came into their hands subsequent to the 1st of January, 1786.”

Sir Robert Buxton seconded the mo

from being in the house on the first night of discussing the subject of the tenth report; had he been able to attend, he should certainly have voted in the majo rity, on the ground of the noble lord's having violated an act of parliament.

by observing, that after what had passed with respect to abuses in the naval department, there was well founded suspicion, at least, that similar abuses were pretion, and said, that illness prevented him valent in other departments also. The expectations of the people were now raised, and they looked up for investigation. I it was earnestly and honestly followed, the people would be satisfied, but if merely carried on for the purposes of deception, and the protection of delinquents, the natural result would be dissatisfaction and discontent in every quarter of the realm.The question was now put, and leave given to bring in the bill.

Mr. Bankes regretted that the motion was brought forward this night, because he did not think that it would satisfy the public, or answer the ends of public justice. No man had a higher respect for [ PROCEEDINGS RESPECTING LORD the courts of law than he entertained, and MELVILLE AND MR. TROTTER.] Mr. he hoped that the matter might some time Spencer Stanhope rose, and said that or other come before one of those ancient he felt it necessary to have the matter of tribunals, where no prejudice existed, and charge contained in the tenth report of the from which, consequently, a fair and just commissioners of naval enquiry put in a decision should be anticipated; but he course of investigation. The charges wished the house to consider at present, which it made were very serious, and before it parted with the business, or sent should be proceeded on with decision and it to the court of exchequer, what would dispatch. Though he was convinced that be the result. This might be easily inlord Melville was not guilty of participa-ferred, considering that the person or per-' ting the gains of malversation of public sons to be examined might demur, and money, yet he should not attempt to thus defeat the end of substantial justice: screen the noble lord, or throw dust in the besides, the intricacy and mixture of the eyes of the public on the present occasion, different accounts, and the dificulty of but he thought it improper to have con- distinguishing the items of each, threw demned the noble lord before he was difficulties almost insurmountable in the heard; in saying so, however, he did not way of accomplishing the object to be atmean to question the decision of parlia- tained. He was decidedly in favour of a ment, which found the noble lord guilty of committee with enlarged powers; but as having violated the law; but he could not this did not seem likely to be attained, he refrain from saying, that he abhorred the thought that the magnitude of the subject, barbarous mode of first cutting off a man's and the satisfaction of the public, made head, and trying afterwards whether he it necessary to move generally, that the was guilty. He was of opinion that the attorney-general be directed to prosecute most eligible mode of proceeding would the noble lord and Mr. Trotter. He be, to have a civil process instituted should therefore propose as an amendagainst the noble lord and Mr. Trotter in ment, that all the words after "lord the court of exchequer, in order to have Melville and Mr. Trotter" be left out, restitution made to the public. Should it and these words be inserted, "and that turn out, in the course of the proceeding, the attorney-general be directed to prothat the noble viscount was in a corrupt secute the said lord Melville and Mr. league with Trotter, he trusted, then, Trotter for the said offences."-On the that the house would proceed by impeach-question being put,

ment; but he again repeated his convic- Mr. Windham considered it perfectly tion that this was not the case. Ile con-clear, that the best way of proceeding cluded with moving, "that the attorney would have been to have referred the general be directed to take such measures whole matter to a select committee, who as may appear most effectual in ascertain-could have taken the opinion of the law ing and securing, by a due course of law, officers in what manner the suit ought to such sums as may be due to the public by be brought with the best chance of suclord Melville and Mr. Trotter, in respect ceeding in its object. They would have to the profits araising from money ap-been able to ascertain whether there exist plicable to the service of the navy, which ed evidence sufficient either to support a VOL. IV. 2 K

civil action, or a criminal prosecution. | branch of the charge, namely, the violation Since that course was not taken, and the of the law, which had been admitted, and alternative lay merely between the civil could not preclude an enquiry into the paraction and the criminal prosecution, he ticipation in the peculation, which was should give his vote for the latter. punishable, both in a civil and criminal point of view.

Mr. Pytches said he thought that if the shameful conduct of this great delinquent were screened, men would soon become ashamed of speaking against corruption. He severely censured the conduct of the last administration of the right hon. gent. opposite, and spoke with much warinth in favour of a criminal proceeding.

The Master of the Rolls observed, that every thing on which a civil suit could Sir J. Newport expressed his preference proceed had been already settled by the of a committee with extensive powers, to vote of the house. What were the reasons a committee with limited powers, and conurged by gentlemen on the other side of tended that such a committee should make the house for the adoption of the resolu- a general enquiry and refer certain points tions of the 8th instant, in opposition to for prosecution. As however this was not the wish of his right hon. friend, that the to be done, he certainly preferred a criwhole business should be referred to a minal prosecution to a civil one. In his escommittee? Because they asserted nothing timation, the satisfaction of public justice could be done in the committee. It was was of infinitely more consequence than impossible to change their opinion of the the regaining of a paltry sum of money. transaction, as it was impossible to do away the effects of lord Melville's confession of an infringement of the law, and the proofs of Mr. Trotter's speculating with the public money. If so, if this were true; how could a committee find out better grounds for prosecution than what existed? If parts of the subject were referred to a court of law, it would be Mr. For said, he had but a word or highly improper that the same topics at two to offer on the present question. the same time should be under the con- Gentlemen had alluded to several modes sideration of a committee of the house. It of proceeding, in order to meet the in would be better to postpone a reference tentions of the house, and the expectations to law without abandoning it altogether. of the country. Some, it appeared, were An hon. gent, had proposed an amend for a civil, others, for a criminal prosement to the original motion for a civil cution: others again, would prefer the suit, in which he had moved for a crimi- mode of impeachment. His object was, nal prosecution! and that to ascertain to see lord Melville prosecuted and puwhether or not lord Melville received any nished one way or the other. As the case profits from the use of the public money. now stood, the noble lord was not punish If he did, they ought to be the object of a ed in any degree at all. If the present civil suit, Besides there was no better question, or the amendment moved upon chance of obtaining that information in ait, or an impeachment, went nearer the criminal court than in a civil one. Evi-complishment of their object, he should dence must be produced in both, and vote for it. He had no other anxiety, evidence would prove it in either. The resolutions of the house contained a censure on lord Melville's conduct. His resignation which was in consequence of those resolutions, was in fact a substantial punishment inflicted by the house. After these grave resolutions, it would be hazardous to send the affair into a court af law. The conviction could not be answered for, nor the sentence on conviction. It would be impossible, he believed, to prove any actual participation in pecuniary advantages, and the legal punishment might not accord exactly with the idea the house entertained of the heinousness of the offence.

ac

than to see adopted the speediest mode of obtaining redress for his constituents.

Mr. S. Stanhope in explanation, said, that lord Melville had already been suff ciently punished, unless he was convicted of wilful participation in the illicit profits,

Mr, T. Grenville felt no very strong motives of preference for a criminal rather than a civil prosecution. He feared that either would be found inadequate for the discovery of a corrupt participation on the part of lord Melville, But as he now had no other choice, he should vote for the amendment, as it seemed somewhat more closely to follow up the spirit and intention of the resolutions which the house had ́alDr. Laurence contended, that the re-ready adopted. This was more his object solutions of the house only went to one than a vain attempt to recover the money.

Should the house adopt no other measures gent. in contending that a civil prosecu than those now proposed in furtherance of tion was the only remedy, and yet at the their resolutions, they would but ill answer same time confessing that they would not the expectations which the country had answer for the success of it. He sincerely conceived from the resolutions. By these regretted that the powers of the committee the house had pronounced that lord Mel- had been restricted. On the investigations ville had been guilty of a flagrant breach there to be made, the public might have of the law, and of an evident dereliction relied for success. Any other mode must of duty; and was no legal punishment to be open to disappointments, inconvefollow such a proved and acknowledged nience, and delay. The attention of the offence? As to an impeachment, little public was fixed on the proceedings of the could be expected from it. The public house, and of the courts of judicature, to justice of the couutry might be better sa- which they should resort for justice and tisfied, perhaps, by a criminal prosecution, punishment of the offenders. He was and in that view of it,' he should vote for averse from allowing the possibility of the that mode of proceeding. ends of justice being defeated, or that any Mr. Sheridan said, there were two modes disappointment should flow from such a proposed; one for a civil suit, and the quarter; that the public should find that other for a criminal process. The gent. they were so short-sighted, ignorant, and who proposed the former said, he did not improvident as to the decision which must think lord Melville had participated in follow. It was their duty; they were the slightest degree in the emoluments called on to preserve the good opinion of of Mr. Trotter. He would ask, why the public in the course of law of the then did he move that a civil action should kingdom; and, so far as in them lay, not be instituted against him? Surely, every to allow the public mind to relax in any person must see that such a motion was share of that love, confidence, and affection absolutely useless, that it must be worse in their proceedings which we knew at ! than useless in the opinion of the gentle-present existed. Here a great public deman who made the motion; as, though linquent had been proclaimed to the counhe was convinced lord Melville did not try. His offence had even been in part acparticipate in the profits of Mr. Trotter, knowledged: but whien parliament carried he made this motion, it is to be supposed, him into a court of law, nothing could be to prevent those on the other side from made of him! He approved of the obinstituting more effectual proceedings. The servation of the hon. bart. (sir John Newhouse was now driven to make a choice port). It was not money which that of the two measures, and, something like house and the country sought for in a grand jury who had not found a bill, they this instance; it was for the adoption of were about to proceed for the recovery of that proceeding which should best conthe money, assuming every thing which sult the dignity and honour of parlia ought first to be precisely ascertained. The ment, and of the nation. His hon. house were turning their backs upon friend (Mr. Bankes) had said, that the that of which they had proof, namely, the violation of the law, and they were sending the participation, of which they had no proof, before a jury.

adopting of the one mode of proceeding in the criminal court, would not preclude them from their civil suit. In this he agreed with his hon. friend. He had not Mr. Wilberforce said, that the hon. gent. contended, as the hon. and learned gent. who had made the present motion, did (the master of the rolls) seemed to imagine,` not seem to have attended to the circum-that they would avail themselves of both stances of the case. For that hon. gent. proceedings. That he understood not to he entertained the highest respect, but he be the meaning of his hon. friend; but could not think that his motion was calcu-only that if one failed they might then refated to produce any good effect. The cur to the other. If in the criminal action subject of the motion was one, on which they felt embarrassed, they might be enthere was no proof, and in the success of titled in the civil action to attempt somewhich, their own professional men did thing like compelling restoration. It was not hold out to them any very flattering of the utmost importance for parliament hopes. What man could seriously listen to take care that they did not go to demand to the recommendation, who would not the opinion of a court of judicature in that I most smile at the right hon. and learned part of their case in which there was a

the house ought not to go those lengths which they declined at first without a farther aggravation of his lordship's offence. With this feeling, therefore, I shall vote for the original motion.

chance of failure. He was a great friend to judicial proceeding, and he wished the people in general to be so. He confessed he had had no doubts, although the spirit of the law was unquestionably with them, whether it was equally clear that the let- Mr. Whitbread. The right hon. gent., ter of the law was so too. Noue of those who has just sat down, argues as it the gentlemen, however, who were better quali-house had decided that they would proceed fied than lie pretended to be to judge on that subject, having started any doubt on the subject, he should hope there was on that point no risk of failure. Failure was at this moment greatly to be deprecated. It was not against the courts of law alone that the obloquy would attach. Parliament would also come in for its share. Ile was not anxious for popularity, he was solely solicitous to preserve unbroken, those bonds of esteem, affection, and confidence, which he hoped would always continue to subsist between the people of this country and parliament. He therefore, as the best measure which now remained to be adopted, gave the amendment his cordial support.

by civil suit. That, however, is not the case. He has indulged in much sarcasm against me on account of the course of my proceedings. Sir, I say, that in what I have done, I have proceeded with dehberation, and I am not sorry for any step! have taken. I wish to proceed in both ways. I mean after the house had declared itself upon that part of the charge which is indisputable, I wished for a committee to ascertain every thing else connected with the subject. The house has decided upon the violation of the law, but not upon the participation of viscount Melville in the profits. Now what says the right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt)? Ile advises us to try a civil suit for the participation, while the The Chancellor of the Exchequer.—I think law officers of the crown admitted it had I am warranted in saying that the mode little chance of success. I therefore wish proposed by the hon. gent. (Mr. S. Stan- for a mode by which effectual justice may hope), is that which was approved by a be done, and that is a committee of the great majority of the house. The ques- whole house. That a great wound has tion then is, whether we shall wave it, been inflicted upon my lord Melville by and substitute one which the gentlemen the discovery, I admit; but is that a puthemselves, who have brought it forward, uishment? When a grand jury finds a bill, say is hable to some objection? The ob- is that a punishment for the offence servation made respecting the powers of charged, and is the case not to be sent for the committee does not appear to me to be trial to a petty jury? I admit that the founded in fact, The question of enlarging vote of the house compelled the resigits powers did not affect the particular nation of lord Melville; but there is a case of lord Melville. The doubt arising great deal of difference between that resigupon that subject was whether the powers nation and his dismissal. The people of the committee were sufficiently wide, should have seen and known that he was and embraced every other proper object dismissed. The effect ought to have been of enquiry, exclusive of the particular case plain and palpable to the understanding referred to a court of law? That, however, of every man. If a civil suit were to disis not the question now. The question cover that the money was picked out of now is which of the two modes is prefer- the pocket of the public, would that be able? and I contend that the civil bill is punishment, unless followed by restitution? better calculated to obtain the object than I admit I might have the committee, and the criminal process. After having in-the right hon. gent. said he would not opflicted so heavy a wound upon lord Mel-pose it; but to obtain his concurrence, I ville, as that which his lordship had al-must have abandoned the particular case ready suffered, he did not understand that in question, and acquiesced in an attempt the house wished to follow it up in a to cloak and screen lord Melville, and that penal way, unless satisfied of his lordship's I did not choose to do. The criminal participation in the profits. With a con-proceeding is, I am sure, the best calcusciousness to that effect, I thought the lated to obtain the ends of justice, and I house would be content with an assurance shall accordingly vote for it. that his lordship was not to return to his majesty's councils. I think, then, that

The Attorney-General wished to offer a word or two in explanation of the opinion

imputed to him. He never asserted that punishment. The plain question is, whethe mode now proposed would wholly or ther the house thinks that enough has been necessarily fail of effect; he only said that done? If they think enough has been done, great difficulties might arise to obstruct they will vote for a civil process, in conthe end it attempted to accomplish. If cert with the right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt). it was the object of the mover to obtain If they think the public expect that pupecuniary redress for the public, the court nishment should follow guilt, they will of King's Bench might not be able to adopt the criminal proceeding. With regrant that redress. It could not grant it gard to the questions referred to the coinunless evidence was adduced of the dis-mittee, namely, how far the right hon. tinct amount of lord Melville's participa-gent., as first lord of the treasury, may be tion in the illegal profits. Otherwise au concerned, and two or three others, they enormous fine might be attempted to be are only so many episodes, while the main imposed upon him, which the court would story out of which they arise, is not to be not be able to make out. Better hopes touched. I lament that we are driven to of the recovery of the money for the pub- this course; but I think our character lic might be entertained, therefore, from and our duty to the public require that a civil than a criminal prosecution, and we should send viscount Melville to that from that persuasion he should vote for tribunal where justice may inflict punish.the adoption of the former. ment wherever convicted guilt deserves it.

. Mr. Tierney. I cannot agree in the Mr. Serjeant Best challenged any law scanty and restricted powers which some officer of the crown to state, that any good honourable and learned gentlemen will was likely to result from the mode they only allow to this house. I always thought, supported. The books and papers of that by the spirit of the constitution it third parties could not be called for. All possessed stronger inquisitorial powers that was wanted could be got by a crimithan any other tribunal in the country. The ual prosecution. If a man was not proright hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt) would have nounced guilty who refused to answer a it understood, that the house does not wish question, still no jury would be found to to proceed to any more punishment against declare him inuocent who was a self-conlord Melyille; but I contend, on the con-victed violator of the law. The wound trary, that the house has not shewn any inflicted was not much in point of fortune, disposition to stop here. We have voted considering the places the noble lord still that lord Melville has violated the law, for retained. It must then be sought in his private emolument. What then is the character. But if it was there, it was next question? Why give us the money strange indeed that, with such a wounded back again, and we have done with you? character, he should remain a private counBut bow are we to get the money? The sellor of his sovereign. The house then diattorney-general gives very little hope of vided on the question, "that the words the mode proposed; and therefore I approve proposed to be left out staud part of this of a committee of the whole house as the question," Ayes 223, Noes 128, majobest mode of getting at the crime, the purity 95. The amendment was of course nishment, and pecuniary rèdress. I feel rejected, and the original motion carried. it an unpleasant task to rise for the purpose : of defending the dignity of the house. The house may not waste its time upon persons of inferior note; but I contend that there is no precedent of a minister, high in the king's councils for many years, breaking the law, and suspected of a corrupt motive in doing so, being handed over to the attorney-general. I am confident there is no case nor precedent of the kind. I discla.m a vindictive spirit towards viscount Melville, and assert, that my conduct yields to no influence, except a sincere regard for Mr. Whitbread then stated, that it was the honour of the house of commons. I his intention to move that some of the think, therefore, that the house cannot names on this list should be expunged; stop here, but, that it must call for some but as that motion would probably occa

Mr. For then moved, "that the house do now adjourn;" and on this question there was another division, Ayes 98, Noes 240, majority 142.-While strangers were excluded, the report of the committee appointed to examine the lists given in on the ballot for the select committee was brought up. On reading the report, it appeared that the names of the members chosen for the committee corresponded exactly with those in the list read on Friday by Mr. Whitbread.