public; but, Lord Melville has not wanted a pamphleteer to take up his cause, and, from h performance, issuing from the shop of a bookseller professedly ministerial, I will make a have in the smallest degree taken place, "for he knows that not a shilling has been "lost to the public (Hear! Hear !)-that no allegation of any such loss has been "mentioned in the report, and that, in fact, "no mischief whatever has resulted from, "this transaction -(A roar of Hear! Hear! "from the opposition benches) —Sir, the "House must be sen-ible that it is very "little consistent with the moderation and "candour that ought to accompany a se "rious charge of this nature, to proceed with such violence and interrupt a mem"ber with clamour. But they need not expect to interrupt me with such noise, "which I must consider as an attempt to "influence the passions of the House; and "I have the less doubt on the subject, when "I recollect the numberless misrepresenta"tions bath in and out of the House on this affair; misrepresentations which have ❝ been attended with no little mischief. It " has been stated, not only that a very con"siderable loss has been sustained, but that our seamen have, in consequence of the transactions now before us, been prevented "from receiving in proper time the money due to their, valour and their meritorious services. | "(No! No! from the opposition) There "has not been the slightest grounds for "saying any such thing, for I can safely aver "that the delay of an hour has never taken "place in paying such money, and I do, "therefore, most grievously, and justly complain, that this affair has not been "treated with proper candour and modera"tion." As to the question of actual loss to the public, and consequent additional burdens, these topics belong to a subsequent head; but, who, 'till this speech was made, ever heard of a f any "clamour out of doors?" Who ever heard, that it was represented, that the sailors' pay was, on account of these malversations, detained from them? I never loose libels of the Tenth Report have had heard of any such thing; and, if such a no- the effect of turning every mind in the tion was really entertained and propagated, "country from an experienced statesman, who was to blame for it, and who would so as to wish him removed from office, have been answerable for the consequences? "only to give place to some tyrant of the Who but those, whose criminal conduct had quarter-deck......... If the Tenth Report afforded the grounds for the suspicions," be famous, so are the acts of Nero and whence such a misrepresentation arose? But, "Calligula.... Already have they" [the after all, was it a misrepresentation? If bills Commissioners] " produced little less than drawn upon Somerset House, for provisions" mutinies in most of the departments in the for the navy, were not duly paid; if those, who ought to have paid bills upon the sick and hart boards, did not duly pay those bills; if this was the case, and for years together, is it not possible, at least; nay, will any one say, that it is not likely, that demands for seamen's wages may have been delayed? At any rate, the misrepresentation, if any, can few extracts, whence the public will be able to judge of the reasonableness of the complaint of Mr. Canning and Mr. Pitt. The publication alluded to is entitled, "Strictures on the Tenth Report, &c." The writer ascribes the report to "the malice, ig 66 -norance, or folly, of a quorum of cold-blood"ect inquisitors." He talks of the " calum"nies of accredited official reports." Men in power, he says, "will not find that the 66 66 "naval service...... The Tenth Report is, "from beginning to end, almost a tissue of "calumnies. It is a report levelled, not 66 merely at the reputations of the first and "ablest ministers of the Crown, but at the peace and well-being of the country..... "It has visited the tomb for victims, to "satiate the lust for scandal, of a faction of |