Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

chose to build upon the base and sordid pas- | sions of the people; their envy of the great, their love of money, their indiscriminate suspicions of the integrity of public meni These were the passions on which he rose, and.......... Oh, God! how jast, how wise, how appropriate, are all thy judg ments!--Want of room obliges me to postpone the remaining points, on which I intended to remark; 1, therefore, conclude, for the present, with expressing a hope, that the value of the materials which I have brought together, will, in some degree, compensate for the opposite quality which, I am afraid, will appear but too obvious in the comment.

In the foregoing sheet of this work, page 543, the quotations, there made, are said to be taken from speeches of Mr. Pitt, delivered in the year 1801. It should have been 1781.

[The following letter was communicated to me last week, though too late for insertion in the preceding sheet. It has since appeared in another public print; but, as the writer sent it to me in manuscript, and may wish to have it inserted in this work, I think it a mark of respect, justly due both to himself and his performance, to insert it here.]

LORD MELVILLE'S LAST LETTER.

The charge is, that his lordship acted in violation of a clear law, and in breach of his duty as Treasurer of the Navy.

1. In withdrawing large sums of money from the Bank, when not needed for the services of the navy, and permitting those sums to be lodged with a private banker on the private accounts of Mr. Trotter.

2. In applying money appropriated to maval services to other purposes not disclosed, but said to have been public purposes, and the money refunded.

3. In allowing Mr. Trotter to turn the public money to his private advantage, by speculations or investments in the Funds,

&c.

4. In deriving a profit or advantage to himself by this traffic.

To the three first Lord Melville pleads guilty, or he acknowledges the facts, though he denies or palliates the inference.

It is only to the matter of the last article that his letter relates. Lord Melville says, or wishes the public to consider him as saying, that he derived no advantage from Mr. Trotter's having the use of the public money, or from the profits confessedly made of it, except, perhaps, that Mr. Trotter was thereby enabled to advance money for his lordship's

private concerns, which he might otherwise not have been able to do, but that his lordship did not know, at the time, that such advances were made out of the public money. It was not till the 5th of November last that he learned the case might possibly be so; he is not yet absolutely certain as to the fact, because Mr. Trotter's private money was blended with that of the public, in the account at bis banker's and the advances made out of the aggregate sum. - He considered the advances made on his account, by Mr. Tro ter, jus: as if they had been made by any other agent employed in the management of his private affairs. He considered himself as debtor to Mr. Trotter, if the balance, on the whole account, at the close, was in his favour.If we suppose this representation candid and unequivocal. If Lord Melville really derived no profit or advantage from Mr. Trotter's operations other than that which the letter desires us to believe, would his lordship, would any man of common sense, who had the least regard for his character, or the opinion of the world, have hesitated to answer the question put to him by the Commissioners? Would he have declined answering, and given as his reason that he was not obliged to criminate himself? Where was the criminality upon his present state of the case in receiving pecuniary accommodation from Mr. Trotter, believing that it came from the private pocket of that gentleman? Where was. the criminality in having received that accommodation under such be lief, though he discovered before his examination that it was the 'public money which possibly, or probably, though not certainly, constituted the fund, or part of the fund, out of which the advances were made, those advances being afterwards refunded, or all along bona fide intended to be repaid? Another striking circumstance is the time Lord Melville bas taken for his justification. The contents of the report, and the conclusions drawn by the commissioners, and which every man must have drawn from his declining to answer, and the ground assigned for it, must have been known to him for months. The public obloquy under which he has laboured, ever since the report appeared, he cannot have been ignorant of. And yet the plain tale he had to tell was reserved till the eve of his trial. When guilt is to be proved by circumstances, the conduct of the accused generally furnishes the strongest evidence. Did an innocent man ever refuse to answer? Is he not eager to seize the earliest, and every opportunity, to assert his innocence? Without any great, breach of charity, one is led to suspect that

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

his lordship has lately received the hint from some ingenious friend, that use might be made of the slight circumstance disclosed by Mr. Trotter, as to the blending of the public money with his own.- But if Lord Melville truly derived no advantage or profit from, and had no share in the gain made by the use of the public money: what is to be said for Mr. Trotter? Is it credible that he would not have been anxious to exculpate bis patron and benefactor? Whether Lord Melville participated in the gain, made no difference as to his own criminality. That he had gained was admitted-that he had acted with Lord Melville's permission and knowledge was avowed. His lordship's character was at stake if any suspicion of his participating was created or allowed to exist. Mr. Trotter could not fail to be aware that declining to answer the question, whether he actually participated, was equal in the judgment of the public, though not at the Old Bailey, to direct affirmance of the fact. Mr. Trotter refusing to answer the question, whether his lordship derived any profit or advantage? was therefore, if the facts stood as he now desires the public to believe, highly injurious to Lord Melville-it was diabolical. And yet this man continues Paymaster of the Navy But this need not enter deeply into consideration at present To any one who attends to Lord Melville's letter, it will be evident that he has not ventured roundly to assert that he derived no protit or advantage from the gains he knew Mr. Trotter was ma king, which he permitted him to make by the use of the public money. The letter drawn up with art and caution, and may impose for a moment on superficial readers, but the practioners of the law know, that it is bad policy to make an affidavit unless it is complete, the inference being, that if you could have exculpated yourself in every article, in every view of the case, you would have done it. Omission is admission.Lord Melville says there was no contract between him and Mr. Trotter, express or implied, for sharing the gains, and that those gains were exclusively Mr. Trotter's own. But his lordship admits (as it could not be denied) that large sums were advanced to or for him by Mr. Trotter, and he has not said that those sums were repaid, and if repaid when that happened. Did his lordship and Mr. Troiter, his agent, never settle their account current, which the letter states to have existed? Has his lordship preserved these accounts, or did he commit them to the flames along with other useless papers during his retirement in Scotland?

If his lordship was so careless, will it be believed that Mr. Trotter was equally cureless?--Let me suppose two cases-1. A. and B. are highwaymen; equal sharers in the plans and the danger, and by contract, express, or understood, equal in the division of the plunder.-2. B. is the active person who takes the road. A. only furnishes the horse, the pistol and shot; he receives a part of the booty by way of loan -- cer tain this B cannot peach but at the risk of his own neck. He is withal so much of the gentleman, and has so much confidence in B. that he takes whatever B pleases to give him without asking a question as to the particular exploit which produced the money, satisfied generally as to the way in which it must have come.- -A. and B. are both guilty The Jaw says equally guilty the public will declare A. the most guilty of the two.

The following verses are taken from the Morning Chronicle of the 6th instant. 1 am sure that those who may have read them before will thank me for the repetition.

THE TEARS OF THE CREIF ́ETS,

ON TAXING

SALT AND VINEGAR. * Two sulky Salt-Cellars contrived to meet A pensive Pepper-Bix in Downing-street, And there convened in tactious consultation The motley Crewets of Administration. Old MELVILLE'S Mustard-Pot refused to come, Haggis and Trotters kept him close at home; PITT's peevish Vineger made no delay, Nor the smooth tasteless. Oil of Castlereagh; The Sugar-Casto WILBERFORCE supplied, And preached like Pot Lux by his Ca tor's side. Much Salt complained, much Finegar deplored, The Tax that forc'd them from the Pauper's board: Much curs'd the Country Gentlemen, whose bags Shrunk at the Taxing of the Farmers' Nags, Who left poor Vinegar, like Mum and Malt, To share the grievances endur'd by SaltNot attic Salt, for BILLY PITT they knew Had not an ounce of that 'mong all his crew: Curs'd Old GEORGE ROSE, who stated from his Cook How little Salt his Hampshire bacon took— Salt to his porridge GEORGE had got before, Nor car'd what suff'rings public porridge bore! "What honest humble Sauce can long enjoy "His fair security (cried gloomy Soy); "Catchup, perchance, may 'scape the luck'ess hour "So many mushrooms now have place and pow'r; "Finance's pettyfogging pickling plan "May strike at Onions, and excise Kian; "While stamped and annual licence must be got "For all who relish Garlic or Chalot. "Poor BARTO VALLE, melancholy BURGESS! "Victims of PITT and HUSKISSON and STURGES! "Ah look not sour, for PITT, serene and placid, "May tax sour looks, that universal acid! "Ah drop no Tear, for BILLY won't relax"And Tears are Salt, and liable to Tax!" So wail'd the Crewets, till the Meeting clos'd, This Resolution Salt at last propos'd"That Vinegar and He should jointly sport "A new Sauce piquante for the TENTH REPORT."

Printed by Cox and Baylis, No. 75, Great Queen Street, and published by R. Bagshaw, Bow-Street, Covent Garden, where former Numle's may be had; sold also by J. Budd, Crown and Mitre, Pall-Mall,

VOL. VII. No. 16]

LONDON, SATURDAY, APRIL 20, 1805.

[PRICE 100. MR. BURKE's advice to Ma. DUNDAS at the time that the bill for the reform of the Navy Pay-office hat just been announced ———“ If I were worthy to suggest any line of prudence to that right honourable gen*tleman, I would tel him, that the way to avoid suspicion in the settlement of pecuniary transactions, in "which great frauds have been very strongly presumed, is, to attend to these few plain principles: Not to "proceed in the dark; but to act with as much publicity as possible. To be religious in following the rules "prescribed in the commission under which we act. And lastly, and above all, not to b. fond of straining constructions, to draw to ourselves the management of a trust in its nature, invidious and obnoxious to suspicion, where the plainest letter of the law does not compel it. If these few plain rules are observed, no corruption ought to be suspected; if any of them are violated, suspicion will attach in propo:tion. If " all of them are violated, a corrupt motive of some kind or other will not only be suspected, but must be * violently presunied."- BURKE's Speech on the Nabob of Arcot's debts, Feb. 28th 1785.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

5771

PARLIAMENTARY CENSURE

ON

LORD VISCOUNT MELVILLE.

(Concluded from p. 573.).

In resurning this subject, it is proper first to notice the sequel of the parliamentary proceedings relative to it. When the House of Commons, on the evening of Wednesday, the 10th instant, after having agreed to the motion for the whole House's waiting on His Majesty with the Resolutions of Censure, it was by no means certain, that the King, being then at Windsor, could be at St. James's the next day, and the following day was Good Friday. It was agreed, there fore, that, if the King came to St. James's on Thursday, Mr. Whitbread and others should be informed of it by 12 o'clock in the day; and, that, if the King did not come, they were to conclude, that another day would be appointed for carrying up the address. They received no information whatever upon the subject; and, early in the afternoon Mr. Whitbread, and, indeed, almost every one who was going out of town for the holidays, went off. Thus, at four o'clock in the afternoon, the House, the mo ment it met, was taken by surprise with a notification, that the King was then waiting to receive their address. About 30 or 40 members, who resided near the House, or who had happened to hear of the King's coming to St. James's, were dressed ready to accompany the Speaker. The procession, on its way to St. James's was met by several members of the House, who, indignant at the trick that had been played them, resolved to avail themselves of their privilege of attending the Speaker and entering the royal presence in whatever dress they happened to be; and thus His Majesty, for the first time in his reign, saw himself, sitting on his throne, surrounded by persons in dirty boots!The resolutions having been read by the Speaker, His Majesty made the

66

[578

following answer. "I am always happy to receive any communication from the "House of Commons; and I am fully sen. "sible of the importance of the subject "matter of the resolutions which they have:

[ocr errors]

now presented to me.".. Considering this to be, and, indeed, knowing it to be, not only in form but in substance, the answer of the ministers, Pitt, Addington, and others, we ought not to be at a'l suprised at its coldness. The anxious desire which our gracious Sovereign has always entertained to alleviate the burdens of his people, and to prevent their earnings from being swallowed up by cormorant peculators, is well known. That is Majesty greatly disapproves of that conduct, which the House of Commons have stigmatized as:" a gross "violation of the law and a high breach of

[ocr errors]

duty," no one can doubt; and, therefore, if the answer was cold, the coldness ought to be, and must be ascribed solely to the ministers; and, it is hardly possible to find words, wherewith to express a suitable degree of indignation at the conduct of those hirelings of the press, who have the impudence to endeavour to make ilis Majesty'a perty with Lord Melville, by representing that he has written a most friendly and affectionate letter to that censured and disgraced person. This is, too, observe, that faction, who assume exclusively the appellation of "King's friends."--Coming now to those points of the subject, which remain to be discussed, that which first presents itself bere, and which is the FOURTH, ACcording to the order proposed in p. 552, relates to the actual pecuniary loss to the public from the misconduct of Lord Melville. The loss arising from Jellicoe's defalcation was before attributed to this misconduct in his superior, and, upon that part of the subject I have nothing to add, every one, who has written upon it, appearing to have nothing to say by way of contradiction. Mr. Pitt, upon the question of loss, declared that none had

taken place." The hon. gent." said he, "has endeavoured to mislead the public, "by endeavouring to circulate the notion, "that great additions have been made to "the public burdens, in consequence of the withdrawing of the money from the Bank; "when no such additions have, in the "smallest degree, taken place; for, he "knows that not a sbilling has been lost to "the public; that no allegation of such loss "has been mentioned in the report; and "that, in fact, no mischief whatever has re"sulted from this transaction." If such a declaration had been made by an ignorant person, by a person unacquainted with the nature and effect of the operations alluded to, one might have excused it; but, in a chancellor of the exchequer, it is impossible to excuse it. I have before mentioned the actual loss to the public, and the consequent addition to the public burdens, arising from delay in the payment of bills of exchange, drawn upon and excepted by, the different offices under the superintendence of the Treasurer of the Navy; and, that such delay took place upon bills to a very great amount, and for a series of years, was rendered indubitable by the proceedings in parliament, on the motion of Mr. ROBSON, in the month of March 1802. But, say the partisans of Lord Melville and Mr. Pitt, this delay did not arise from Lord Melville's violation of the law. It arose from the misconduct of the clerks in the different branches under him, To this I answer, that supposing the delay to have been occasioned by, and for the profit of, those clerks; supposing Lord Melville and Trotter to have paid the money to those clerks punctually, and the clerks to have unduly with-held it from the holders of acceptances; supposing this to have been the case, have we not a right to attribute this unjustifiable conduct on the part of the clerks to the knowledge which they had of Lord Melville's and Trotter's conduct; to their participation in the secret, and to the temptation to follow the example, of their superiors? But, I must beg the reader to stop here, and to read over carefully the interesting debates upon Mr. RoвSON's statement, which debates ought to be considered, in my opinion, one of the most valuable set of documents now extant. There he will find, that Mr. Addington, the then prime minister, who had, on the 4th of March, 1802, represented the circumstance of a government bill being dishonoured at a public office, as a most grave and serious matter, and the statement of it as something, if not proved, deserving of the censure of the House; he will find, that

the same prime minister, who, on the 4th of March, beld this language, came on the 9th of March, and admitted, that the cir cumstance was nothing novel; that it was part of an extensive practice, which had been followed for many years; and, in this latter admission he was joined by Mr. Van sittart, one of the then secretaries of the treasury, and by Mr. Bragge, the then trea surer of the navy, under whom, be it observed, Mr. Trotter had been, from the preceding month of November, permitted to continue in "grossly violating the law!" It is this sudden change of opinion to which I am solicitous to draw the attention of the reader; because it will serve to account, in some measure, for, the recent conduct of the members of the TINMAN MINISTRY, an appellation which I make use of as alluding to the most memorable, and certainly the most praise-worthy act, of Mr. Addington's administration. When Mr. Robson first mentioned the circumstance of the unpaid bill, Mr. Addington insisted, that he was bound to prove his words, to name the day when he would bring the matter forward, or the House ought to cen sure him; that the matter was grave and serious, that the credit of the country rerequired an explanation, and that it would be a miserable use of the forms of the house to say that proof could not be demanded. Well: Mr. Robson did name a day; on the 9th he came with his proof; he made a motion for the papers to enable him to prosecute an inquiry. And, what did Mr. Addington do? Why, he admitted the fact; admitted that it was part of a practice which had continued for years; but said it was a farce to say, that it would injure the credit of the country; and refused the papers by a motion of the previous question! * Now, whence did Mr. Addington, Mr. Vansittart, and Mr. Bragge, derive these new lights? Was it from their predecessors in office? That was the natural source; and, if I am rightly informed, it was the real source. I have heard, and I believe my information to be perfectly correct, that, the day previous to Mr. Robson's motion of the 9th, there was a meeting of Mr. Addington, Mr. Vansittart and Mr. Bragge, and Mr. Pitt, old George Rose and Lord Melville (then Mr. Dundas), at which inceting the new lights were communicated, and where it was settled, that the previous question should be moved upon Mr. Robson's intended motion. These facts will be best ascer

* I beg the reader to peruse the whole of this debate in Debrett's collection.

tained when the Commissioners come to examine those bill books, which Mr. Robson could not get at. But, in the meantime, there can be no doubt at all, that such a practice could not have so extensively existed, for so many years, without the knowledge of the Treasurer of the Navy; and, I think it will be impossible to account for his having connived at a practice so evidently injurious to the pubiic, from any other motive than that of keeping all silent upon the subject of his own gross violation of the law. It is not immaterial to observe, too, that when I made complaint at the Victualling Office (or rather my clerk for me) of my bill (mentioned in p. 507) not being paid; and asked the reason why it was not paid; the answer was, that there was no money, and that we must go to the Treasurer to know the reason. The loss and injury that must arise to the public from such a practice is too evident to be insisted on. At the very least, the amount of the loss must have been equal to the interest of the bills from the day they became due till the day they were paid. But, it must have been much greater; for, the grand evil was, that it was quite uncertain when the pay. ment would take place. No man in trade could rely upon having the amount on any particular day. His credit might be blasted, and himself become a bankrupt, while the government held his accepted bills to more than the amount of all his engageinents. Sir William Curtis was brought to say, that be would rather take such bills than any other. There might be a particular reason for this; but, could that reason exist generally? Mr. Addington, in the last part of the debates, said, that the circumstance brought forward by Mr. Robson, so far from being a proof of the insolvency of government, was a proof of the reverse; for the bills not being at a discount, under such circumstances, showed the government's solidity! He did, indeed, say, that the practice was not to be applauded; but, he ascribed it to " the advantageous arrange** ments

in the Navy Treasurer's Office. After all, however, he promised, that "it "should never bappen again." And, if I am rightly informed, all the unpaid acceptances at Somerset House were ordered to be paid off the day previous to Mr. Robson's motion; and, it can, I believe, be proved, that some persons, who had before been dancing attendance at that famous palace, had the amount of their bills sent to them, late in the evening, at their own houses! All this clearly shows, that Mr. Robson's motion was possessed of terrors. And, though

*

Mr. Wilberforce was so ready to declare it to be not worthy of the least attention, most people will, imagine, think it now quite proper to inquire into the origin, the duration, and the extent of the scandalous abuse, to which it related; and, if such inquiry takes place, I am fully persuaded, that it will be easily ascertained, that, from this cause alone, the public has, notwithstanding the assertion of Mr. Pitt, exp rienced an actual loss of many millious sterling. That gentlemen told the House of Commons, that the report had alleged no public loss to have arisen from Lord Melville's violation of the law; but, if the reader will use his own eyes (and it is pretty nearly time so to do), he will find, by referring to this same report, in the Register, pp. 469 and 470, that the Commissioners positively say, that the public service might have been carried on with smaller balances in the hands of the Treasurer of the Navy. Indeed, is it not evident, that all the sums that Trotter was advancing to Lord Melville, as well for pretended public as for real private uses; all the money employed in Jellicoe's cast-iron speculation; all the sums fingered by the "bounie Mark Sprott;" all the sums vested in Exchequer bills,

The loss to the public will be found to have accrued in the way of additional amount in the prices of articles supplied to, and of work performed for, the navy. That amount must be a matter of computation after the extent of the delays in payment is clearly ascertained, which latter may very easily be done. Because, though the billbooks, or other records, in the several branches under the Treasurer, may not specify the date of the actual payments; yet, such specification will always be found in the books of those individuals who have finally received payment of the bills.The questions, then, will be: did the Lords of the Treasury and the Treasurer or Treasurers of the Navy know of these delays, which had continued for so many years previous to Mr. Robson's motion ? And did Mr. Addington and Mr. Bragge, when they were, at last, informed of them, discharge, or otherwise punish, all, or any of, the persons from whose misconduct such delays had arisen? For, as there were always great balances of the public money in the Treasurer's bands, there must, at the time of the discovery, have been criminality somewhere. This is a part of the abuses easily sifted to the bottom, and it is one upon which the pub. lic are extremely anxious to obtain satisfac tion.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »