expenditure, whereas they assert that it need not be above ten or fourteen. This average, however, the commissioners do not calculate fairly, as in the one case they take it on the whole years of the period, and in the other take it not on the most disadvantageous periods of the term they include. But this balance, they say, "is not after deducting assignments outstanding." Now, these should be deducted as the payment is assigned, and it depends on the party holding the assignment to receive it when he pleases. The unassigned balance should alone be looked to. However, upon examining the statement of the commissioners, even upon the principle on which they admit the average should be made, what they estimate at thirty-three days is only the average expenditure of seventeen, and at the end of Lord Melville's treasurership, only fifteen or sixteen, and in some as low as eight days. Now, if on a point of this sort the commissioners have fallen into no less than four errors, it is evident that the accounts and documents must require a more minute exami nation; and a select committee, therefore, appears to me best fitted to prepare for the house that accurate investigation on which its decision should be grounded.

With regard to the charge of Lord Melville having participated in the profits derived from the employment of the public money, it is particularly necessary that a more detailed examination should take place, as it depends so much upon matters of account. I had expected, however, that, after the solemn denial of Lord Melville on this subject, no suspicion of that kind would be any longer insisted upon. Lord Melville has most expressly disclaimed his having knowingly or intentionally derived any profit or advantage from Mr. Trotter's application of public mcney. Whoever compares the questions put to Lord Melville with the letter of his lordship, must be sensible that he in the first instance declined to answer positively, because from the blending of the accounts the advances by Mr. Trotter may have been from public money in his hands. On the face of the accounts 100,000l. is the whole amount of the advances to Lord Melville. It is known, that of all the sums of 160 millions which had passed

through the hands of Lord Melville, every farthing has been applied to the purposes for which it was issued, and has been regularly accounted for. But if it is thought necessary to fix minutely the balances that may have existed at particular periods in the running account between Lord Melville and Mr. Trotter, a minute examination is indispensable. When that takes place, it will be found that of 100,000l. which, on the face of the account, was paid to Lord Melville, many of the draughts, though bearing the name of Lord Melville, were in reality payments for public services. If this can be made out, as I am informed it can, it will place this matter in a new light, and is of itself a conclusive argument for farther inquiry. Let it be remembered too that, in drawing any inference from the accounts, it will be necessary to make allowance for the sums which Mr. Trotter was in the habit of receiving for Lord Melville, his salary as treasurer of the navy, as lord privy seal of Scotland, and other sums not appropriated there.

These points present subjects of various and important investigations, which, till they be performed, it is inconsistent with every principle of liberality and justice, to state as the foundation of any suspicion that Lord Melville was in any manner connected with Mr. Trotter in speculations of profit from the public money. As Lord Melville, however, disclaims any such understanding of mutual advantage, I trust that this charge of participation will be abandoned. Nay, if it should turn out that, in consequence of the blending of accounts, Lord Melville should unknowingly have received an advance of money which belonged to the public, I submit it to the candour of the house, or of any member, whether that circumstance could attach any stain of sordid motive to Lord Melville, from which his character is so averse ? I cannot believe that the house, that any individual could, not merely in consistency with the feeling of liberality, but the dictates of common sense, be 'so unreasonable as to accuse on such narrow grounds Lord Melville of having been in. fluenced by pitiful considerations of personal profit.

Upon the whole, however, as there are no materials before the

house, on which they can form a fair judgment; as the parties accused have not had a fair trial, have not enjoyed the right of hearing the charges and meeting them by evidence and explanation; as the conclusions passed in the house are many of them drawn from accounts detailed, and difficult to be unravelled, which a committee can alone state with clearness and precision; as the appointment of such a committee, while it interposes little or no delay in the determination of this important subject, will enable the house to do justice at once to the country and to the parties accused. I shall conclude with moving, "That a select committee be appointed to consider the tenth report of the commissioners of naval inquiry, and the documents therewith connected; that they examine the same, and report their opinion thereon to the house."

At the suggestion of Mr. Fox, who was desirous that the original motion should appear on the journals of the House, Mr. Pitt consented to shape his amendment in a different form; and, instead of the resolution he had proposed, he moved the previous question', intimating that, should that be carried, he should then move for the committee he had mentioned.

The house at a late hour came to a division;

The numbers being thus equal, the Speaker gave his casting vote against Mr. Pitt's amendment. The original motion was then put and agreed to. The succeeding resolutions were afterwards put seriatim, and carried in the affirmative without interruption, until the eleventh; upon which Mr. Pitt moved an amendment to leave out the concluding words “has been guilty of á gross violation of the law, and a high breach of duty," and to insert the words" has acted contrary to the intentions of the said act."

This amendment, after some discussion, was withdrawn; Mr. Pitt moving in its stead to insert after the words " for purposes of private interest or emolument,” the words " to Mr. Trotter," because, he argued, there was no proof or confession that Lord Melville connived at the drawing out of the money for his own interest or emolument; nay, he had in his letter denied it.

The words" as acknowledged by Lord Melville" were added to the amendment by Sir William Pulteney, and the motion thus amended was read from VOL. III.

EE

the chair. The question being then put on the motion as it originally stood, the Speaker declared that the Ayes had it.

The two remaining resolutions were afterwards put and carried *.

May 6, 1805.

His Majesty's answer to the late resolutions of the House of Commons having been reported to the House, Mr. Whitbread moved, "that the answer be taken into consideration ;” intimating his intention of afterwards moving an address to his Majesty, praying him to order the name of Lord Melville to be erased from the privy council, and to dismiss him from his presence for

ever.

Mr. PITT:

Before, Sir, the motion is put from the chair, I think it necessary for me to make a very few observations, which appear to me of such a nature as will supersede the necessity of agitating the question at greater length, on the present occasion. When I in-. terrupted the honourable gentlemant, it was for the purpose of saying, that I had a communication to make to the house, which might probably render his motion unnecessary; that communication is, Sir, that the object which the honourable gentleman has in view, is already accomplished. I have felt it my duty to advise the erasure of Lord Melville's name from the list of his Majesty's privy counsellors; his Majesty has acceded to this advice, and that erasure will, on the first day that a council is held, take place.

Having said thus much, I shall, with the permission of the house, say a few words on the circumstances under which I formerly resisted this proposition, and those under which I have felt myself bound to yield to it. The honourable gentleman has thought proper to allude to the discussion which took place on the day previous to the recess; and he says, that, on that occasion, I de

*In a debate on a subsequent night, these resolutions were ordered to be laid before his Majesty by the whole house.

+Mr. Whitbread.

clared that nothing then appeared to me which called for my advising his Majesty to erase the name of Lord Melville from the list of privy counsellors. I believe, Sir, it is in the recollection of the house, that a motion similar to that now brought forward, was produced by the honourable gentleman on the day to which he has alluded. On that occasion I did state that the motion appeared to me altogether unnecessary, since Lord Melville had resigned his official situation, and all prospect or hope of his return to office was extinct, as long as the resolutions of the 8th of April remained in full force. Unless the house varied their decision, that determination was an insuperable bar to the noble lord's return to power. At that time it did not appear to me to be the sense of the house that such a motion should be persisted in, or that it was at all necessary after the resolutions of censure on a former evening. Many gentlemen who concurred in those reso lutions, thought that the wound which had been inflicted, should not be aggravated by any unnecessary circumstances of severity; that when the justice of the public was satisfied, the feelings of the individual ought not to be outraged. Even several gentlemen on the other side of the house did not seem to wish that the mo tion should be pushed to a division. The motion was accordingly withdrawn, and in the room of it the house agreed to lay the resolutions before the throne, and to await the ultimate decision of his Majesty. By following this course, it was imagined, that the same result would be obtained without wounding the feelings of the noble lord, who was already sufficiently afflicted by the general decision of the house. This step then being taken, it did not strike me that it was at all expected that it was my duty especially to advise his Majesty to erase the name of Lord Melville from the list of his privy counsellors. If I had conceived this to be the general wish of the house, I should, unquestionably, have bowed to it; but not viewing the matter in this light, I did not conceive that I was bound to give the advice which the mo tion of the honourable gentleman is calculated to enforce. Since that time, however, in consequence of the notice of the honourable gentleman to renew his motion, I have felt it my duty to as

1