Mr. W. Pitt was alfo against the motion. He faid that Mr. W. the minutes of the Treafury were neceffary, in order to vin- Pitt. dicate the character of thofe, by whofe advice the gentlemen: lately restored had been difmiffed from their office, for their reft ration feemed to reflect on thofe who had advised the dif miffion. He threw the queftion into various points of view; and, among other things, he ftated the danger to which the public would be expofed, by having again in office perfons who had been difmiffed under very ftrong fufpicions of having demeaned themfelves in an improper manner in places of great truft, equally extraordinary and unjuftifiable. He took particular notice of Mr. Burke's argument, that because a criminal profecution was about to be inftituted in the courts of Westminster-hall, therefore Meffrs. Powell and Bembridge's conduct was not a fit fubject for enquiry in that Houfe. Such doctrine, he faid, went much farther than gentlemen were aware, and was of infinitely more importance than any contemplation of the degree of criminality, imputed to those with whom he had lately had the honour to ferve his Majefty, could poffibly be; it nearly amounted to a blow at the conftitution, and, if adimitted to any extent, went to the annihilation of fome of the moft ufeful and valuable functions of that Houfe. He enlarged confiderably on the inconvenience that would arife if that House were to be debarred from enquiring into the conduct of any of the fervants of the public, merely because a criminal profecution was about to be inftituted against them for fome part of that conduct; and having made the most of this argument, he came to the confideration of the degree of truft belonging to the cashier and accountant of the Pay Office. He faid, the first had all the public cafh país through his hands, and that it was the office of the latter to make up the accounts of former Paymafters. Within the reach, if not in the cuftody of the latter, were lodged all the account-books of the of fice, fo that if an accountant was charged with criminal conduct, and that in his management of former accounts, having those accounts within his reach, he was enabled, if he were fo minded, to make either erafures or infertions, fo as to fupport and confirm fuch a defence as he should be advised to fet up for himself.

Mr. Fox, in a fpeech of confiderable length, ftated to the Mr. Fox. House what a most cruel and unjust proceeding it would be to call for the papers before them during the time a profecution was pending; and he wished to know what could be the grounds

grounds for calling for the papers: it could not be for a justification of the late Paymafter, because his conduct was not accused; it could not be to enter into an enquiry of the conduct of Meffrs. Powell and Bembridge, because that was allowed to be improper during the time the fuit was pending; then it could be for no other purpose than cenfuring his right honourable friend, the prefent Paymafter [Mr. Burke] and in doing that it was impoffible to avoid entering fully into an enquiry of Meffrs. Powell and Bembridge's conduct, which would be exceedingly unfair, as it would fend them to be tried by a jury, who must be prejudiced against them, as only one fide of the queftion could be heard. It was ridiculous to argue that the reinstatement was meant as a censure on the late adminiftration; certainly it was not, for by that rule there could be no change of adminiftration, but the reinftating certain perfons would be confidered as a cenfure on the former. One great point to be confidered was, whether the public could be materially injured by the reinstatement; and certainly they could not, for the Paymafter was responsible for the conduct of his clerks, and it would be a piece of cruelty not to fuffer him to have the appointment of his own clerks; for, to say that a man fhall be responsible for a fum of money, and not name his own banker, it was a doctrine too abfurd for even any man to fupport; but it would probably be argued, what recompence can the Paymafter make the public, if thofe fervants of his are guilty of great pecculation? Why, if he was a man of great fortune, his eftate muft fuffer; and if he should chance to be a man of less fortune, then his liberty would be at flake, as he would be liable to be imprisoned to make good the deficiency, and certainly the fear of the lofs of liberty would deter a man from proceeding fo manifeftly wrong: another thing to be confidered was, that the public could not fuffer materially in this cafe, for there was no money lodged in the hands of those men, and that it was impoffible now to make ufe of the public cafh, The right honourable Secretary, to prove that this was the cafe, ftated, that by the regulations of the new act, all money drawn at the Pay-office from the Exchequer, went di rectly to the Bank, and the Cashier of the Pay Office drew for it again as occafion offered, making his draft payable to the agent to whofe fervice the fpecific fum drawn for was to be applied. That the Cashier and Accountant were refponfible, greatly refponfible to the Paymafter Generał, was in◄ difputable, but they were not refponfible to the public. The Paymafter

Paymafter alone was refponfible to them, and he was not more refponfible for himself than for all under him. If the oppofite fide of the House, he faid, meant to cast a censure on Mr. Burke, let them do it by vote, but by no means do it in calling for thofe papers, because it was impoffible to argue the points feparately; they could not wish to cenfure them without entering very minutely into the guilt of the two unfortunate men, which would be totally unjuft; therefore, in his opinion, the plain queftion that remained to be difcuffed was, Whether a man was not to blame to reinftate two men who lay under the odium of having been guilty of a breach of truft, before he had made any enquiry into the merits of their cafe? Certainly, he faid, that was the queftion that ought to be enquired into, but it was not the queftion before the Houfe; the queftion was merely to discharge an order for the production of papers, which, if produced, could answer no good end, and muft evidently tend to fend the unhappy men to their trial in the moft unfortunate manner. Mr. Fox applied a good deal of what he faid to the argument of his. honourable colleague, Sir Cecil Wray; he took notice of that honourable gentleman's talking of the black aspect of the conduct of Meffrs. Powell and Bembridge, and obferved, that if a man of so much candour was in that stage of the transaction betrayed into applying fuch fort of terms to what was as yet unafcertained, what illiberality of treatment might not Meffrs. Powell and Bembridge expect, if their conduct became a fubject of more ample difcuffion? Mr. Fox faid, it was true that there was fomething extremely unpleafant in the appearance of the conduct of Meffrs. Powell and Bembridge; but at the fame time he was by no means fatisfied that it was reprehenfible to the extent fuppofed; and therefore he could not act as if their criminality were a matter proved. He faid, his worthy friend Mr. Burke had not indeed ftudied prudence in the reinftating the two men, because he muft know it would raise a clamour; but as no perfon attempted to charge him with any bad motives, they muft attribute it, at the worft, to a mistaken love for humanity, and not a defire to think perfons guilty before they really are found fo.

Advocate

The Lord Advocate was against the motion, and contended, The Lord that it was impolitic to let men fo accused be in the poffeffion of books which would, in all probability, be great evidence against them. He faid the honourable gentleman had very dexterously

Ld. North.

Mr. Kenyon.

dexterously managed his argument fo as to draw afide the attention of the Houfe from the real queftion, which was, whether the minutes of the Treasury fhould or should not be laid upon the table. The learned Lord endeavoured to fhew, that all the disagreeableness of the bufinefs had been brought on Mefirs. Powell and Bembridge by themfelves, and the right honourable gentleman now at the head of the Pay-office; had not the latter restored them to their places pending a criminal profecution, the prefent debate would not have occurred. The Lord Advocate ridiculed Mr. Fox's idea, that a Paymafter was alone responsible, and a fufficient fecurity for the public. He faid, he had lately been a public accountant, and refponfible for five millions; had that fum been deficient, did the right honourable gentleman think that he would by any means have anfwered for the five millions, or that his being there, and faying, "here I am, take me to prifon, for I can't pay you," would have proved fufficiently fatisfactory? He contended that the Cashier and Accountant were both officers of confiderable truft, and that it materially imported the public that they fhould be men of fair and unimpeached characters. He ftated that the right honourable gentleman near him [Colonel Barré] had acted perfectly properly refpecting Mefirs. Powell and Bembridge. On receiving the Treafury minutes, he inftantly fufpended the parties, but he did not fill up their places. They were left open in order that if they fhould be acquitted, they might go into them again. The learned Lord faid, Mr. Burke, in his opinion, would have acted more wifely, and in a manner more friendly to Meffrs. Powell and Bembridge, had he let them refign, as they requested, before that debate came on. He alfo used a variety of other arguments, in order to induce the Houfe to perfift in maintaining the order for the Treafury minutes.

Lord North was of the fame opinion as Mr. Fox, that it was cruel in the highest degree to fend men to trial prejudged by that House; and he faid it was abfurd to fuppofe that they could use the books in their poffeffion to any bad purpose, or make any material alterations without being found out.

Mr. Kenyon faid, it was abfurd to talk of cruelty in prejudg ing those two perfons by calling for the papers; for you might as well fay it was cruel to take up a highwayman previous to his trial, as it was fome fufpicion of his guilt. It was equally cruel to recal perfons from India to be tried here, as it was likewife a fufpicion, and he ftrongly contended that it was

2

extremely

extremely wrong to continue thofe men in office until the trial was over, which would not be until next November.' He faid, the public paid the Cashier and Accountant, and confequently to the public they were refponfible. He declared, that the minutes of the Treafury could not be made ufe of as evidence, and therefore the production of them could neither prejudice the public againft Meffrs. Powell and Bembridge, nor prejudge their caufe. He put the cafe of a gentleman in private life having a ftrong fufpicion of his Steward's integrity. Would he keep that Steward in his place? According to the argument therefore, that no man's conduct was to be difcuffed, who was about to go before a court of criminal jurifdiction, it would be impoffible to make any culprit, however flagrant, amenable to the laws of his country. No highwayman could be committed antecedent to trial, nor any other of the moft common offenders be pu nished.

Cavendish.

Lord John Cavendish was ftrongly in favour of the motion, 'Lord John upon the principle of humanity, as it was exceedingly cruel to inftitute an enquiry in that Houfe, which could anfwer no other end than prejudicing a jury againft the unfortunate men previous to their trial.

Mr. Mansfield was of the fame opinion, and anfwered Mr. Mr. Mans Kenyon refpecting the taking up a highwayman; that he faid field. was neceffary, for he could not be tried otherways; the fame held good refpecting the recal of perfons from India; but there was no neceffity for proceeding on the papers in that houfe, for the two unfortunate men could be tried without them.

Mr. 7. Pitt was against the motion. He contended, that Mr. T. the minutes ought to be produced, in order to enable the Pitt. Houfe to judge whether Meffrs. Powell and Bembridge were warrantably discharged by one Paymafter, or on good grounds reftored by another. Mr. Pitt put the cafe of a private gentleman's having a Steward in a way ftill ftronger than it had been put by Mr. Kenyon. He faid, if a private gentleman's Steward had fufpicions of a Bailiff under him, and difiniffed him, and the fucceffor of that Steward fhould replace the Bailiff, before the crime he was fufpected of was examined into, would not the private gentleman, whofe intereft was affected, and not that of the Steward, proceed to enquire into the facts upon which the Bailiff had been first of all difmiffed his fervice? So the Houfe, as reprefentatives of the people," were bound to enquire why one Paymafter had discharged a VOL. X.

G

Cashier