lordship think it wise to talk. Yes; to talk of this poverty is a very good thing. Used in this way, it is a most useful quality. The being constantly dunned, and now and then sued for a trifling sum, are excellent proofs of a minister's purity and disinterestedness! This trick is, however, almost-worn out. Every thing has its day; and, I am persuaded, that the years are drawing nigh, when, to acquit a minister charged with peculation, something more than pretensions to poverty will be required. Men will recollect the parable of the unjust steward, and will look not merely at the wealth amassed by a minister himself, but at that which has been amassed, in so short a space of time and so unaccountably, by his relations and close political adherents; and, they will clearly discover, that, while he suffers all around him to plunder, it would be perfect folly in him to become a plunderer in his own name.—— -With respect to Mr. Trotter, the plea of poverty has not been urged; but, we are told, by Lord Melville himself, of the inadequacy of his salary. Viewing Mr. Trotter, seated in his splendid mansion, with a fortune of a million, or more, we naturally look upon his salary of 500l. a year, now augmented to 8ool. a year, as a mere trifle; especially, when we see him annually charged in Mr. Coutt's books with from 2001 to 300l for Christmas boxes! But, strip Mr. Trotter of these appendages; make an estimate of his intrinsic talents and merits; and you will find, that his salary, together with a dwelling house, perhaps, with coals and candles, were quite as much as it was proper to allow him. And, as to the responsibility," of which so much has been said, the Commissioners have very justly observed, that if the law pad been obeyed, there would have been no responsibility resting upon him. The plain statement of the case, then, is; that, by risking the public money, and by augmenting the public expenses, he first amasses immense sums, and then he claims those sums as a just compensation for his responsibility; which is, I take it, in no respect inferior to the conduct, spoken of by Swift, of Lord Peterborough's steward, who pulled down a house, sold the materials, pocketed the money, and then charged his lordship with repairs!.. Since the foregoing part of this article was written, the LETTER OF LORD MELVILLE to the Commissioners has made its appearance in the SUN newspaper. It has no date; but it must be taken for granted, that it was, agreeably to the statement of

All

Mr. Pitt, written on the 28th ultimo. that I have hitherto said respecting it is fully applicable to its contents; only, that I proceeded upon the supposition, that his lordship had now offered to swear positively, that he never did derive any profit or advantage from the use which was made of the public money, passing through his office. This is not the case; and, indeed, except as the means of procuring a short delay, it is very hard to conceive what purpose this letter could be expected or intended to answer. Such as it is, however, I shall here insert it, and then trouble the reader with a very short observation or two upon its contents. Having read your Tenth Report, and observing particularly "the following paragraph in the 141st page, "However the apprehension of disclosing delicate and confidential ""transactions of governmet might ope"rate with Lord Melville in with-holding ""information respecting advances to other ""departments, we do not perceive how ""that apprehension can at all account for his refusing to state whether he derived any profit or advantage, from the use ""or employment of money i-sued for the "services of the oavy. if his lordship

66

66

66

66

"L "had received into his hands such mo"nies as were advanced by him to other ""departments, and had replaced them ""as soon as they were repaid, he could "not have derived any profit or ad 65 66 vantage from such transactions, however repugnant they might be to "the provisions of the legislature for the ""safe custody of public money."——I "think it necessary to state the following "observations, in order to place in their just view the grounds on which I declined answering your question, and which you appear not to have accurately understood. When you first called upon me for "information, I stated to you that I had not "materials on which I coul frame such an 66 account as you required me at that time "to prepare, and in a communication with "Mr. Trotter, before my examination on "the 5th of November last, I learnt, for the "first time, that in the accounts he had "kept respecting my private concerns, he "had so blended his own private monies "with what he had in his hands of public "money, that it was impossible for him to "ascertain, with precision, whether the ad

"Coutts. This circumstance, which I un"derstood Mr. Trotter had distinctly com"municated to you, made it impossible for me to return any other answer than I did to the general question which you put to "me-Whether Mr. Trotter had applied << " any of the money issued for carrying 66 66 on the current service of the navy for

my benefit or advantage?" and to this "circumstance I uniformly referred in my "answers to other questions respecting the

manner in which Mr. Trotter applied the "money in his hands.- When you put "the question to me, "Whether I did di""rect or authorize Mr. Trotter to lay out

"or apply, or cause to be laid out or ap66 68 plied, any of the money issued for car""rying on the current service of the navy, ""to my benefit or advantage?" My

answer was, "To the best of my recol""lection I never did."--That answer "I now repeat. Had you proceeded to

inquire whether I ever had any under"standing, expressed or implied, with Mr. "Trotter respecting any participation of advantages derived from the custody of "the public 'money, or whether I at any "time knowingly derived any advantage to "myself fom any advances of public moci ney, I should have had no hesitation in declaring, as I now declare, that there never was any such understanding, nor any thing like it, between Mr Trotter and myself: that I never knowingly derived any such advantages; and that whatever "emolument accrued to Mr. Trotter in the "conduct of the pecuniary concerns of the "office, was, so far as I am informed, ex

clusively his ownWith respect to "any advances which Mr. Trotter might "make on my private account, I considered

68

myself as debtor to him alone, and as "standing with regard to him, in no other

predicament than I should have done "with any other man of business, who "might be in occasional advance to me in "the general management of my concerns "entrusted to him. It is impossible for

me to ascertain from any documents or "vouchers in my hands, or now existing, "what the extent of those advances might "have been at any particular period. The "accounts which you have inserted in your

σε

Report I never saw till I saw them in the Report itself. They are no accounts of "mine, nor am I a party to them. They "contain a variety of sums issued nominal"ly to me, which never came into my "hands, and they give no credit for various "sums received by Mr. Trotter on my pri"vate account from my salary as Treasurer

"of the Navy, and other sources of income, "of which he was in the receipt, nor do "they take any notice of the security of "which he was in possession for the re 66 payment of any balance at any time doe "to him from private funds. With re66 spect to the sums of naval money advanced

to me, and applied to other services, I do "not feel it necessary to make any addi"tional observations, except to declare, "that all those sums were returned to the "funds from which they were taken, having "in no instance been withdrawn from it "for any purpose of private emolument or "advantage.-Before I conclude, I wish "to correct an inaccuracy which I observe "in one part of the evidence in Appendix "No. 7, p. 192. The question is put to 66 me, "Did you derive any profit or ad""vantage from the use or employment of 66 66 money issued for carrying on the cur ""rent service of the navy between the ""19th Aug. 1782, and 30th April, 1783; between the 1st Feb. 1784, and 31st ""Dec. 1785, during which periods you ""held the office of treasurer of the navy?" "which question I there answer by a re"ference to the answer given to a similar

or

question put to me before. This answer " is inaccurate in so far as it contains a re"ference to Mr. T.'s mode of blending his "funds in his private account with Messrs. "Coutts. Mr. Trotter was not paymaster "till the year 1786. The circumstances, "therefore, relating to Mr. Trotter's ac count, which precluded my returning an

answer to your former questions, do not "apply to the periods specified in that men "tioned, and I can therefore have no dif"ficulty in declaring, that during those pe "riods I did not derive any advantage from "the use or employment of public money "issued for carrying on the service of the

navy. Having stated these facts, it is al"most unnecessary to add, that I am at any time ready to verify them upon my "oath. I have the honour to be, Gen"tlemen,-MELVILLE." FIRST; is it

not strange, that Mr. Dundas should never, till called upon by the Commissioners, have known in what manner his accounts were kept by Mr. Trotter? SECONDLY, is it not equally strange, that Mr. Dundas should possess no book, or paper, that could enable him to ascertain what the extent of Mr. Trot ter's advances to him, at any one time, might be? One can easily enough conceive that Lord Melville is perfectly right in dis claiming all acquaintance with the accounts extracted from the books of Mr. Coutts; but, one must suppose the connexion bes

tween him and Mr. Trotter to be of a very singular nature, before one can possibly account for his having no document whatever to enable him to ascertain subat sums Mr. Trotter advanced him!THIRDLY (and, this, is, indeed, the jet of the letter) how is the case mended,bythe introduction of the words, " understanding" and." KNOWINGLY?" Being asked, upon oath, whether Mr Trotter had ever applied any of the Naval Money for his (Lord Melvilles') benefit or advantage, he refused to answer, for fear of criminating himself; but now he says, that, if the Commissioners had gone on and asked him, whether he, at any time, knowingly derived any such advantage, he should have had no hesitation in declaring, as he now declares, that he never knowingly did And, why, if they did not put the question in this precise form, did he not answer in this form. Why did he not say: "Knowingly I never did?" They asked him whether he ever directed Trotter to lay out the public money for his advantage; to which he answered: "To the best of my recollection, I never did." Why not give a qualified answer in the other case also? Why this after-thought in one case and not in the other? Why seek refuge under the act as to the deriving of advantage, and not seek that refuge as to the giving of Trotter positive directions to procure for him such advantage? Upon the term " understanding" a remark presents itself. When asked upon oath, whether he ever directed or authorised Trotter to lay out any of the Naval Money for his (Lord Melville's) benefit or advantage, his lordship answered: "To the best "of my recollection I never did." So, you see, after having had from June to November to think about it (except the little time that was taken up with the Catamaran project) he could not positively swear, that he never had directed Trotter to lay out the pub. lic money to his benefit or advantage! This he now explains by saying, that, if they had asked him, whether he ever had any 66 นพ. "derstanding with Mr. Trotter respecting any participation of advantages," he should instantly have answered, that he never had any such understanding with Trotter, But, under correction of Lord Melville, this is quite another question; for, who does not perceive, that he might have directed Trotter to lay out the public money for his advantage, without letting Trotter participate with him? When a person of high rank and station is asked, did you ever direct any one to misapply the public money for your advantage, we expect him to answer, 'NO ;' we naturally expect, that he should need no

recollection upon such a subject: in such a case.. "he who deliberates is lost." This Lord. Melville now appears to have discovered: the impression upon the public mind has been perceived; but, it is not to be removed by an explanation like that upon. which we have been remarking. The same may be said of the answer to that plain, and pithy question did you ever derive arg benefit or advantage from the misappli cation of the naval money? To this question, if all had been right, what need was there of any answer, but that which is contained in the afore-mentioned

monosyllable? NO,' was all that ought to have been necessary, unless the impatience of the answerer had hurried into a repetition of that negative. No, no, no!" might have been expected; but, certainly no one ought, in such a case, and from such a person, to have expected hesitation, much less a refusal, grounded on a fear of self-crimination, and an exposure to pains or penalties. What, as to this question, was it to Lord Melville how Mr. Trotter's accounts were kept? Lord Melville QUGHT TO HAVE KNOWN that he never pocketed any money but bis own; and, this was all that was wanted to enable him at once to answer the question of the Commissioners. There needed, in such case, no qualification; no recourse to the saving word" knowingly;" and, what must have been the connexion between these two men, if Mr. Dundas did not know, at any one time, whether he was pocketing the public money, or not? Is it meant to be insinuated, that Trotter was in the babit of lending him large sums of money, and that, as these loans were advantageous to him, he might, unknowingl receive advantage from the misapplication of the public money? But, first, how came Mr. Dundas to think of borrowing large sums of money from a clerk whose salary was only sool. a year? This is, indeed, a most miserable subterfuge; for, what is it to the public whether he received the advantage in the shape of simple participation with Trotter, or whether Trotter conveyed it to him under the name of loans? -This poor knowingly" is an afterthought; but, it only makes the matter worse, for it now shows us, that even four months of reflection, aided by the animadversions of the public, have not enabled the accused the accused to invent any thing that makes in his favour. It has been asked, by the partisans of Lord Melville, how we can account for his refusing to swear at once (though falsely, suppose.) that he never derived any profit or advant ge from the

---

misapplication of the public money; they have asked us, how we can possibly attribute this refusal to any thing but his lordship's conscientiousness; and, say they. if you allow him to be so conscientious, how can you believe him guilty of peculation? This, if we were to admit the promises, is by no means a legitimate conclus on But, we never have made such an admission. We never pretended to look for any motive in his lordship's refusal other than that which he p ofessed to act from, namely, the fear of criminating himself and exposing himself to pains or penalties ; and this he might do in two ways, first, by acknowledging himself guilty of peculation. and, secondly, by swearing falsely, and thereby incurring the punishment due to wil ful perjury. This latter cousideration was, one would think, quite sufficient to account for his refusal to swear that he never had derived any advantage from the misuse of the public money. Besides, if his lordship did touch a part of Mr. Trotter's little profits (and he is not even yet prepared to swear that he did not), can it be supposed, that Mr. Trotter would have been very well pleased at being left alone? Can it be supposed that Mr. Trotter would have stomached that? No; Mr. Trotter would certainly have thought himself ill-used, if the shield of the mighty northern chieftain had thus been withdrawn from him. In such case, God knows what Mr. Trotter might have been tempted to do, or at least, to say! Mr. Trotter would have had no notion of becoming the 'scapedat; and no one could have blamed aim. We see, indeed, that he has been Created with great indulgence. Some of the Dundas partisans, who have more zeal than knowledge, have attempted to throw all the borden upon Trotter. But, Lord Melville takes care, not to countenance any such endeavour. He knows better. And, let it be remembered, that, notwithstanding all that has been discovered, Mr. Trotter is still paymaster; re-instated by Mr. Canning after he had been turned out by Mr. Tierney! There he is; still in that same office; still nosing ind insulting that public, millions of whose nings he has so freely handled!

he advantage, afforded by Lord Melride's letter, is, that his partisans have no Jonger any justificatory matter to bint at. The whole of this matter is now before the

liament and the public. Indeed, the dhing was complete before; and, it is impossible to attribute this letter to any other

tive than that of obtaining a delay. This ject the Commissioners appear clearly to

have perceived; and, they have according ly defeated it by answering, very truly, that it would not become them to re-open the examination upon the subject of the Tenth Report. merely upon the suggestion of any of the parties to whose conduct the Report relates. They were, they say, occupied several months in the inquiry; those who were examined by them had the fullest opportuni ties of correcting, at any time, during the progress of the inquiry, any mistakes which might inadvertantly, have been made. But, is it, I would ask, reasonable to

* Answer of the Commissioners, dated 2d April, 1803 --My lord,-We have received your lordship's letter of the 29th of last month, by which you intimate that we appear not to have accurately understood the ground on which you declined answer ing our questions, and submit to us some observations in order to place those grounds in their just view; and also express a wish, before you conclude, to correct an inaccura cy in one part of your evidence, and a rea diness to verify by your oath the facts stated in that letter.--If it be the object of this communication, that we should`again require your lordship's attendance, for the parpose of being examined, touching these matters, and that we should make a Supplemental Report upon the result of that examination, and such other examinations as we might thereupon judge necessary, there can be no disinclination on our parts (as far as we are concerned in the proceeding) to meeting your lordship's wishes:-but it appears to us that the inquiry, which is the subject of the Tenth Report, has attained that period, when it would not become s to adopt such a measure, merely upon the suggestion of any of the parties, to whose conduct that Report relates.- We were occupied several months in investigating the mode of conducting the business of the of fice of Treasurer of the Navy: those who were examined by us had the fullest oppor tunity of stating and explaining all things which related to the management of that department, or to the share which they res spectively had in it; and of correcting, at any time, during the progress of the in quiry, any mistakes which might inadvert ently have been made. Our opinion and observations upon the irregularities and abuses, which we discovered, were formed and drawn up with the utmost care and de liberation; and they are now submitted to the three branches of the legislature, as the act, by which we are appointed, requires. If it could be made to appear upon a represen

suppose, that these Commissioners are to be called back again to ask a man such questions as he ball wish to have put to himself! And, observe, too, that this takes place, after the report has been printed; after the comments of the people bave been beard; after it has been ascertained what parts of the examination have produced the greatest effect, and stand, therefore, the most in need of explanation? Is it reasonable, or rather, is it -not grossly absurd, to suppose, that such was the use, to which this Commission was to be applied? I cannot conclude without repeating, that very great, and, in my opi nion, much too great indulgence, has been granted to Mr. Trotter and his principal. Mr. Trotter was permitted to subjoin a writ ten paper to the evidence which he had given, and to the questions which he had refused" to answer upon oath. The Commissioners have pointed out the extreme modesty of the person, who, to avoid the danger of criminating himself refused explanations required of him, and afterwards offered a justification on his own terms; and, their remarks upon this topic would apply equally well to their present noble correspondent. It is, besides, an indulgence unheard of. When evidence is given, it cannot be recalled. A man cannot, either by explanation or otherwise, be permitted to unswear that which he has sword. To permit a defence to be made in this way is, moreover, entire'y without a precedent; and, the reader will remember, that I last week referred to the case of Sir Thomas Rumbold, who asked to have his justificatory papers presented to parliament in company with the report of the Committee that had examined evidence relative to his conduct, and whose request was positively refused, and that, too, by the very person, in whose behalf Mr. Pitt is now demanding a similar step as a right. Sir Thomas Rumbold was himself a member of parliament, and, when the resolutions of the Committee were brought forward for the sanction of the House, he moved, "that the papers laid

tation to them that any thing has been omitted on our part, that any misunderstanding or error had occurred, and that a further inquiry is advisable upon these or any other grounds, it would be for them to direct such further inquiry, and to decide by whom, and in what manner, it should be prosecuted; but, in the present circumstances, it appears to us that we cannot with propriety resume it.We have the honour to be, my lord, your lordship's most ebedient humble servants, -(Signed) CH. M. POLE, EWAN LAW, JOHN FORD, H. NICHOLLS, W. MACKWORTH PRAD.

"upon the table by him, and necessary for "his defence, be referred to the same com→ "mittee." To this his accuser, Mr. Dundas, objected: Because," said he, "it "would be perfectly inconsistent to mix the "defence with the acculation; and, in fact, "the Baronet cannot make a defence till be "be charged, for the resolutions at present are to be sure strong facts against him, "but nothing is yet decided on; and, agree "ably to the parliamentary form, the pios per time for his defence will be on the se"cond reading of the intended bill of pains "and penalties against him, when he will "be allowed the fice use of counsel, and every kind of evidence he may think

proper to adduce." This was the doctrine of the very man, in whose behalf Mr. Pitt has now insisted upon the right of presenting to the House of Commons a justificatory paper to accompany a Report made against his conduct. But, times are changed! The doctrine above cited was the doctrine of 1782. It was the doctrine of those days when the pure virgin star first made its appearance in the political horizon I feel an uncommon degree of pleasure in looking back at those times of maiden modesty and innocence. Hence it was that I fell upon the admirable passage, which I have chosen as a motto for the present sheet; and, I beseech the reader to bear with me, while I further indulge in the delightful task of making some further extracts from the speeches of the same immaculate personnage. I will begin with his very first speech. The subject was the retrenchment of the expenses of the civil list; for, next to liberty and purity, economy was his tavourite topic. "It is the immediate duty "of the Commons House of Parliament "to guard the liberties, the lives, and the properties of the people. The last obligation is the strongest; it is more inmediately incumbent upon them to guard "the properties, because they are more "liable to invasion by the secret and subtle "attacks of influence, then either their "lives or their liberties. It will be no dimi "nution of true grandeur to yield to the "respectful petitions of the people. The

66

tutelage of this House may be a hard "term; but it cannot be disgraceful to a "constitutional king. Magnificence is not "inconsistent with economy, but, on the

66

46

contrary, in a time of necessity, and of common exertion, solid grandeur is de "pendent on the reduction of expense; "and, it is the general sentiment that eco"nomy is, at this time, essentially neces sary to national salvation."--I will not here to ask whether this speech, which

stop