paid to his account at the Bank, the remaining 3,0001. being placed as before in the iron chest. On the 19th of Dec. 1782, a further issue of 93,8301. 6s. 10d. was made from the Exchequer to the Treasurer of the Navy; of which only 90,8301. 6s. 10d. was paid to his account at the Bank, the remaining 3,000 1. being in like manner taken to the iron chest. On the 2d of Jan. 1783, there was deposited in the iron chest the further sum of 5,000l. which was that day received from the then Mr. Welbore Ellis's ex-treasurership, in repayment of an advance to that amount which had been made to that extreasurership from Lord Melville's account at the Bank, in compliance with a minute of the Navy Board of the 30th of Nov. 1782.The payments made into this iron chest on or before the 2d of Jan. 1783, stand therefore as follows; viz..

1782. Nov. 6. From the Excheq. £ 5,000 22. From Do.

Dec. 19. From Do.

1783. Jan. 2. From Mr. Ellis's

3,000 3,000

5,000

£16,000

How this sum of 16,0001. so issued to the Treasurer of the Navy for naval services, and by his order placed in his iron chest instead of being lodged in the Bank, was, in the first instance, disposed of, is fully explained by the accounts and papers of Mr. Douglas. By these it will appear, that on the 11th of Nov. 1782, five days after the first deposit in the iron chest, Mr. Douglas the Paymaster, delivered to Lord Melville, upon his receipt, 5001. and on the following day 2,0001. more. On the 22d of the same month 1,0001. more was in like manner delivered by him to Lord Melville, and on the 25th the further sum of 3,0001.-On the 19th of Dec. following, the additional sums of 1,000l. and of 3,0001. were also delivered by the paymaster, to or for the use of Lord Melville, upon his receipt; making, with the former sums, 10,5001.; respecting the particulars of which, Mr. Douglas appears to have at this time made a statement to, and come to a settlement upon, with Lord Melville.-On the 4th of Jan. 1783 there remained in the iron chest 5,5001.; from which the sum of 3 0001. was on that day taken and paid to Mr. Jellicoe (the deputy paymaster) towards his office payments, leaving in the chest a residue of only 2,5001; the whole of which residue was, on the 5th of April, 1783, delivered by Mr. Douglas to Lord Melville, upon his receipt.

Making in the whole : £13,000

In which sum of 13,0001. Lord Melville thus stood indebted to the public on the 5th of April, 1783.-On the 10th of that month Lord Melville resigned his situation of Treasurer of the Navy, without having discharged any part of that debt, and leaving the balance of his treasurer's account at the Bank deficient to the amount of the aforesaid sum of 18,0001.-On the 14th of April, 1783, four days after his resignation, this deficiency was further increased by a draft drawn on that day by Mr. Douglas, upon the then extreasurership account at the Bank, for 10,000l. which, though made payable to Mr. Jellicoe or bearer, was not, as it appears, delivered to Mr. Jellicoe, but was paid to Lord Melville, upon his receipt; making the deficiency in his ex-treasurership account at the Bank, or, in other words, his debt to the public amount to 23,000L-And accordingly it is found, at the end of the same month, viz. 30th April, 1783, the office balance against Lord Melville was 289,408 12 3 and the Bank balance in his favour only

being deficient by

65,408 12 3

23,000 0 O

The whole of this 23,0001. appears to have remained due from Lord Melyille until the 24th of June, 1783, when the reduction of it was begun by a payment of 1,000). made by Mr. A. Gray (a clerk in the Navy Pay Office) to Lord Melville's ex-treasurership account, at the Bank.Between that time and the 31st of July, 1783 several similar payments were made by Mr. Gray, and by a commercial house then trading under the firm of Mure and Atkinson, amounting in the whole to 15,4001, and reducing the debt of Lord Melville from 23,000l. to 7,0001-The dates and sums of these payments will be seen in the following as count:

From the 31st July, 1783, until after Lord Melville's re-appointment to the office in Jan. 1784, he remained indebted to the account of his ex-treasurership at the Bank in the above sum of 7,6001. and no reduction of it took place until the 13th of March, 1784, when a sum of 2,000l. was drawn out from his then second treasurership ac'count at the Bank, and placed to his credit there in the account of his first or ex-treasurership. On the 24th of April, 1784, the sum of 1,0001. on the 17th of June, 1784, the sum of 1,5001; and on the first of March 1785 another sum of 1,5001, were in like manner transferred at the Bank from the account of the second to that of the first treasurership of Lord Melville, making in the whole 6,0001; and reducing the deficiency in the Bank balance of his first treasurership to the sum of 1,6001. but at the same time creating one of 6,0001. in the Bank balance of his second treasurership; so that the gross amount of the public money withheld by Lord Melville from the Bank, in this respect, still remained the same; viz. 7,6001.—It appears, however, that in the mean time, on the 20th of Aug. 1784, Mr. Douglas, the paymaster, drew from the account of the second treasurership at the Bank the sum of 2,0001. for the use of Lord Melville; and on the 25th of May, 1785, a similar transaction took place to the same amount; by which means Lord Melville became on that day indebted to the account of his second treasurership at the Bank as well in the sum of 6,000l. before stated to have been transferred from it to the account of the first treasurership, as in the sum of 4,000 drawn from it for private use, making together the the sum of 10,000 1.The whole of this sum of 10,0001, and also the sum of 1,600 1. due to the account of the first treasurership, continued unpaid by Lord Melville 'until the 6th of Oct. 1785, when the 10,0001. deficiency was reduced to 9,0001. by a payment of 1,0001. (then due to Lord Melville for a quarter's salary) being made to the account of the second treasurership at the

Bank. From that time until after the death of Mr. Douglas, in Dec. 1785, and the ap pointment of Mr. Trotter to succeed him in Jan. 1786, the deficiency continued unalter ed, and there was due from Lord Melville to the public 1,6001. in respect of his first or ex-treasurership, and 9,000l. in respect of his second treasurership, making together the sum of 10,6001. Upon this statement it is evident that Lord Melville had in his hands, when Mr. Trotter was appointed Pay master, 10,600 1. of the public money, which had been withdrawn from the Bank; and that the sum of 10,0001. which Lord Mel ville told Mr. Trotter was due from him to the account of the second treasurership, was not a debt arising from any specific sum taken from that or the former treasurership, but was, with the addition of 6001. the un discharged residue of 27,0001. taken by him at several times from the public money; 23,0001.-of it being originally taken from the issues to the first treasurership, and the remaining 4,0001. being taken from those made to the second.——At what times, and under what circumstances, the sums compo sing this 27,0001. originally came into the possession of Lord Melville, your committee have thus been able to ascertain. For what further purposes they were withdrawn, and what uses Lord Melville afterwards made of them, they cannot in every particular at present fully state to the House. But a part is found to have been paid to Lord Melville's private account at his bankers, Messrs. Drummonds, and 1,000l. to have been applied on the 19th of Dec. 1782, in repayment of the sum before stated to have been advanced to his lordship by Mr. Douglas the day after his first appointment to the office. Other sums appear to have formed items of account between Lord Melville and Mr. Gray, who, as already observed, was a clerk in the Navy Pay Office, and was, as your committee are informed, in the frequent habit of making pecuniary advances to Lord Melville.-The application of the large sum of 10,000l. which was withdrawn on the 14th of April, 1783, by a draft in favour of Mr. Jellicoe, your committee have been able to trace; and it appears to have been used by Lord Melville as a loan to the House of Muir and Atkinson, with whom he kept an account, and who appear to have been at that time in need of assistance. This advance will be found to have been more than discharged before the end of three months, by the repayments made by that house on the 7th and 12th July, 1783, to Lord Melville's extreasurership account at the Bark.-The use made of some of the smaller sums withdrawn, your committee have not yet disco

VOL. IX. No. 11.]

[PRICE 10D.

353]

SUMMARY OF POLITICS. PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.—Much as I have, at different times, heard upon this subject; various and contradictory as have been the schemes for effecting, in the mode of electing members of parliament, such a change as should render the House of Commons the real representatives of the people, the real and efficient guardians of their properties and their personal rights; little room as was left us for surprise at any project of this sort that might now be broached, there are, I think, but few persons, who could have been entirely free from emotions of that sort upon listening to the speech of Mr. Tierney, made in the House of Commons on Monday last, the 10th instant. This gentleman, upon the occasion here referred to, moved for leave to bring in a bill for the purpose of altering and amending the act of the 7 and 8 of William III. chap. 4, commonly called the Treating Act. Leave was given; but not without some observations from Mr. Secretary Fox, which shall be noticed by-and-by; and, the bill will, accordingly, be presented to the House in the course of a few days.- As every one, who feels the least degree of interest in the preservation of the constitution, must necessarily regard this as a subject of great importance, 1 think no apology necessary by way of introduction to the remarks which I am about to submit thereon; and I am fully persuaded, that every reader, who has, in any way or degree, the power of preventing this bill from becoming a law, will, if he should not have already perceived the dangerous extent of it and of the principles upon which it is to be supported, thank me for my endeavours thereunto to draw his attention while yet there is time. Mr. Tierney, whom I had never before heard, opened his subject with a statement as concise and as clear as his manher was unaffected and unembarrassed; arguments by which his proposition was supported exhibited similar evidence of talent; his speech fully came up to what I

the

[354

had always considered as the perfection of parliamentary oratory; and the impression it left upon my mind was, that the speaker was a much greater man than I had ever before thought him. But, in spite of this impression, which, especially under such circumstances, was eminently calculated to produce acquiesence, the proposition appeared to me, even at the moment most favourable to it, to be grounded upon a partial and erroneous view of the great subject to which it related; and, as I am perfectly ready to ascribe to the proposer none but the most laudable of motives, I trust that, in endeavouring to maintain my opinion with respect to his proposition, I shall be regarded as acting from motives equally laudable, He stated, that, from the different constructions of the Treating Act, by different committees and even different benches of judges, it was become matter of uncertainty whether it was or was not lawful for candidates to pay for the conveyance of electors to and from the place of election. That no law of uncertain construction ought to exist was manifest; and, therefore, he concluded, that something ought to be done to remove the, uncertainty; a conclusion, in which, of course, every one must be ready to concur. But, then, it remained to be considered, what ought to be done: whether the uncertainty should be removed, 1st, by enforcing the act according to its letter, and thereby prohibiting, in all cases whatsoever, the conveyance of electors to be defrayed by candidates; or, 2dly, by elearly distinguishing the cases, wherein candidates should be permitted to defray, from those wherein they should not be so permitted; or, 3dly, by giving the permission in all cases indiscriminately. He chose the first of these; and, accordingly, his bill, if it become a law, will contain ant entire prohibition to defray the expenses of conveying electors to and from the place of polling for members to serve in parliament. -When we consider the scattered situa tion of electors; when we reflet how large,