this nature attaching to any of its prosecutions, while they call for the unreserved and undivided applause and confidence of the nation. We are, however, surprised that even this House of Commons should not feel the necessity of enforcing its standing order, for clearing the galleries, when they debate the propriety of bringing any individual to trial. The publication of their debates on such subjects, they must know, must be highly prejudicial to the party accused, and, in the event of his acquittal, what reparation could they possibly make? In such event, they would certainly acknowledge that it would have been more wise and proper not to have suffered the publication of their charges, and of their animadversions upon them. The only means, then, of coun, teracting the dangerous prejudice imbibed in such cases, is an appeal to the nation, through the medium of the press. Hence it is, that what cannot be defended in the abstract, in principle, has become necessary, by adventitious circumstances to self-preservation.

Our author begins his address with a remark, the truth of which must strike every reader of common observation most forcibly.

It is

1

is a little singular, that in the representations of the drama our sympathy is always called forth in favour of suffering rank, and we feel a desire to soften the misery of afflicted greatness. But in real life we appear to act on the reverse of this feeling; and are, for the most part, inclined to accelerate the fall of human power, and to exult in the condition of a man degraded, from high state, and put down from the seat of authority. The obscure and feeble prisoner asks our compassion, and receives it; he solicits our aid to testify his innocence, and we lend our prompt exertion to his cause. But when crime is imputed to a man high in power, we withdraw ourselves, with something like a feeling of congratulation, to a distance, that we may behold him grappling with the foe; and, however undeserved the attack, we please ourselves with think, ing that at least the pride of his stature will be humbled, and the ermine of his fame be spotted in the wrath and bitterness of the encounter.

"There is an odd perversity in human nature. To lead the bulk of mankind always and solely by just representations, is not practicable; but to mislead them by false representations, is matter of no difficulty. To in. flame their passions, is easy; but to attempt wholly to remove their pre. judice, is ploughing the rocks,"

Certainly this strange inconsistency of conduct arises from the bad passions and propensities of man. In contemplating the fall of past greatness, the best feelings of his nature have their full scope, and they display themselves accordingly; but in a struggle with existing greatness, envy and other evil passions obtrude themselves, to the ex clusion of his good feelings, and render him inhuman and unjust. Many other observations follow, equally just and equally appropriate to the immediate subject of discussion. The author wisely and strongly deprecates the introduction of party-spirit into a judicial inquiry, and professes, what he indeed manifests in every page, an in violate attachment to the laws and constitution of his country. He considers the charges originally preferred by Mr. Whitbread, whom

he

1

he styles the arch accuser of Lord Melville, in his introductory speech, first, with having applied the public money to other uses than those of the Navy, in contempt of an Act of Parliament; secondly, with conniving at a system of peculation in another, for whose conduct he was responsible; and, thirdly, but this charge is so novel in its nature, and - urged in a way so truly curious, that we must give it in the orator's own words:

1

"There is still a third, on which I shall not insist very largely now, but which, IF inquiry is instituted, I shall feel myself most powerfully called on to support in this House. I mean here to allude to the strong suspicion, that the noble Lord himself was a participator in the system of peculation to which I have referred!!!”

The soupçonnè d'être suspect of revolutionary France we never expected to hear adopted as a charge in a British House of Commons? But, tempora mutantur, et nos (we Englishmen) mutamur in illis. On the first of these charges, we formerly gave our opinion, in our review of Mr. Macleod's pamphlet on the subject. On the second, our author most particularly observes,

:

"When it is considered that no loss has been sustained by the public; that not one shilling of the public money passing through the hands of the Paymaster has been in any way embezzled; no, nor even the slightest delay or interruption occasioned in any one official payment; is it not natural that we should pause here, and ask where we are to find this system of peculation? No instance is produced, no act is in proof, real or pretended. What! public plunder, and not a sixpence purloined!! A system of robbery without a single theft!! I will not here inquire in what this prose cution originated, whether in the selfish purposes of party, or a cool sense of justice. I am addressing myself to the public; they will judge, they will perceive how it is conducted, and the manner will furnish a key to the motive."

We suspect that Mr. Whitbread, in this case, made use of hard words, of which he did not know the meaning. If he had submitted to the necessary trouble of referring to his dictionary, he would have learned that peculation is "robbery of the public, theft of public money," and any clerk in an attorney's office would have informed him, that where no property has been lost, there can have been no robbery committed. The loss of property is the very essence, the sine quâ non of a theft or felony!

In our last Number (p. 431), we took occasion to call on Mr. Whitbread (and we will tell this gentleman that, as one of the representatives of the people of England, we, one of that people, have a right so to call upon him), to remove a false impression to which the report of his speech in the newspapers had given rise, by a plain statement of this fact that not one shilling of the public money has remained unaccounted for by Lord Melville; and that not one sixpence of the public money has, by his Lordship, or Mr. Trotter hiinself, himself, been lost to the public. Since that time we have heard it maintained, and that too by a Magistrate, by a man whose duty it is to investigate before he decides, and not to substitute newspaper reports for either moral or legal proofs, that the 10,00ol. to which we there more particularly referred, was never accounted for by Lord Melville, and was actually lost to the public. We repeat, then, that it is the bounden duty of Mr. Whitbread to explain the fact as it is; for, although he be not responsible for the misrepresentation of his speeches in the papers, he is morally responsible, as a man of honour, and as a member of parliament, for the consequences of such misrepresentation, of which he has been the innocent cause, and to which his silence may be naturally enough considered as affording a sanction. Be that as it may, this wicked and diabolical falsehood has been circulated through the country, by the newspapers, to the prejudice of a nobleman, who is now upon his trial for high crimes and misde meanours. That writer, who, knowing this, does not contribute his efforts to expose it, may be a prudent, but cannot be an honest

man.

On the third charge, as Mr. Whitbread most ridiculously called it, the author's remarks are unanswerable,

"This serious, but unsupported accusation, leads to what Mr. Whit. bread calls a third charge, which is this:-that a suspicion arises that he was a participator in that system. If such a system, of which no evi. dence has appeared, had been proved to exist; if Lord Melville, too, had appeared to have been an accomplice, then the charge of participa. tion might, and certainly ought to have been brought forward. But that a suspicion should take the place of a charge, and this too grounded on a charge on a report which negatives the fact, is a novelty in criminal ju. risprudence. In the regular administration of justice, the inquiry precedes the charge; one is surprized, therefore, to behold an accuser press forward with a charge, which, if an inquiry is insituted, he means to support. Such language savours too strongly of premeditated persecution; we cannot but lament that the zeal of party should so often hurry men beyond the limits which their own integrity would prescribe."

" Your ifs" have been, heretofore, considered as wonderful peace-makers; but now, in this revolutionary age, it seems a different province is assigned them, and they are to be enlisted in the service of party-prosecution. Thank Heaven, this is the first instance, within our knowledge, in which accusation has preceded inquiry, and, for the sake of justice, and for the honour of our country, we trust it will be the last.

Quotations are given from the speeches of that illustrious statesman, Mr. Pitt (illustrious, because his integrity was equal to his talents, unrivalled as these unquestionably were), to shew the precipitation and the inaccuracy of the Commissioners, on whose Reports these charges were professedly founded. Mr. Pitt perceived, and enforced the ne cessity of farther inquiry, before the House should come to any deci

1

sion on the subject. But, as if determined to set all the customary modes of proceeding at defiance, and to become the servile imitators of Mr. Whitbread-Will posterity believe the fact they resolved to make no inquiry, but to come to an immediate decision, or rather to suffer condemnation to precede trial! How could honourable, conscientious men, be led to act in a manner so incompatible with the first principles of justice? Mr. Canning, too, who, in integrity and talents honourably follows the steps of Mr. Pitt, placed the question at issue in so plain and perspicuous a point of view, that none but the most wilful obstinacy, or intellectual blindness itself, could possibly mistake it. He proved, that every Treasurer of the Navy must be guilty of a violation of the Act, ur unless he suffered the whole business of the payment of naval services to stand still. If the Act were literally complied with, every claimant, however small his demand, and there are hundreds under twenty shillings, must be paid by a specific draft on the Bank. The man who can gravely contend that such was the intention of the legislature, pronounces a libel on our legislators, by supposing them devoid of common sense, or else actuated by a desire to interrupt, or rather to put a total stop to, a very important part of the public service; and, if such was not the intention, it follows of necessity, that when a call is legally made, by vouchers from the different offices for a certain sum of money, that sum must be drawn from the Bank, and lodged somewhere, till the different claimants call for payment. The accusers of Lord Melville say, it should be locked up in an iron chest at the Navy Office. Lord Melville himself thinks it was full as safe at Mr. Coutts's, the banker; and this is the mighty difference between them; this is the horrible system of peculation, which has been thundered in our ears, and crammed down our throats-usque ad nauseam! If a million of money, in bank notes, were locked up in an iron chest, and many hundreds of creditors were to call at different times for small fractional sums, how many clerks would it require to pay them, and to get change for that purpose? Whereas: when the money is lodged at a banker's, there is no trouble whatever; a draft is given for the precise sum, and the business is at an end. What wholesale peculators must all bankers be considered, according to the novel sense of the word peculation.

Mr. Fox, in pressing the House to an immediate decision, with all the spirit of a partisan, draws a distinction between cases to which the charge of moral turpitude attach, and those which are only cri minal by being acts of disobedience to the law, among which last description of offences he classes Lord Melville's, and thereby totally exculpates him from the charge of moral turpitude, which Mr. Whitbread laboured most vehemently to fix upon his Lordship. The difference between the mala per se, and the mala prohibita is known to every student; but with all Mr. Fox's acuteness, by his perseverance in contending for the most rigid adherence to the letter of the law, he has subjected himself to a dilemma whence he cannot possibly extrisate himself. The author (in p. 18), presses this upon him with irresistible irresistible force. Mr. Whitbread, it must not be forgotten, while Mr. Fox exculpated Lord Melville, as we have observed, from the charge of moral turpitude, was busily employed in ringing the changes

on

"crime-guilt-corruption-peculation," which were just as applicable to any part of his Lordship's conduct, as malt, molasses, wormwood, and cocculus Indicus. No, not for the whole value of Mr. Whitbread's brewery, would we have to reproach ourselves with such conduct as the newspapers have assigned to that gentleman. In cominenting upon Lord Melville's actions, he was guilty, unless his speeches be egregiously mis-reported in the papers, of such gross perversion, as could only arise from the most inveterate prejudice, or the most incorrigible stupidity. As to the Commissioners, they seem to us, in many instances, not to have understood their duty.

Fully do we concur with the sentiments of this intelligent author, as expressed in the following passage :

"I hold it to be the first duty of every man who comes forward to demand judgment against a fellow citizen, at the tribunal of his country, to place before those who are to be his judges, a plain-unvarnished statement of the facts upon which their judgment is to be founded. When he has done this, he has acquitted himself of the whole of his task; it is their duty to inquire into the motives, and, with them, into the circumstances of aggravation, or extenuation, which are of the essence of the fact: without these they cannot tell what judgment to pronounce, and until these are fully in evidence, it is the duty of an accuser strictly to forbear from whatever might produce an undue bias. When he deviates from this duty, and utters the language of condemnation, he is placing himself in the seat of judgment, and pronouncing a verdict before the trial."

This is the voice of justice, of reason, and of law; forming an admirable contrast to the intemperate language, and unwarrantable assertions of Mr. Whitbread. The Commissioners appear to us to have betrayed the most consummate ignorance of their duty, in refusing to re-examine Lord Melville, when, after some reflection and inquiry, his Lordship was prepared to give them the fullest satisfaction on some important points, in respect of which they laboured under the grossest misconception. We cannot conceive it possible, that such Commissioners could be legally, or morally incapacitated, at any stage of their proceedings, from receiving such explanation; and, if not incapacitated, every consideration of justice called for its admission. These Commissioners, too, indulged themselves with a statement of causeless doubts, and unfounded conjectures, highly prejudicial to the reputation of Lord Melville, when a bare reference to a ledger would have satisfied their minds in a moment, and have proved that their suspicions were unjust. Suspicions, doubts and conjectures, are not the proper basis for a criminal proceeding. They suffice to justify inquiry; but they must have lost their original form and character, and have acquired the stamp and solidity of facts and ( proofs,