plready stated, I left the aforesaid, ba, lance, 62,2491. gs. 1d. of the current account of the treasurer of the navy, when I retired from office upon the said 31st day of July, 1803. - The Whole of the above statements can be th cke and verified by a reference to the 'public accounts of the office, which, posses ing internal evidence of the facts, I do not think it would have been necessary for gentlemen acting under the present, commission to have looked for ulterior evidence of the management of money which has not even been alleged to be deficient, at the painful expense of an exposure. of my private concerns, obtained through the means of my most confidential friends; and, I trust, that no hesitation which I may have shewn upon the former part of my evidence may be considered as an admission of having acted improperly, but entirely as proceeding from the caution that every mau ought to observe under circumstances which might eventually expose him to pains and penalties not apprehended in the course of business, but a consequence certainly necessary to be guarded against at this time, from my ignorance of the motive which has led to an investigation of my pub. lic conduct so strict and unexpected, extending even to evidence drawn from my tanker of my private transections, which I do not consider to be authorised by your act of parliament 43 Geo. II. cap. 16): and I take this opportunity of protesting against any information, thus obtained upon transactions not connected with any of the public departalents specified in the above act, and more especially from persons imperfectiv informed, who can only speak on belief or Conjecture as to their nature.

OBSERVATIONS.

ON THE

FOREGOING REPORT AND EVIDENCE. Holding in veneration the good old rule, that nothing ought to be said of the conduct of any persons, while that conduct is under investigation, in this work great care was taken not to aid in the circulation of the rumours disadvantageous to the above named persons, during the inquiry carried on, respecting their conduct, by the Commissioners of Naval Inquiry. Their partisans (for such it seems there yet are) would fain have all the world continue, their silence, even now, not perceiving, or, at least, not appearing to perceive, that the inquiry is finished, and the verdict, given in; and, they have Not, I presume, to learn, that, in this stage of a trial, no public writer thinks it his duty

to abstain from offering to the public, such remarks as occur to him as being proper to be made opon any part of the facts that may have been brought to light. Nevertheless, considering the high station filled by the first of these persons, and, more especially considering, how desirable it os that nothing of a party spirit should discover self in the discussion of what ought to be considered as a great question of state, it was my intention to have merely laid before my readers as great a portion of the TENTH REPORT, toge ther with the accompanying documents, as I could have found room for, and to have made not a single observation thereon, till the matter had been finally settled by the parliament. But, from this intention I have been forced, absolutely driven, by the imprudent (it may be called criminal) zeal of those profligate writers, who have not only apologised for, but who have attempted to justify, that conduct which the Naval Commissioners have so decidedly and so just'y reprobated. Justice, therefore, to those Commissioners, who have been labouring with so much zeal and ability in the public service, justice to my own sentiments with regard to such conduct as that imputed to the persons acensed, demand of me to break that silence which it was my design strictly to adhere to ' -The writers, to whom I have alluded, have made their appearance in the OR CLE, the COURIER, and the SUN. In the last of these prints (23d instant) it is, in no very equivocal terins, insinuated, that the Commissioners have, as to the TENTH REPORT,acted under an undue bias, and that they have not been impartial. It is better to take the very words. “But how stands Lord

66

Melville? What is proved against him? "Nay, of what even is he accused? The facts, as reported by the Commissioners, most be separated from the insinuations "which may be thrown out, whether by

66

"men.

66

them or by others. We rely upon the fi"delity of their report; but their inferences "are worth no more than those of other We do not even accuse them of "unde bias; but, certainly, if in commen with the rest of the world, ahey have thir partialuies, we may say, without unfairness, they are not in Lord Melville's fa"vour."- -It is true, that the Commissioners are not directly charged here with having made & partial and false report to the House of Commons; but, is not this the charge clearly intended to be conveyed? And, would it be permitted; ought it to be per. mitted; for charges of this sort to be throw out against any persons acting in a capacit like that of these Commissioners? Yet, th very same paragraph, which opens with t

daring imputation, closes with a hint, that the conduct of a morning paper" (meaning the MORNING CHRONICLE or the TIMES)"will," merely, I presume, because they have given way to that indignation which every man must feel, become the

subject of judicial inquiry!" The press will not, however, upon this occasion at least, be thus silenced. Wretched indeed were our lot, had we not the liberty to shed a few drops of ink over the examinations and accounts of Lord Melville and Mr. Trotter !! !*

The justification set up by these writers may be considered under three heads: FIRST, that the act of 1785. (25 Geo. III. cap. 31) has not, in this case, been violated. Little, one would thirk, need be said upon this, especially to those who will look at the provisions of the act, and at the report, and the resolution of the House of Commons, upon which the act, as appears by its preamble was expressly founded. The object of the act was, to prevent any Treasurer of the Navy, or any other person, from deriving, in future, any advantage whatever from the use of the money issued from the Exchequer to defray the expenses of the Navy. This was the great, the well-known, the unequivocalJy professed, the universally acknowledged, object of the act; and, when the writers abovementioned talk of calling up from the grave the persons who framed the act, they seem to think that none of us are acquainted with the tact, that Lord Melville framed the act himself! The words of the act, even when considered by themselves, are as clearly expressive of this meaning as words can possibly be; and, when we take into view the report of the Commissioners of Accounts and the resolution of the House of Commons, upon which the act professedly was founded; recollecting, too, that Lord Harrowby, Mr. Bragge, and Mr. Tierney all interpreted the act against the conduct of Lord Melville and his Paymaster; when we consider all this, to say nothing of the decided opinion of the Naval Commissioners, can there remain, in the mind of any man of common sense, even the shadow of a doubt as to the illegality of the conduct complained of by the commissioners? Mr. Trot

The MORNING CHRONICLE of Monday, the 25th instant, contains an article upon the subject of the Tenth Report, which article I could wish to be read by every man in the kingdom: Indeed, that print has, upon this as well as upon most other public questions of importance, discovered a spirit of independence rarely to be met with, and a degree of talent that does great honour to the press of this country. -

ter, in the paper which the Commissioners had the indulgence to receive from him, and to insert in the Appendix to their report, says, that the law putno negative” upon his making such arrangements as those complained of. And here I cannot forbear stopping to observe how intolerably impudent and profligate those writers must be, who, with the fact of this indulgence, on the part of the Commissioners, before their eyes, can accuse those Commissioners of an une "due bias" against Lord Melville. What is now going forward will, perhaps, recall to the mind of the public, or, to that of Lord Melville, at least, the history of the proceedings against Sir Thomas Rumbold!

... Nay, start not man! Do you think that we are all such brutes as to recollect nothing that has past! A string of resolutions, 42 in number, were laid before the House of Commons by a secret committee of thất House, upon which resolutions a bill of pains and penalties was proposed to be passed. But, before the resolutions were adopted by the House, Sir Thomas Rumbold requested that he might be permitted to submit certain papers, and that those papers, being necessary to his defence, should be taken into consi deration along with the resolutions reported by the secret committee. This request was objected to, and Sir Thomas was told, that "it would be perfectly inconsistent to mix "the defence with the accusation ;" though, observe, the accusation (that is to say, the resolutions) had been printed, and had, of course, been read by the whole nation. Whether this refusal, on the part of the House of Commons was just, or unjust, we are not' now called upon to determine; contrast between the conduct of that secret committee and of the present board of Com missioners is what I wish the reader to bear in mind; and, I wish him not to forget, that the chairman of that committee; the person who reported the resolutions against Sir Thomas Rumbold; the person who rose to object to "mixing the defence with the "accusation;" the person who proposed, supported, and carried a bill, by which Sir Thomas Rumbold was compelled to give evidence that might criminate himself, and making the penalty, in case of refusal, f lony without benefit of clergy; this person; this patriotic person; this lover of strict justice; this champion of reform; this mor tal enemy of peculators, was that identical Henry Dundas, then Lord Advocate of Scotland and now Lord Admiral of England, whose name so often occurs in the TENTH REPORT of the Naval Commissioners!*.

I earnestly recommend to the reader to

The

But, to return to Mr. Trotter's defence: he says: "no negative is put upon my making "such arrangement by the only act (25 G. “HI. c. 31) that bears upon the subject." The arrangement he is speaking of, is, the withdrawing of the money from the Bank of England and depositing it with a private banker. No negative!" What! is this clerk a small lawyer too? And, does he think that a miserable subterfuge like this will avail him ought in the decision of either the parliament or the public? Is it necessary for every clause of an act of parliament to be expressed negatively as well as positively? And, shal no one be regarded as having violated it, unless the act has specified the particular manner of such violation? First, the House of Commons, in June, 1782, pass a resolution, that, it is its opinion, that, in fatore, the Paymaster-general of the Land Forces and the Treasurer of the Navy, shall not apply any sum or sums of money, drawn from the Treasury by them, to any purpose of advantage or interest to themselves, either di rectly or indirectly. Next followed, the recommendation of the Commissioners of Accounts, in December, 1802, the whole object of which was, that the Treasurer of the Navy never should have, at any time, any of the public money in bis bands. Last comes the act itself, expressly professing, in its preamble, to be grounded upon this report of the Commissioners of Accounts. It enacts, That no money, issued from the Exchequer for the service of the navy, shall be placed in the treasurer's hands or possession, but that it shall be lodged in the Bank of England: That the Treasurer (or person acting for him) shall draw upon the Bank of En gland for all navy services whatever, and shall specify, in each and every draft, the head of service for which the same is drawn: That none of the aforesaid money shall be paid out of the Bank of England, unless for navy services, which services shall be specified in the drafts.Now, after all this, is it not a notable instance of assurance to pretend that the law has not been violated; that the law put no negative" upon the practice of Mr. Trotter in drawing out the

turn to the parliamentary proceedings in the case of Sir Thomas Rumbold. They will be found in Debrett's Parliamentary Debates, beginning in April, 1782. These proceedings are very interesting in themselves, and they will, when compared with what must soon pass under our eyes, enable people to judge of the characters of no small part of the leading men of the present day, many of whom took a distinguished part in those proceedings.

money from the Bank and lodging it with Mr. Coutts. or purchasing stock, or discounting bills with it, instead of applying it to navy services Observe, too, that there were, according to the act, to be four distinct heads of account to be raised in the books of the Bank of England, under the general head of account of the Treasurer of the Navy; but, this was never done, though it was essential to the purposes of the act. Then, the drafts drawn by the Treasurer, or person authorized by him, were, as has been above stated, to specify the particular heads of service, for which such drafts respectively were given; but, it appears, from the evidence of Abraham Newland, that the drafis were not so drawn.. They formerly "did," says he, "specify a service, but "they afterwards changed that plan, and "made the drafts pa able to the sub"accountants of the different branches, or "bearers." These bearers" were, as we have seen in the Appendix, usually the clerks of Mr. Coutts, or some person doing what those clerks might have done. Here, then, is another violation of the law; and, not only on the part of the treasurer and his deputy, but, as would appear from Mr. Newland's evidence, on the part of the Bank also; and, if Mr. Newland's evidence be correct, the Bank is liable to reimburse the public a good round sum of money; for the act expressly says, that "no draft of the "said treasurer, or the person or persons "authorized as aforesaid, shall be deemed

a

a sufficient voucher to the said Governor "and Company of the Bank of England, "unless the same specifies the head of service "for which it is drawn." Mr. Newland positively states that the plan was changed, and that the drafts did not, after that change, specify any head of service whatever. Mr. Trotter, however, says, in his defence, that the act of parliament was, in this respect,

invariably followed." The act of 25 G. III. c. 31, directed, says he, "that alt is

sues to the Treasurer of the Navy from "the Exchequer, should be placed to his "credit at the Bank of England, and be

drawn from thence by drafts, specifying "the heads of service for which it was want"cd. These directions have, accordingly, "been invariably followed." Now, if Mr Newland, upon his oath, speaks truth. Mr. Trotter has here deliberately stated a falsehood. We must certainly believe Mr. Newland; and, as it was impossible that the Bank of England should not lose, in consequence of the violation of the law, few per sons will be persuaded, that, as far as the Bank was concerned, the violation was va

luntary. Indeed, it is, evident, that the Bank acted, in this case, under an influence other than that of the minds of the Governor and Directors, and it would be truly vaJuabic to the public to be able to trace this influence to its source —— -The point last touched upon, however, as far as concerns Lord Melville and Mr. Trotter, is quite inmaterial; for it merely gives the accused a choice of offences. If the drafts did not specify a head of service, they were guilty of a breach of the law in the omission; if they aid specify a head of service, they made a false specification, becau e the money was conveyed to a private banker's, and was made use, sometimes for public and sometimes for private purposes, as it might happen.. But, what appears most unaccountable, is, that any one should pretend, that no violation of the law has taken place, when Lord Melville himself says, that he did not de"cline giving occasional accommodation from "the fund, in the treasurer's hands to other " services, not connected with his official si"tuation as Treasurer of the Navy.". And, Mr. Trotter gave the Commissioners to understand; that money" applicable to navy

services, which had been advanced by "him to Lord Melville, was employed by "his lordship in the public service of the state; " and that he was led to this conclusion in

"

consequence of a considerable sum, so "advanced, having been returned to him by "Mr. Long, one of the secretaries of the "Treasury." Now, the act of parliament so often quoted positively says, tirat no money, which has been issued to the Bank from the Treasury, and placed to the account of the Treasurer of the Navy, shail be paid out of the Bank, unless for navy services. Indeed, the grand motive of the act was to prevent the applying to any other use the money issued for the naval service, even though that application should be of ever so short a duration; and yet, Lord Melville and Mr. Trotter build their defence upon the alleged fact of their having applied the naval money to other purposes than that of the na val service! If this be a justification for Lord Melville, most assuredly Mr. Trotter is quite clear; for, if notwithstanding all the provisions of the act, the money drawn from the Bank for navy services could, at the discretion of the treasurer, be applied to any other branch of the public service, certainly those provisions were altogether incompetent to the restraining of the same treasurer from fully authorizing Mr. Trotter to draw out the money from the Bank, to deposit it with a private banker, to speculate in the funds, or to discount bills with it.. Observe, too, that neither Lord Melville nor

Mr. Trotter will tell what other branch of the public service, was thus occasionally ac commodated. Lord Melville refuses upon the grounds of delicacy and confidence. I could not have given an account of it, says he," without disclosing delicate and con“fidential transactions of government,

66

which my duty to the public must have "restrained me from revealing!" His lordship had been, during his retirement in Scotland, occasionally employed in assorting his papers, and in burning such as were useless, and, he tells the Commissioners that he is certain that he has not the materials necessary to enable him to make out an account of the money so advanced by him to other departments of the government. They next applied to Mr. Canning, the present Treasurer, to know if there was, in his office, any note of record of such transactions as those mentioned by Lord Melville; bat, none could be obtained. And, here appears to me to be the only ins ance in which this inquiry could possibly have been rendered more couplete thin it is. Mr. Trotter's opinion relative to Lord Meļ. ville's advancing the naval money occasionally to other public purposes was, as he stated, grounded upon the circumstance of a considerable sum, so advanced, having "been returned to him by Mr. Long, one of "the Secretaries of the Treasury." Here was the clue. Mr. Long's evidence might have thrown great light upon the matter. Mr. Long might, it is true, have had d licacy equal to that of Lord Melville, and his motives might have been much ab ut the same as those of his lord-lip; but ha would, at any rate, either have contradict. ed or confirmed the statement of Mr. Trotter; or, he must, like that gentleman and his principal, have thrown himself upon the protection of the 5th clause of the act, under which the inquiry was instituted. Mr. Long might, too, have been asked, from what fund the re-imbursement caine; and he might ce.tainly, have been required to say, whether he did or did not return the money to Mr. Trotter by order of the Lords of the Treasury, at the head of whom Mr. Pitt then was, Deeply impres sed with the words which I have chosen for my motto, I cannot, refrain from ex pressing my hope, that the person, or per sons by whom, and the purposes which, this money was borrowed from the Treasurer of the Navy will, ere long, be made known to the parliament and the people. The more one thinks of this part of the transactions, the more interesting it becomes; and, when we consider that the 5th clause of the Naval Inquiry Act would have

for