still desirous that some short interval and pause should take place before the final grant of any supply; though we desire that such interval should be no more than will be sufficient to enable his majesty to show to us the same gracious confidence which his majesty and his royal ancestors have reposed in all preceding parliaments, and to place us in a situation in which we may, without violating the constitution of our country, cheerfully concur in granting to his majesty all such aids as the present exigency of affairs does, in our opinion, peculiarly demand. (Signed)

"SPENCER. "GRENVILLE.

"MINTO.

"CARYSFORT. "Carlisle."

Debate in the Commons on the Naval Commissioners Bill.] Dec. 13. Captain Markham rose to call the attention of the House to the subject of an inquiry into the abuses of the navy. He began by vindicating the late administration of that department from the reproach of not having put a stop to these abuses. They had instituted an inquiry, and many reports, ably drawn up, had been presented on the subject; but their attention had been so engrossed during the course of a long and laborious contest, that it was impossible for them to find leisure to pursue, as they wished to do, a system for the correction of these abuses. The bill which he should move for leave to bring in, would proceed on the same principle as that which they had then in contemplation and would have in view the naval department only. Its great and only object was the public utility. Besides, the board of Admiralty did not possess the necessary powers for prosecuting such an inquiry with effect, as they did not possess the power of examining witnesses upon oath, or of calling for papers and records which might be indispensable for a satisfactory inquiry into the subject. This object could be adequately attained only by the appointment of a commission named by parliament, and vested with all the requisite powers for bringing to light the irregularities and abuses complained of, and for devising the most effectual means of correcting and preventing them in future. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill to that effect.

Earl Temple thought that some specific grounds should have been adduced to

justify the House in granting the power which the bill called for. The general assertion, that abuses existed, did not warrant the House in granting such powers. The navy board already possessed the powers that were necessary, and those powers might be transferred to the Admiralty.

Lord Hawkesbury contended, that it was not the object of the bill to confer any new powers upon the Admiralty, but merely to appoint a commission to put into execution those they already possessed.

After a short conversation, leave was given to bring in the bill.

Dec. 17. On the motion for re-committing the bill,

Mr. Canning said, that if the Admiralty had not sufficient power to correct the abuses which they had detected, he would rather give additional powers to that board, because it was an existing, known jurisdiction, than create this new tribunal. It had been said, that the board of Admiralty itself was to be subordinate to this commission; but he did not believe that this was the object of the bill; for though there was a clause making the Admiralty in some respects subordinate to the new board, yet it was enacted in another clause, that this new tribunal was to derive all its information from the board of Admiralty. When the bill had gone through the committee, time should be allowed to parliament to consider the subject. He saw no objection to its remaining till after the recess.

Mr. Chancellor Addington said, that if abuses did exist, no time ought to be lost in detecting them; if the House were of opinion that they did not exist, the bill should be rejected altogether. It would be recollected that these commissioners were only empowered to inquire, not to punish; and parliament had, in fact, in the year 1792, pledged itself to make such inquiry when peace was finally restored.

Admiral Berkeley could not perfectly approve of the persons appointed for commissioners with such extraordinary powers; for (excepting sir Charles Pole) he thought that they, though very respectable men in their own particular line, were not sufficiently acquainted with the persons or things with whom they would have to do.

Mr. Sturges objected to this bill, as

having for a principal object, to extract confession of guilt from the delinquents, or punish them for perjury; this was contrary to the spirit of our constitution.

The Attorney General expressed his surprise at the new career of opposition, which gentlemen had embarked in. It was perhaps the first time, when ministers had called for an inquiry into abuses, that such inquiry was resisted by opposition.

Dr. Laurence thought that the bill was in opposition to an excellent principle, which had been laid down, that no man should be compelled to give evidence of his own delinquency: he thought it was the duty of the Admiralty to punish the delinquents when they found them out; but he did not approve of commissioners being now appointed, to overhaul every transaction of the late war.

After some farther conversation, the bill passed through the committee.

Dec. 18. On the motion, that the bill be now read a third time, lord Folkestone moved, that instead of the word " now," the " 8th of February be inserted."

Mr. Lemon said, he considered the bill as an ex-post facto measure, and consequently unjust. He was apprehensive it would have the effect of overturning the rules of evidence.

Mr. Courtenay said, that not an hour should be lost in discovering and checking those frauds and corruptions which were generally admitted to exist. It was a bill recommended by a man who had added new lustre to the British flag, and whose name would shine with distinguished brilliancy in the naval annals of Britain. It had been objected, that the bill was retrospective. Certainly, it necessarily must be so; it was to discover frauds that had already taken place; a prophetic bill to discover frauds before their existence, could only be conceived by those who made the objection.

Mr. Chancellor Addington said, that every inquiry must, in the nature of things, be ex-post facto. It was an inquiry into abuses that have past, in order to prevent their recurrence.

Mr. Kinnaird approved of the principle of the bill, but disapproved of the means made use of for correcting abuses. He had moved for the patents, to see what powers they contained. He would maintain, that they contained an injunction from his majesty, directing the Admiralty to inquire into the abuses complained of.

He thought that, by taking away the duties of the greater offices, such as the bill proposed to do with respect to the Admiralty, and instituting an intermediate power between them and parliament, the responsibility was proportionably diminished. He would rather say give to the Admiralty Board additional powers, and make them responsible to the House. He regretted to see the House departing from its usual jealousy with respect to the influence of the crown, by the opening for its members new sources of employment.

Mr. Sturges observed, that much had been said of the great achievements of the noble earl at the head of the Admiralty, in which he was ready to concur; but he felt himself obliged to state, in justification of his own conduct, that he thought that noble earl's management, since his accession to office, not entitled to confidence, particularly when he recol. lected that he had brought two deserving officers to trial upon charges from which they were honorably acquitted. This was one reason for the jealousy he entertained of the proceedings of the Admiralty. He contended, that such parts of their conduct as had obtained popularity, were merely in the pursuance of the plans and recommendations of their predecessors.

Mr.R.Ward said, that in Keble's Reports there existed an account of the origin and powers of a commission appointed in the reign of Charles 2nd to inquire into a misapplication, under his majesty's authority, of money granted by the Commons for the expenditure of the navy. In the patent the commissioners were authorized to commit persons refusing to own the authority of their inquiry; so that those persons should stand committed without bail or mainprise. As the commission was intended to act with an inquisitorial and checking power in some sort against the king himself, the precedent could not be regarded as unduly hostile to the liberty of the subject. How, then, could gentlemen oppose this bill, on the pretence that the powers which it went to grant were novel and unconstitutional?

The Attorney-General said, he had not heard the slightest reason assigned for postponing the bill. It was therefore obvious, that gentlemen were fighting merely for the triumph of protracting a measure, against which they had been unable to assign any solid objection.

Earl Temple reprobated the practice of

this he thought was a proof that ministers had nothing in view but the interests of the country, without any regard to the advancement or emolument of any parti

Mr. Sheridan concurred in the sentiment of the noble lord, that it was improper to ascribe unworthy motives to any member; and that declaration, he ironically observed, came with peculiar grace from the noble lord; for he not only professed respect for the principle, but regard for the practice. The present ministers were, according to that noble lord's assertion, weak, incapable men: they were a milk and water composition, a mere mawkish mixture; but there was no personality in all this! When ministers stated that the bill was suggested by the report of the committee of finance, the noble lord denied the assertion, and charged them with using false pretences, but there was no personality in that! It was all consistent from the noble lord! The necessity for this bill was so glaring, that he was surprised at the objections that were made to it; when it was considered that the peculations committed in the naval department, for the last ten years, amounted to three millions a year. An hon. gentleman had stated that this would be an ex-post facto law; but how was it to be otherwise? A similar objection had been made to a similar proposition, in the reign of queen Elizabeth; and the answer of lord Burleigh was particularly applicable. That noble lord said, "If I lose my purse on the road, where am I to find it? why, by going back, to be sure." The purpose of this bill is to go back to the frauds that have been com. mitted upon the public, and not merely to punish the defaulter, but to recover, if possible, the money we have lost. He heartily approved of the bill: its object was, the reform of abuses; and when such a signal was given from the main-topmast of the Admiralty, he trusted it would be attended to in all the other departments of administration.

Mr. Chancellor Addington, in answer to two questions put to him by a noble lord, said, he did not know whether all the persons named in the commission would accept that dignity or not; and

bills of a similar import with the present had received the assent of the House, in the progress of none of which had any mention been made of the acceptance or non-acceptance of the persons nominated to the commission. Four of the persons appointed to the commission, in the present instance, had notified their acceptance of the charge. The fifth, he believed, was as yet unacquainted with the honour designed to be conferred upon him. With regard to the second question, to what past period the retrospective view of abuses was meant to extend, this was a point that must be left to the discretion of the commissioners.

The amendment was negatived, and the bill read a third time. After which, Mr. Sheridan proposed, in order to guard against the influence of the crown, that in case of any vacancy among the commissioners, his majesty should not be at liberty to appoint any member of that House to supply the place.

This clause was adopted, and the bill passed.

Debate in the Lords on the Naval Commissioners Bill.] Dec. 21. On the motion that this bill be read a second time,

Lord Pelham lamented extremely that the noble earl who presided at the Admiralty board was prevented by ill health from attending his duty in that House. Had that not been the case, their lordships would doubtless have heard from the noble earl the reasons which made him. think such a bill absolutely necessary. Generally speaking, he entertained great jealousy of every bill of this nature. He did not admire the delegating extraordinary powers to any commissioners whatever. Reposing, however, full confidence in the noble earl at the head of the Admiralty, reposing also a considerable degree of confidence in the House of Commons, and believing that they would not have passed the bill, if they had not been satisfied that the abuses in question could not be effectually corrected without it, he was ready to give his vote for the second reading.

Lord Nelson said, that great abuses existed in the navy; and most especially were they practised by the prize agents.

Men of his profession found great difficulty in getting their prize money out of the hands of the agents, and often did not get it all. He was sure the legislature was anxious that the poorest sea-boy should receive its protection. The admiral, the commandant of a fleet, or the captain, might find means to obtain their right, but the poor seaman had not a chance of being able to get his money. The bill gave great powers; but they were powers without which the abuses in question could not be effectually corrected; and the hands in which they were to be entrusted were such as were not likely to abuse them. One ground had presented itself to his mind, in which he thought, in the first view of it, great objection might be taken; and that was, the power of calling for merchants books, and by that means getting at all their concerns and connexions. Now, as the credit of a merchant was more precious even than his wealth, he felt some apprehensions lest that credit might, under the operations of the bill, suffer material injury; but as no merchant had made the slightest objection to the bill on that account, his apprehensions had subsided.

The Lord Chancellor said, he knew there had been commissioners of public accounts and commissioners on other grounds, from whose diligence and ability beneficial effects had resulted to the public; but even the recollection of that circumstance did not disarm his caution, in respect to the present bill, or convince him that the authorizing commissioners to exercise the powers vested in them by it, was the only, or the most effectual means of remedying the evils complained of. The whole of this bill rested upon the assertion of a fact, viz. that certain abuses, frauds, and irregularities, prevailed in the navy, which called for correction, Every man must feel anxious that those sailors who fought our battles should, without delay, vexation, or difficulty, receive the due reward, of their valour; but possibly that desirable object would have been better obtained, if a separate commission had been authorized by a bill, for the single purpose of inquiring into the abuses of prize agents. The fact meant to be described in the preamble of the bill might, by one set of men, be termed an abuse; by another, a fraud; and by a third an irregularity. Would it not, therefore, be a more intelligible thing to have divided each of these, and, instead of

instituting commissions to inquire into mixed and complicated objects, to have issued different commissions applicable to each of the three heads? One main consideration, under the powers granted to commissioners of any sort was, that the full benefit, not only of the law of England, but of the essential principle on which the existence of that law depended, should be secured to the subject, viz. that no man, whatever had been his conduct, should be called upon to criminate himself. Being a lawyer, he must watch vigilantly over the benefits meant to be extended to every British subject, from this important principle of law; and therefore too much pains could not be taken by their lordships, when they were called upon to pass a bill giving extraor dinary powers of examining books and persons to commissioners, to guard against the exercise of those powers being so enforced as to endanger the freedom and security which the constitution intended every individual should enjoy. In the committee he would earnestly apply himself to assist, to the utmost of his power, in making it a safe and salutary bill.

The bill was read a second time.

Dec. 22. The House being in a committee on the bill,

The Lord Chancellor proposed the omission of one clause, and the insertion of a proviso in lieu of it, in order to secure to the persons called upon by the commissioners to answer, that principle of the common law which gave every man a right to refuse to answer, if his answer either criminated himself, or had a tendency to criminate him. He was aware that parliament bad, in cases of aggravated abuse, gone beyond this bill, and, in the case of the South Sea business, thought it necessary to compel the parties interrogated to confess their guilt. But in the case of the present bill, which was not intended to operate as a bill of punishment, but merely as a bill of inquiry, there was no occasion for departing from the sacred principles of the common law of England.

Lord Ellenborough said, he thankfully received the noble lord's clause, because he agreed completely with him as to the propriety of its adoption in the present instance; but he trusted parliament would never think itself warranted to part with the right in flagrant abuses, to compel the offender to reveal the guilty secret that lay lurking in his bosom. The enor

t