requests to have justice done them. To hold a meeting takes up but very little time. Neither the army nor the navy is called in to assist at meetings. To hold meetings, disturbs no part of the com munity; and, the more pressing are the exigencies of the state, the greater is the necessity for satisfying the people, that the sacrifices they make are for the service of their country. And, when we survey the orderly, the quiet, the patient conduct of the people, upon this occasion, is it not almost too much to bear, to hear a hireling of the Treasury assert, that this conduct is " exactly con**formable to the furious spirit of the French Reformers" Where has this spirit appeared? Were the Mayor of London and the Sheriff's of Middlesex burried on by a furious spirit? The Mayor bid the persons, who requested the Common Hall to be assembled, wait three days for his answer. He then told them, on a Thursday, that he should be basy all the next week; but, that, after that he would comply with their request. This was the account of the matter given in the public prints. Now, will any one impute fury to the persons, who made this requisition? Was a "furious spirit" visible at the Common Hall? And is it not a shameful misrepresentation to compare the present conduct of the people to the conduct of the French Reformers? In the county of Middlesex the ineering has been put off to the 2d of May. The Sheriffs have, indeed, behaved with great fairness and impartiality upon the occasion, and; therefore, their conduct is the subject of general and deserved praise; but, what I insist on is, that neither the leaders in these meetings nor the mass of the people are to be accused of fury and clamour; but that, on the contrary, their conduct has been rmarked with a degree of patience rather too nearly, perhaps, bordering upon what is called sang froid, and which is certainly to be ascribed, not so much to their want of feeling a becoming degree of indignation, as to that indifference towards public concerns, which the detection of such base hypocrisy in public men is but too apt to create, and which, by the bye, the partisans of the Pitts and Addingtons are now endeavouring to render universal, by affecting to treat as chimerical the idea of common honesty in ministers of state*. I trust, however, that these endea

In the preceding sheet, p. 592, I observed, that all the ADDINGTONs and their relations and dependents voted against MR. WHITBREAD'S motion for censuring Lord Melville. I mentioned their names, but emitted that of MR. EASTCOURT, who is

vours will prove fruitless; that the people will yet hope to find honesty and sincerity in the persons chosen to conduct their affairs; and, that, in this hope, they will proceed, in an orderly and constitutional manner, to communicate their sentiments as to the past, and their wishes as to the future, to the parliament, or to his Majesty, as the occasion may appear to them to require. The city of London, in Common Hall, has set the laudable example. The city of Salisbury, where the right of election is confined to the corporation, has been the first to follow that example, and, in a petition to the House of Commons, conveyed in language at once respectful and dignitied, mld and resolute, loyal and public spirited, has furnished a striking proof, that the complaints against Lord Melville, his associates, and abettors, have not their rise in a spirit of faction, nor in popular clamour. This petition was presented on Thursday, the 25th instant, by Lord Viscount Folkestone, one of the members for Salisbury; and, it is to be hoped, that few cities and boroughs, will lose this opportunity of convincing the people, that they are not such "rotten" parts of the body politic as they have been suspected to be. At. the same time, however, it must be confessed, that this is the touch-stone; and that a few weeks will prove, whether Mr. Pitt's former description of the House of Coinmons was true, or whether it was false. As to following the example of the "French "Reformers," if this accusation is to be brought against every one, who endeavours to put an end to the system of peculation and corruption, then what have we gained by preserving our government against the effects of the French revolution? What have we gained by a ten or twelve years' war? If to

Mr. Henry Addington (now Viscount Sidmouth's) nephew, and who came in a member for the famous borough of DEVIZES, in lieu of Mr. Henry Addington, when he was made into a Viscount, and, of course, could no longer sit in the House of Commons himself. The Common Hall of London appear to have had this in view, when they passed a vote of thanks to LORD ST. VINCENT, "who alone," say they, adopted the measure which has brought to light the peculations complained of. -Upon this subject of voting and of Peer-making, it is worthy of notice, that the ministerial prints nów state the intention of the minister to cause to be made peers no less than five of the members of the House of Commons, who voted against the motion for censuring Lúrd Melville!

subsequent page. To that article I beg

leave to direct the reader's attention, and having so done, I look upon the matter to which it relates as being placed beyond the reach of misrepresentation.. -The next point to be adverted to, is, Mr. Pitt's declaration relative to the actual loss sustained by the people from the malversations of Dundas and Frotter. I have before, and even twice before, made some observations upon this part of the subject; and, I think, that, as far as those observations have gone, they have generally been regarded as having completely, refuted the position of Mr. Pitt,, that because there was finally, in Dundas's case, no defalcation; because the balance due to the public was at last fully paid in, there was, upon the whole, no loss to the public. This position I have, I think, completely refuted before; but, since the publication of the preceding sheet, I have fallen upon a docu sent, wh ch, had 1 seen it sooner, I should have made use of for the purpose of making Mr. Pitt refute bimself. The document I allude to, is, a speech made by that gentleman, when, on the 17th of February, in the virgin year of 1785, be moved for leave to bring in a bill, which afterwards became that very act of parliament, which Dundas has now been censured for having grossly violated. In my endeavours to show, that the public had sustained a loss from this violation of the law, I stated, that, as to that part of the loss (for it was only one part, and that not the principal part) which arose from the unnecessary balances kept in the hands of Dundas and Trotter,

to know the amount of the actual loss to "the public in this way, the first thing to "do, is, to ascertain the average unne

64

cessary balance, in the hands of the Trea

surer, and then reckon the amount of "the compound interest on it at the end "of Dundas's Treasurership, which, alone,

will, probably, be found to amount to "two or three hundred thousand pounds." I stated, that "the amount of this balance, "might have remained undrawn from the Exchequer, and that the Lords of the "Treasury might, of course, have suffered "it to remain in the pockets of the people." This was the principle upon which I argued; and, if this principle be admitted; nay if the whole of the doctrine be found to have been laid down by Mr. Pitt, and that, too, at the very moment when he was offering the new-violated act to the House of Commons, where shall we look for an explanation of the motive which has now, induced him to declare, that there has been no less to the public from the conduct of Dundas

and Trotter? The speech, now about to be quoted from, being made in a committee of the whole House upon that part of the King's speech recommending an early attention to the reports of the Commissioners of Accounts, embraced other matters as well as those immediately connected with the Treasurership of the Navy. Mr. Pitt began with the Receiver General, and, in speaking of the balances they held in their hands, he laid down the doctrine, to which the nation should now hold him. The Receivers General had, too, made the insufficiency of their salary the pretext of using the public money for their private advantage. Now, then, let us hear what Mr. Pitt, the pure, the immaculate, the heaven born reformer and economist, Pitt; let us hear what he said of such a practice, when he found it had existed under other administrations. The Commissioners are induced to think, that the Receiver General of the Land Tax is "not warranted" [though, observe, there was no law against it] "in the detention of "the public money, either by the difficulty "of procuring bills, or by the insufficiency

66

of bis salary. These practices have been "considered by the Commissioners in a

proper point of view; for admitting that "the allowance is not adequate to his pains, "yet this is not sufficient to justify him in "his detention of a considerable balance. The "community at large are greatly hurt by "this mode of transacting business," Then, as to the degree in which the community are burt, the following was his statement. "The Commissioners of Accounts have en"deavoured to form some computation "of the loss sustained by the public "from the detention of the money by "the Receiver General, and, for that pur

pose, they called for an account of the "quarterly returns made by him to the tax"office, whence it appears, that the ave

rage amount in his lands from the 5th of "July, 1788, to the 6th of July following,

was 334,0611. the interest of which, at "only 4 per centum, being 13,3621. a year; "and this is the sum, which, it is imagined, "the public has paid for want of the use of "their money." That this is a case exactly in point, no one can deny; and, therefore, again I ask: where are we to look for the motive, which could induce this Mr. Pitt to assert, and to assert over and over again, that the public has sustained no loss whatever from the misapplication of the public money by Dundas and Trotter, though it be clearly proved by the Tenth Report and the accompany ng documents, that much larger balances than were necessary for the public

service were held in the hands of those persons, and that, too, at a time, when Mr. Pitt himself, as first Lord of the Treasury, was driven to the miserable and disgraceful expedient of fabricating wind bills with the aid of a contractor and a jew broker? Where are we, I say, to look for the motive, which could induce him to make this assertion!--Leaving this question to be answered by the reader, I should now advert once more to the topic of disinterestedness; a topic not by any means to be let drop; for, the partisans of peculation, perceiving that, amongst the vulgar, both great and little, the pocketting of the money is regarded as the most heinous part of the offence, are exerting their powers to the utmost to wipe that away. This topic I must, however, defer till my next, begging,' in the mean while, such of my readers, as happen to possess the works of BURKE, to refer to, and to read from one end to the other, that speech, from which my motto is taken. I beg them well to consider the important truth inculcated by that motto; to call to mind, and to keep steadily in view, the two persons, to whose conduct the speech related; and, to remember, that the famous Arrangement respecting the nabob of Arcot's 'debts was a contemporary with the act for regulating the Office of the Treasurer of the Navy and with all those boasted plans of economical reform, of the salutary effects of which Sir Charles Pole and his brother commissioners have now brought to light such indubitable proofs.

On

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS. Thursday, the 25th instant, Mr. Whitbread made a motion for the " appointment of a "Select Committee to make further in

quiry into the matters contained in the Tenth Report of the Commissioners of "Naval Inquiry." To this Mr. Pitt moved an amendment, that the committee should be limited as to the objects of their inquiry;

that they should be empowered to inquire "into the particular application of the Na

val money to other purposes, and also to "consider of the requisitions made to the "Chancellor of the Exchequer, or to any "of

of the Commissioners of his Majesty's "Treasury, as to the issuing of money, and

as to the debt due to the Crown by the late Mr. Jellicoe." This amendment was carried 229, against 151, leaving the minister a majority of 78; and the reader will clearly perceive, that the committee is thus prevented from making any inquiry whatever as to the money transactions of Dundas and Trotter After the above, another division took place upon the mode of constituting the

committee. Mr. Whitbread proposed twenty one persons, whom he named. To this Mr. Pitt objected, and moved for a committee by ballot; on which Mr. Fox observed, that he was astonished, that the minister should, upon a subject of such moment, res sort to this mode; that nothing but perfect fairness could satisfy the ends of justice, and convince the people that the parliament was in earnest; that it was well understood, that a select committee of 21, if chosen by ballot, was a committee of persons, who spoke the sentiments of the minister; that if this were chosen in that way, jealousy and distrust would be the consequence; that this was a committee to try the ministers themselves; and, that it was a monstrous thing, that it should be nominated in a way that would countenance the supposition of influence.Upon a division, however, there appeared for the minister, 251, and against him 120,

On the same day, to the utter astonishment of all those who witnessed the scene, and who had duly reflected up n the pressing nature of the case, Mr. Pitt, the same gentleman who brought in the act that Viscount Melville has just been censured for grossly violating; the same gentleman, who, in the very hour that he proposed the said act, proposed to erect, and did afterwards erect, a Board of Commissioners, for detecting and correcting abuses; the same gentleman who, together with his friend Dondas, made the memorable arrangement with Paul Benfield and others relative to the debts of the Nabob of Arcot; the same gentleman who was first Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time when Mr. Long, the Secretary of the Treasury, is, by Trotter, said to have returned a certain sum, which sum was unlawfully taken from the Bank; the same gentleman, whom, in the eleventh report, we find issuing wind bills at Somerset House, while he was boasting, in St. Stephen's Chapel, of the glorious effects of his "solid system of finance;" this same identical gentleman gave notice, on Thursday, of his intention to make, next Monday, a motion for ... what, think you?.. Why, to appoint another Board of Commissioners to inquire into the expenditure of the public money in all the public offices! Expenditure which has taken place under himself! But, it was well known, that Mr. Grey intended to move for such a commission; and, in that case, observe, the minister, the principal person whose conduct is to be inquired into, would not have had the choosing of the Commissioners who are to make that inquiry! (This subject shall be revived]