ANNUAL R 
tested he had been led by no motive 
of. private animosity, but by a sense 
of pubiic duty alone. 
Mr. Jetiery was answered by ad- 
miral Markham, Mr. Tierney, and 
several other persons. [lis charge 
of procrastination against the triends 
of lord St. Vincent, was pronounced 
to be an unfounded and scandalous 
calumny. Many severe and pointed 
remarks were made on his conduct 
throughout this affair; and he was 
asked, how he came to be acquainted 
with the contents of the papers be- 
fore the house, which he could not 
possibly have read since they were 
presented, The indecevcy of thus 
attempting to mutilate and garble 
papers, which the friends of the 
noble earl thought necessary for his 
justification, and the absurdity of an 
accuser presuming to judge and de- 
cide for the person accused what pa- 
pers were necessary for his defence, 
were su stiongly put by the friends 
of the voble earl, andso generally 
felt by the house, that Mr. Jeffery, 
receiving no encouragement to per- 
sistin his motion, was glad, with per- 
mission of the house, to withdraw it. 
All the papers moved for on both 
sides being at length printed, and 
Jaid before the house, Mr. Jeffery 
brought forward his charges on the 
14th of May, by reading first a long 
written speech against lord St. Vin- 
cent, and then, twenty-four resolu- 
tions, being a summary and reca- 
pitulation of his speech, which he 
moved to refer to a committce of the 
whole house. 
resolutions contained the statements 
and allegations, from which the 
charges in the (wo last were de- 
duced; and these were, that ¢* dur- 
iag the time lord St. Vincent pre- 
sided at the admiralty, the royal 
98 
” 
EGISTER, 
Twenty-two of the 
1806. a 
navy was not maintained in a com- 
plete and efficient state ;” and that, 
‘¢ he was guilty of great negligenec, 
misconduct, and dereliction of duty, 
tie 
in the office of first lord of the ad- — j 
miralty.”’ 
Our limits will not permit us to 
enter into the details either of the 
accusation or of the defence; nor 
have our readers any reason to re- 
gret thatthe particulars are not laid 
before them of a charge, so fri- 
volous and vexatious as this was. It 
is. sufficient to state, that lord St. 
Vincent was most ably and satise 
fictorily vindicated by admirat 
Markham and lord Howick. ‘The 
statements and comparisons of Mr, 
Jeffery were shewn either to be im- 
correct and unfair, os to relate to 
departments of the navy service un- 
der the immediate control of the 
navy board. The only error that 
could be imputed to lord St. Vin- 
cent was, that he misunderstood the 
nature of his control over the mem- 
bers of that board, and did not re- 
move them, when he found them 
unfit for their situation. It was pes- 
sible that lord St. Vincent might be 
mistaken in his opinion, that the 
king's dock-yards were capable, 
under proper regulations, of serving 
for all the purposes of the navy, 
without any racourse to the mer- 
chants’ yards, either for building or 
repairing ships; but that opinion, 
though it might be erroneous, was 
not criminal, nor was it yet proved 
that it was erroneous. ‘The enor- 
mous frauds practised on govern- 
ment in the merchant's yards, the 
collusive dealings between the dock- 
yard clerks and the timber mcr- ~ 
chants, and thé frauds and abuses of 
every kind in the king’s dock-yards, 
the detection and suppsession of 
rag 
-<& t= 
