war comparatively with former wars, or of enterprising spirit of our merchants; to the productiveness of the taxes, or of the improvements of our manufactures; their tendency to bear more or less heavily to the energy of our countrymen in arts on the bulk of the people. I shall be ready and in arms; to the union of liberty with to discuss those subjects at a proper time; law; to the national character cherished not, however, as an advocate for war. The by, and cherishing, the principles of our noble marquis cannot see the inconveni- inimitable constitution; that constituencies and difficulties of so extensive a war tion, which it has been the object of as the present with more concern than I do. our enemies to destroy by means and But I see also the necessity of that war, and efforts utterly destructive to themtherefore I derive great consolation from selves; that constitution which it is the the sense and conviction which I entertain great purpose of our struggles in this just of our ability to support it And surely it and necessary war, to preserve and to is most important not only to appreciate maintain. fairly our own strength and resources, but to show that we may look forward with a well-founded confidence to the farther use of that strength and of those resources, if the perverseness of the enemy should make it expedient for us to employ them. I shall close this comparative account by a striking and important statement. "Amount of revenue (including the land and malt) below the computed expenditure on a peace establishment of fifteen millions, 1783, 2,000,000l. Ditto, above the computed expenditure on a similar peace establishment, with the addition of increased charges for the debt incurred by the present war, 1795, 3,400,000l." If we compare the excess of 1796 with the deficiency of 1783, the difference of revenue in favour of the latter period will be 5,400,000l. Your lordships cannot fail to have remarked, that all these objects converge in a remarkable manner towards the same conclusion; and that coincidence is an irrefragable proof that they all spring from the same source, the real prosperity of the country. If there is any inaccuracy in my statements, I am persuaded it is inconsiderable, and certainly it is not intentional. Facts, such as these, my lords, greatly outweigh all the declamations that the genius and eloquence of mankind can produce. I shall leave them therefore without comment; they sufficiently enforce themselves. They are unequivocal proofs of the resources of the kingdom: no man can look with an unprejudiced eye at such statements, and not perceive that this country has increased in prosperity even under the pressure of the To what, under the protection and favour of divine providence, shall such prosperity be ascribed? To our naval superiority and successes; to our conquests in the East and West Indies; to the acquisition of new markets; to the war. The Earl of Lauderdale warmly supported the motion. He said he would in the course of a few days call their lordships attention to the state of the finances, at which time he should animadvert on the statement just made by the noble lord, in which he had said that, reckoning our future peace establishment at 15,000,000l. there would be a surplus of 3,400,000l., of annual revenue, He would be bound to prove, so far was this from being the case, that a very great deficiency would take place. The motion was also supported by lord Moira, and opposed by earl Spencer, lord Hawkesbury, and the lord chancellor. After which, the House divided: Contents, 9; Proxies, 3-12. Not Contents, 72. Proxies, 32-104. Debate on Mr. Grey's Charges against Ministers relative to the Expenditure of the Public Money.] May 6. Mr. Grey said, that to those who reflected upon the unexampled power which the present ministers possessed, and the little disposition the House discovered to inquire into any part of their conduct, it might appear a vain endeavour to bring against them any charge of mal-administration, especially such a charge as would form the ground of articles of impeachment. Aware as he was of these difficulties, he felt it his duty not to allow the House to separate, without drawing their attention to a few plain, intelligible points of the highest importance. He would call upon them to examine the public expenses; he would demonstrate to them that ministers had grossly misapplied the money of their constituents, and had been guilty of a flagrant violation of the laws of the land, to conceal which they had laid before the House, an account of the distributions of the various grants, which he would prove to be completely false. A minute atten tion to the public expenditure was the most important duty which the House could exercisc. The power of the purse was the best security for the liberties of the people, and the House could not allow it to be encroached upon without betraying their most sacred trust, and renouncing their most valuable privilege. If the House was aware of this, and was anxious to maintain the privileges they had received from their ancestors, they would, by a proper application of them, confirm the transmitted right, and deliver it entire to their posterity. The charges that he meant, on this occasion, to bring against ministers would reduce themselves to one plain, simple, intelligent proposition, namely, that they usurped a power to beat down and contravene law, by disregarding grants of the legislature, and applying the money so voted otherwise than was directed and designed by the vote. He called therefore solemnly on the House to declare whether in the plenitude of ministerial authority, they meant to in clude this dispensing power, which held at nought the injunctions of law, and either disobeyed, or acted in opposition to them, as opinion or design might sug. gest? Such was the matter of charge that he felt himself bound to produce, in its nature so clear and significant, that every man must understand it, and feel himself compelled to admit the conclusion he meant to draw. If they found the money of their constituents misapplied, would they suffer it to pass unnoticed? If they saw the law openly violated, would they insist upon no satisfaction? If they found the principles of the constitution outraged, would they express no indignation and demand no atonement? The instances upon which he was particularly to dwell, were selected from a great many others which he might have taken up; but he had confined himself to these on account of their plainness and simplicity. They were such as all might understand, and the inferences from them were such as all who understood must acknowledge. He had not brought forward the incapacity ministers had evinced, the failures they had incurred, nor the multiplied disasters, which in the course of a ruinous war, had pursued them. He would not comment upon their gross mismanagement of the public money where the application was within their discretion; but he would confine himself to three distinct charges.-First, that ministers had violated the express stipulations of an act of parliament called the Appropriation act, by applying grants to other services than those for which they were designed and voted. Second, That they had presented false accounts to the House, in order to conceal that infraction of the law. And, lastly, that they had violated the act for regulating the office of paymaster of the forces. He requested the House to observe, that there was an act passed every session after the grants for the use of the year were made, by which certain sums were appropriated to certain services, and which ministers were prohibited to divert to any other purpose. With this solemn act of parliament, the House surely could not allow ministers to dispense The grants for the army, the ordnance, the clothing, the pay of general and staff officers, were subject to the distribution expressly provided in the act. By a paper upon the table, he would show that the act had been disregarded. By an account laid before the House on the 21st of April, it appeared that the money issued for the clothing of the army, was not applied to that purpose, and that there was due to several colonels or commanding officers of his majesty's forces, the sum of €44,106l. 7s. 6d., for nett off reckonings and clothing for the years 1794 and 1795, and the sum of 146,900l. 12s. 4d., to general and staff officers, for 1793, 1794, and 1795, and the sum of 34,313l. 13s. 3d., to governors and lieutenant governors for the years 1794 and 1795, though these sums were strictly appropriated by act of parliament. It also appeared from the account alluded to, that the sum of 31,056l. 3d., due to the general and staff officers of his majesty's forces, for the year 1784, was paid out of the grants made for the year 1796. There, he said, was the act of appropria tion; let the House read it; and there also were the accounts, which ministers themselves had laid on the table; let them read them, and then compare one with the other. Much as ministers were accustomed to explanation and exeuse, he could not but conceive that it would be difficult to answer the imputation arising from these facts, which could not be disputed. Under these circumstances, the House would not, he thought, be soon satisfied, or put up with vague explanation and trivial excuse. It was a direct and glaring breach of law, proved by documents produced | by those against whom the charge was made. No species of convenience could surely be admitted as an adequate excuse, nothing less than an imperious ne cessity would amount to such a defence; nor, under the present circumstances, would that amount to a justification. Even supposing they were influenced by that overruling authority, they were bound to come as early as possible to the House, and state the necessity by which they had been impelled, and had asked for a bill of indemnity. But how had ministers acted on the occasion? They had endeavoured to conceal the infraction of law by deceiving the House; and by a false account, calculated to impose, they had increased, instead of diminishing, the enormity of the original offence, the wilful infraction of a positive law. It might be said in defence, that all former administrations had followed the practice, and that they were justified by uniform precedent. That the pernicious practice of extending the public expense beyond the sums voted upon estimate, had sometimes prevailed, was true, but nothing without the reprehension of parliament. In 1711, by a resolution of the House, * a practice of the present nature was reprobated as an invasion of the rights of the House, and expressly condemned. It was said, however, that extraordinaries were unavoidable; but if the proposition was admitted, it was to be qualified by the degree in which they were really necessary. When a fair account of past expenses was stated, and a tolerable estimate formed of future services, the necessity of extraordinaries would in a great measure be superseded. He would ask, whether the minister, with a vote of credit to the extent of 2,500,000l. might not have made such an estimate of the demands of the public service, as would have left little to be answered by extraordinary expenses? The sum required for extraordinaries was not only in itself necessarily limited by the degree in which good management and prudent foresight would require it, but also by the precedents of former times. In the reign of queen Anne, when the army was conducted by a person not much distinguished for economy, and with a continental war wide and expensive, the extraordinaries scarce exceeded the sum of 200,000. See Vol. 6, p. 1025. Might he not ask, then, if the practice of extravagant charges on the head of extraordinaries had not extended of late without the consent of parliament? A person of high credit coolly reflecting upon the subject in his closet, says, in his book of precedents, that during the American war nothing could exceed the negligence of the House in not limiting the sums charged under the head of extraordinaries.* Yet, however, respectable this authority might be, he could produce still higher, that of the committee of the House appointed to investigate the public accounts. In 1782 the committee stated the sums for extraordinaries as extravagant beyond necessity, and, comparing the different circumstances of both periods, there was nothing in the present that could require a higher sum for extraordinary services. But the prac tice of charging extravagant sums on this head was arraigned by the right hon. gentleman himself at the end of the American war with the utmost severity; yet now his adherents were fain to defend him upon those precedents which he had so vehemently reprobated. A defence like this, however, would little avail with the House. It was said, that money must sometimes be taken from the estimated services, to be applied to urgent services. This justification, however, only amounted to this, that when money was to be diverted, it was necessary to come forward and apply, to the arrears so incurred, the extraordinaries of the next year. But, in the present instance, the original deviation from the rule had not been atoned for even in this manner; for it appeared from the account on the table, that great sums were still due to general and staff officers and governors of garrisons, for the year 1794. Upon the principle of the justification pleaded, these sums should have been defrayed by the extraordinaries of the next year. It was to be seen, likewise, whether the same thing had not occurred in the year 1795? By papers upon the table it ap peared, that, up to the 21st of April 1796, for the quarter preceding, eight millions of the grants of the current year had been expended; and still these arrears remained due up to the present period. It was in its nature impossible to set up a justification for a breach of an act of * See Hatsell's Precedents, Vol. 3, p. 187. : parliament made on purpose to restrain ministers in this very instance, other than that of an imperious public necessity. In that case, if it had occurred, ministers were bound to come to the House, and lay the whole matter before them and if they would allow the necessity set up, they would follow it with an act of indemnity. From these fundamental propositions, he concluded that the defence set up, supposing it true, neither justified, nor excused in the present instance, where no disclosure of those circumstances had been made to the House, from which, on the contrary, the fact itself had been carefully concealed, and false statements presented. The defence of ministers for the misapplication of the sums appropriated by acts of parliament was not valid, therefore, upon their own principles; for which reason he would, on this head, submit to the House the following resolutions: 1. That at all times, and under all circumstances, it is the indispensable duty of the House of Commons vigilantly to superintend the expenditure of the public money, and strictly to enforce the application of the grants made by parliament to the service for which they have been voted. 2. "That by an act passed in every session of parliament, the particular sums granted for each particular service are specified, and the money that shall be paid into the exchequer is appropriated to their discharge; and that it is strictly directed, that such aids and supplies shall not be applied to any use, intent, or purpose whatever, other than the uses and purposes mentioned in the said act. 3. "That it appears from an account presented to this House on the 21st of April 1796, that the sum of 644,106/. 7s. 9d. was then due to the several colonels or commanding officers of his majesty's forces, for nett off-reckonings and clothing for the years 1794 and 1795, although by acts passed in 1794 and 1795, money was granted to discharge the same; and although the said acts direct that the money so granted shall be applied in discharge of the same, and not otherwise. 4"That it appears from an account presented to this House on the 21st of April 1796, that the sum of 146,900l. 12s. 4d. is now due to the general and staff-officers of his majesty's forces for the years 1793, 1794, and 1795, although, by acts passed in the said years, money was granted for payment of the said sum; and although the said acts direct that the said money so granted shall be applied in discharge of the said sum, and not otherwise. 5. "That it appears from an account presented to this House on the 21st of April 1796, that the sum of 34,3131. 13s. 3d. is now due to the several governors, lieutenant governors, and other officers of his majesty's forces and garrisons in Great Britain, and parts beyond the seas, for the years 1794 and 1795, although, by acts passed in the said years, money was granted for discharging the said sum; and although the said acts direct that the money so granted shall be applied in discharging the said sum, and not otherwise. 6. That it appears from an account presented to this House the 21st of April 1796, that the sum of 31,056l. Os. 3d. due to the general and staff-officers of his majesty's forces, for the year 1794, was paid out of grants for the service of the year 1796, although, by an act passed in 1794, money was granted for discharging the said sum; and although the said act directs, that the said money so granted shall be applied in discharging the same and not otherwise." The next part of the resolutions regarded the application of sums granted for the service of the year 1796, to the arrears of services in 1794 and 1795. In 1784, lest a dissolution of parliament, which was expected, should take place before the act of appropriation was passed, the House resolved, "that any minister misapplying the funds at that time granted, should be guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor." This resolution was consistent with the true principles of the constitution. The application of the grants of 1796 to retrospective services was an evident violation of the spirit of the House in voting the supplies; and the original fault of which they had been guilty, ministers had followed up with a still farther violation of the law. would therefore upon this point move, He 7. "That it appears from an account produced to this House on the 21st of April 1796, that the sum of 172,100l. due for off-reckonings, to the 24th of Decem. ber 1794, and which remained due on the 21st of January 1796, was discharged out of the vote of credit granted for the express purpose of defraying expenses that may occur in 1796, although by an act passed in 1794, money was granted for discharging the said sum; and although the said act directs that the money so granted shall be applied in discharge of the same, and not otherwise." Other acts had also been equally violated. In 1782 an act was passed for regulating the office of paymaster-general of the forces, which being inefficient, was repealed, and a new one was passed. This act was intended both to remedy the evils arising from balances remaining in the hands of the paymaster-general, and to secure the regular payment of the army; and this, too, had been openly violated. In the first account of the application of the vote of credit of 1796, the sum of 430,2007. had been issued to the paymaster-general, of which a balance of 83,300, was still in his hands. The House had been informed, on a former occasion, that this money, though stated in the account, was in reality sent to the bank, where the balance remained. Being suspicious of the information which ministers might think fit sometimes to give in that House, he had made inquiries of a person well qualified to tell him, and he had discovered, that in reality, the sum alluded to, had been put into the bands of the paymaster-general himself, and with him the balance was lodged. The provisions of the bill were explicit, that all sums issued for the payment of the army, should be sent to the bank, and there paid by drafts from the paymastergeneral, distinctly specifying the service in which it was incurred. This provision had not been complied with; for the money had been first issued into the hands of the paymaster-general himself, and with him the balance remained. Such was the fact. And as the conclusions were too obvious to require argument, there he would leave it for the determination of the House. With regard to the accumulation of balance in the hands of the paymaster-general, the act provided that the sums appropriated for the clothing of the army, should be issued periodically; it was, however, proved by the account on the table, that from midsummer 1794, to December 1795, no money was issued for this service, and part of the arrears were discharged from the supplies of the current year. Whatever might be thought of the minister's defence, as to his violation of the account of the Appropriation act, *See Vol. 24, p. 299. here he would be forced to recur to a new ground of exculpation. Since it was passed, public affairs had been conducted by no other minister; there was no example to plead, no precedent to sanction. Ministers had, in open defiance of the act, withheld the money from the service to which it was destined, and endeavoured to discharge the arrears by the supplies of the current year, without attempting to account for the application of the sum originally diverted. He would propose, 8. "That it appears to this House, that by an act passed in the 23d year of his majesty's reign, for the better regulation of the office of paymaster-general of his majesty's forces, it is enacted, that no money for the service of the army shall be issued from his majesty's exchequer to the paymaster-general of his majesty's forces, or shall be placed or directed to be placed in his majesty's hands, or possession; but the same shall be issued and directed to be paid to the governor and company of the bank of England, to be placed to his account. 9. That it appears to this House, from an account produced on the 22nd of April 1796, that, in open contempt and defiance of the said act, the sum of 430,2001. has been issued directly to the paymaster-general of his majesty's forces in exchequer bills on the vote of credit for 1796; and that a balance of 83,300l. was remaining unissued in his hands on the said 22d of April 1796. 10. "That it farther appears to this House, that, by the said act, the paymaster-general of his majesty's forces is directed and required to form his memorials and requisitions to the treasury, and to issue his drafts upon the governor and company of the bank of England, upon the 24th of June and 24th of December in every year, in equal payments, to such person or persons as have a regular assignment from the several colonels, lieutenant-colonels, commandants, majors, and captains commandant and captains, for the monies appropriated for the clothing of the non-commissioned officers and private men of his majesty's regular forces. 11. That it appears to this House, that the sums of money appropriated for the cloathing of his majesty's regular forces, and which, according to the provisions of the said act, ought to have been issued on the 24th of December 1794, the 24th of June, and 24th of December |