which it is drawn, and has been actually paid by the said governor and company of the bank of England.

V. Provided always, That the monies to be issued unto the governor and company of the bank of England, on account of the treasurer of his Majesty's navy, shall not be paid out of the bank, unless for navy services, and in pursuance of drafts to be drawn on the governor and company of the bank of England, and signed by the treasurer of his Majesty's navy for the time being, or the person or persons authorised as aforesaid; in which drafts shall be specified the heads of service to which the sums therein mentioned are to be applied; and which drafts, so drawn, shall be sufficient authority to the bank to pay such money to the persons mentioned in such drafts, or to the bearer of them."

When the reader has perused this act with attention, which I beseech him to do, will he believe it possible, that its intention could have been misunderstood by Mr. Dundas? Mr. Dundas, the person who framed it; the person who was to execute it; the person, who side by side with Mr. Pitt, was pushing on to power, by the means of professions of an earnest desire to promote economy in the expenditure of the public money? The Treasurer's act, observe by the preamble, was founded upon the report of the Com missioners of Accounts; that report recommended regulations in the Navy Treasurer's Office similar to those adopted in the Army Paymaster's office; and, by comparing the 'two acts it will be found, that, with the exception of names and of circumstances as to which the two offices totally differed, the words are exactly the same. One act was, in truth, copied from the other; and, therefore, the conduct of the Army Paymas ters, invariably pursued since the pay-office' bill was passed, is the strongest possible proof, that Mr. Dundas could not have misunderstood the intention of the act for the regulation of his office of Treasurer of the Navy. Lord Harrowby went from the PayOffice to that of Treasurer of the Navy; and, upon his oath, he tells the Commissioners of Naval Inquiry, that, finding a practice prevailing in his new office, which did not prevail in his old office, and knowing the legal regulations to be the same, he was led to institute an inquiry into the cause of this difference in the practice of the two offices,

He

says that sickness prevented him from completing his inquiry; but, that he had heard nothing that convinced him, that the pracfice of Mr. Trotter was at all necessary or useful. Some people think, that his lord

ship should have been more prompt in putting a stop to such a daring violation of the law; and there are those who wonder why Mr. Bragge did not sooner profit from Lord Harrowby's inquiry, especially as his lordship had had from June, 1800, to November, 1801, to complete that inquiry; after such a space of time taken up in inquiry, one might have expected his lordship to inform bis successor, Mr. Bragge, of the result; and, though he might forget so to do, one might have expected Mr. Bragge (a lawyer, be it remembered) to find out the true intent and meaning of the law, under which he was acting upon his responsibility; one might, surely have expected Mr. Bragge to find out the meaning of this law in a shorter space of time than from November, 181 to the Summer of 1802! That neither Lord Harrowby nor Mr. Bragge shared, e ther directly or indirectly, in Trotter's profits, is evident; but, one cannot help lamenting, that they should, from any considerations whatever, have, for so long a time, permitted the law to be grossly violated by their Deputy; and, still more is one constrained to lament, that Mr. Bragge, even after he put a stop to the violation of the law, did not dismiss the person, by whom that violation had been committed. In short (and it is a fact to be kept constantly in mind), though we see two Treasurers succeed Mr. Dundas; though we hear that one of them instituted an inquiry, and that both of them disapproved of Mr. Trotter's practices, we find, that his practices were never really put a stop to 'till the Summer of 1802; that is to say, 'till Lord ST. VINCENT resolved upon instituting that Commission of Inquiry which has brought all these matters to light. But, to return to Lord Melville: after what has been said, will any one believe it possible that that person could misunderstand the intention of the act of the 25th of the King Will any one believe that Mr. Pitt, Mr. Canning and the Master of the Rolls could think that he bad misunderstood its intention? The censured lord has been represented as a person so deeply engaged in matters of higher moment, that he might probably have forgotten all about the Trea surership of the Navy; and, it has been endeavoured to hold up Trotter as an artful knave, who had taken advantage his patron's misplaced confidence. It is certain, that to be at once President of the Board of Control, that is to say, very nearly the sovereign of India; War Secretary of State; and Treasurer of the Navy it is very certain, that, to fill all these offices at one and the same time is what never would have been attempted by any man but a Dundas or a

-

"into early consideration the matters sug"gested in the reports of the Commissioners of Pubite Accounts, and such further regu

lations as might appear to be necessary in "the different offices of the kingdom." To which the Commons made the following answer : “ That we are diply sensible of your Majesty's paternal goodness and care " of your people, in recoțumending to us, at "the same time, a just rega d to the econo

my requisite in every department; a duty "which your Majesty's faithful Commons "feel always incumbent upon them, *and, at this time, peculiarly indispensa "ble. That we shall also proceed, with "as much expedition as possible, to the "consideration of the reports of the Com"missioners of Accounts, as well as of "such further regulations in the autorent "offices of the kingdom, as may appear

"

likely to conduce, to the public advantage." It was not, then, a trifling matter. On the contrary, it was brought forward thus prominently as a powerful means of gaining popularity and insuring the possession of place and emolument. When the bill was introduced there was no debate; nor was there, any debate in any of the stages of the bill; but, in a enmittee of the whole House on that part of His Ma 'jesty's speech relating to the reports of the Commissioners of Accounts, Mr. Pitt.de. scribed the intention of the ministry, and of Mr. Dundas, in particular, as to the new regulations about to be introduced into the Office of the Treasurer of the Navy. He began by a high commendation of the Commissioners of Accounts, and besought the legislature to make haste to profit from the valuable lights derived from their reports. Proceeding then to the point in question he said: "I have the happiness to say, that

my right honourable friend, the present "Treasurer of the Navy, has, in conse

་་

quence of the report of the Commissioners on "bis particular office, taken the whole of "the practice and of their suggestions into "his most able consideration; and, he has, "after much inquiry and deliberate con, "sultation, formed a plan which promises "to be effectual. It seems, in his eyes, "to have all the ends in view which the "Commissioners recommend, and which this "House must be eager to pass. It tends to 46 keep down balances in the hands of the "Treasurer of the Navy for the time being.....The plan is framed upon the "suggestion of the Commissioners." [l be seech the reader to look back at these suggestions.J "We shall have to simplify the manner of keeping the accounts, and

personally to account to the Exchequer, "In addition to these means and to reduce "the balances in the hands of the Treasurer of the Navy for the time being, the mo

ney is, in future, to be placed in the "custody of the Bank of England as is now "the custom with the army expenditure."

Now let any one look at the Pay Office Actinserted above, let him recollect not only what has been since, but what was at the time, the invariable practice of the Pay Office, with regard to the custody of the public money; let him recollect what were the objects that the Commissioners of Accounts had in view, and what were their suggestions as to the accomplishing of those objects; and then let him believe, if he can, for o e single moment, that Mr. Dundas could misunderstand, or that Mr. Pitt thinks he could have misunderstood, the intention of the act, which the Commons, have now declared him to have grossly violated. What, then, are we to think of the attempt to soften down, to fritter away, to destroy, in fact, the censure finally passed by that assembly, by substituting the words

"

contrary to the intention of the law," in lieu of a gross violation of the law?"Thus bave we before us all the lir.ks of this chain of facts and circumstances. First the people, groaning under the accumulated burdens heaped on them by a lavish expenditure, petition the parliament to retrench that expenditure; secondly, we find theHouse of Commons appointing commission ers to inquire into the means of effecting such retrenchment; thirdly, we see the House of Commons passing a resolution that the treasurer of the navy and the paymaster of the forces should be suffered to derive no profit from the use or interest of the public money; next, the salaries of those officers are greatly augmented by a warrant of His Majesty, in order to compensate them for the loss of what they formerly made by such use or interest; then comes the act regulating the office of the Paymaster of the forces, which act has been duly executed from the moment it was in force to the present time; after this we find a recommendation of the Commissioners of Accounts recommending a similar act for

the regulation of the Office of Treasurer of the Navy; to give this recommendation the greater weight, and to satisfy the people, that his majesty and his ministers are sincerely solicitous to guard the public treasure from being misapplied, the King, in his speech from the throne, calls the attention of the Commons to the subject; the Commons, in a committee of the whole House, take the matter into their serious consideration, the minister clearly describes the intention of the bill about to be submitted, the bill is submitted by the person who is immediately to put it into execution, and, after all this, that very person begins to act, and for sixteen years continues to act, exactly contrary to the intention thus solemnly promulgated. And, when the daring violator of the law is at last detected; when a motion of censure on him is proposed in that same assembly, where, with professions of superior purity and of disinterested zeal for the public service, he first stood forward with the draft of that law, then is an attempt made to give to the sense of the House such an expression as to induce the world to believe, that he has disobeyed the law merely because he did not understand its intention! To this dilemma, however, are those who take this ground reduced, and this is the point to which I wish to rivet the attention of the reader : either the intention of the law and of its framer was such as it was described by Mr. Pitt in the speech above quoted, or it was not. If the former, then has the law been wilfully as well as grossly violated: if the latter, then was the law intended to deceive the people, the parliament, and the king, and, under the garb of reform, to carry on the work of corruption. Which of these Lord Melville and his friend may choose, is, to me, and, I believe, to the public in general, a matter of perfect indifference; but, one of the two it is impossible for them to avoid. I cannot dismiss this part of the subject without an endeavour to direct the attention of the reader, for one moment, towards the general conduct of Messrs. Pitt and Dundas, at the time when this law was passed. We all recollect, that reform, the name of the reform, was the ladder by means of which they attained the summit of political rank and power. Yet, observe, how different was their conduct from that of their opponents! It was during the short administration of Lord Rockingham, and while Mr. Fox was Secretary of State, that the resolution of the 18th of June, 1782, was passed. It was during the short administration of the Duke of Portland, Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, &c. that the Pay Office

Act was passed; that act from which Mr. Dundas copied the Navy Treasurership Act. Mr. Burke, immediately began to put the former act in execution, and thereby effected a real reform, and set an example of integrity and obedience to the law, which example has, in the Paymaster's office, been invariably followed to the present day. Mr. Dundas copied the act, but he took good care not to copy the conduct of the celebrated framer. He took good care never to put the act in execution. That was not wanted. The act had answered its purpose when it had furnished the occasion for making professions, and had thereby gained an addition of popularity. The violation of this law has been gross, it has been daring, shameful, scandalous; but, insulting and injurious as it has been to the people of this country, and deadly as is the wound which it is calculated to give to the government itself, still it is not a thousandth part so hateful as the hypocricy with which it has all along been accompanied. It not only came forth in the guise of reform; but the day, on which its approach was first announced, was chosen for the making of a solemn profession of political purity; principles of more than Spartan severity were proclaimed; a general denunciation against defaulters and peculators of every description, and down to a size the most minute, was made; places granted even by patent from the Crown were declared not to be sheltered from the curtailing and suppressive power of parliament. And here I cannot refrain from quoting the remark, made at the time by Mr. Fox, upon this last mentioned effusion of remorseless virtue. "I know perfectly "well," said he, "that it always has been,

and always will be unpopular for any man to hold an opinion such as I hold, and as "I ever will avow upon this subject; but, "in spite of the unpopularity that will at"tend such a declaration, I scruple not to 68 say, that I will never on any account give

my consent to touch any part of the "emoluments deriveable under a grant from "the Crown." Here we have the characters of the two men in epitome. Mr. Fox has been thought indiscreet for pursuing a line of public conduct so widely different from that of his antagonist; but, in contests for political fame it is the same as in contests in arms: those who are victors at the end of the war justly claim the superio rity. Mr. Pitt chose popularity for the pe destal of his ambition; it is always "weak foundation, slippery and unsure;" but he chose the very worst sort of it; he

chose to build upon the base and sordid passions of the people; their envy of the great, their love of money, their indiscriminate suspicions of the integrity of public men. These were the passions on which he rose, and.......... Oh, God! how just, how wise, how appropriate, are all thy judgments!--Want of room obliges me to postpone the remaining points, on which I intended to remark; I, 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.

[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 naval 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 his banker's, and the advances made out of the aggregate sum. He considered the advances made on his account, by Mr. Trotter, just 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 balauce, on the whole account, at the close, was in his favour.If we suppose this rep.esentation 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 s'ale 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 álong bona file intended to be repaid? Another striking circumstance is the time Lord Melville has 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