ff of a factor or steward delivering up his "account books to his employer," do you mean thereby to state that you have known account books kept by an agent, with several employers, to have been delivered up to any one of his employers, on the settle ment of his account with such employer? ¡A, I do not.. by with the act itself, and I did not know ti I was informed by the Naval Commissioners, that any period had existed, however shurt, between the execution of that act and the commencement of the practice. Had the practice continued, without interruption, from the period of January 1786 to the period of your discovery of it? A. I know nothing to the contrary.Q. Did the practice appear to you irregular, and contrary to law ?A, As the practice of draw. Examination of LORD HARROWBY, (late the different cashiers, for the purpose of subsequent distribution, had been stated by the Commissioners of Enquiry in 1782 to te absolutely necessary, which practice was perhaps hardly justifiable according to the strict letter of the act that was passed pursuant to their suggestions, and which pretice, nevertheless, it was impossible to suppose that act was intended to prohibit, it did not immediately appear to me that the prac tice of drawing money out of the Bank into the hands of a private banker, if carried an bona fide for the same purposes of official convenience, and for those only, was neces sarily illegal or unjustifiable; I felt it however to be a considerable objection to the practice, that it was in fact a substitution by the authority of the Treasurer of the Navy, for however short a time, of the security of a private banking house, however respect. able, in the room of the security of the Bank, or of the clerks of his own offee; and I was sensible that this practice, in commort with that of placing sums of money in the hands of the cashiers, or of the clerks at the out-ports, or even in the iron chet of the office, was in some degree liable to abuse, undoubtedly in a greater degree than the practices last referred to.-Q. Did you discover that abuse had arisen out of this practice? A. 1 did not.Q. Were you ever informed, or had you ever reason 1) believe that the public money had," in con sequence of this practice, been used to purposes of private emolument? I was tu doubtedly aware that the habitual-passage of considerable sums through the bunds of a private banker, for however short a time each particular sum might remain upon his books, must be some advantage to the ge Q. When did your lordship become Treasurer of the Navy A, In June or July, 1800.-Q. On coming into office, or at any time after, did you discover that irregularities in the payment of public money had taken place in that office, and were then practised? A. As this office was regulated by a variety of acts of parliament which had been brought in by my immediate predecessor, and, as I had been myself a member of the committee of the House of Commons, appointed in 1797 to make inquiries respecting various public offices, which committee had not discovered or reported any irregularity in the conduct of that particular office, I had no reason whatever to suppose that any irregularities existed; at a subsequent period, but at what period I am at present unable to recollect, the particular practice to which I imagine the question alJudes was brought to my notice.- -Q. In what manner was your notice called to that practice. I really cannot at this distance of timestate with any accuracy.-Q. Will you be so good as to state the practice? 4 The practice, as I understood it, was this: instead of drawing money out of the Bank for each individual payment, or drawing it into the hands of the cashiers to be placed in the iron chest, or to be sent to the clerks of the out-ports, to be paid afterwards to such persons as had demands for naval service, sums of money were drawn by the paymaster from the Bank to the house of Messrs. Coutts, day by day, or more frequently, as they were likely to be wanted, and were dis tributed from the house of Messrs. Coutts by the orders of Mr. Trotter, either to the different cashiers, or to the different indivi, duals to whom money was due.Q. Didneral concerns of the house, but I had no you understand the practice to have prevailed Jong. When I first expressed some doubts concerning it, I was informed that the practice had began in 1786; as I had learnt that the act of 1785, had not been carried fully into execution till the beginning of the subsequent year, I imagined that the practice above-mentioned was in fact coeval reason whatever to suspect, nor did in fact suspect that any sums of money, after being drawn by Mr. Trotter from the Bank, for nayal services, and placed in the hands of Messrs. Coutts, were subsequently drawn from that house for any purposes whatsoever, except the naval services for which they were originally drawn.. Did you ever communicate to the present Chancellor of the of a just decision as to the conduct of the Exchequer the irregularity you had disco- parties accused, that I certainly should not vered It is difficult for me, at this have encumbered the inquiry with any com distance of time, to recollect every incidentalment of nine, had it not been so loudly and to race had with the chat, so provokingly called for by the cellor of the Exchequer, the only conversation which I recollect having had with him on that subject, while I was in office, was, I believe, a short time before or after my visit to the Bank, which was subsequent to Mr. Pitt's leaving office, and the object of which is stated in my evidence before the Commissioners of Naval Inquiry; the steps I did take will appear in that evidence, to which I beg leave to refer.- Q. Do you recollect the terms, or the substance of the conversation that passed between you and Mr. Pitt. I only recollect very generally, that I mentioned to him the nature of the practice, with the reasons which led me to believe it to be irregular, and that I stated my intention of changing it; and as far as I can remember, Mr. Pitt appeared to agree with me in opinion, that it was desirable it should be changed. I had a subsequent conversation with Mr. Pitt, when we were both out of office,, in the autumn 1802; the only thing which I recollect, is that the name of Mr. Coutts Trotter occurred in that conversation, and that I mentioned to Mr. Pitt that I thought it not improbable that either the circumstance of the naval money passing in part through the hands of the house of Coutts, to which I found that he belonged, might have led to his introduction into that house, or that the circumstance of his being a partner in it might have led to the selection of that house for that purpose; I meant this with a reference to advantage derived to the general concerns of a banking-house necessarily arising from the nature of their business, however cautiously conducted, and not from having any reason to believe that the naval money was used for the benefit of Mr. Alexander Trotter ; I had the less reason to suspect it, as his salary had been increased, I think, in May, 1800, from 5001. a year to Scol. on account of its inadequacy to the importance of his office. !། “ ༈ OBSERVATIONS ON THE FOREGOING EVIDENCE. To have published the foregoing evidence, without making any observation at all on it, might, with soine few persons, have subjected me to a charge of having, upon a subject of the greatest importance, discovered andindifference in the public cause yet, so 1 full is my conviction, that, in the opiniens of all intelligent and honest men, the evidence alone is quite suficient to the forming and the ministerial newspapers. These gentlemen, in their desperate zeal to defend Lord Melville and Mr. Pitt, seem to have entirely forgotten what is due to the public as wellas to their adversaries. They were, apparently at least, become somewhat more reasonable previously to the publication of the report of the Select Committee; but now, like an American lawyer reanimated by a refreshing fee, they have broken forth with more indecency, fury, and virulence than ever by seven devils, each of them worse than the former, they seem to be possessed; and it is, we may fear, but too evident, that their last end will be worse than the first. To take serious notice of the effusions of such writers does, at first sight, appear to be unnecessary; but, when we consider, that they utter the sentiments of the close friends of the parties upon whose conduct we are sitting in judgment; when we consider that they are the professed defenders of those parties; and, when to these considerations is added the interesting reflection, that their writings are, at once cause and effect, leading to and proceeding from corruption, drawing present reward from the defence of past crimes, and, by encouraging a continuance of such crimes, providing the means of reward for the future; when we consider them in this light, they command our attention, and we are no more justified in contemptuously turning our back on them, than a judge would be justified in turning from the trial of a loathsome malefactor. There is one observation which applies generally to the conduct of all these writers, and that is, that the moment the report of the Select Committee appeared, they began to shout victory. Some of them went so far as to assert, that Lord Melville and even Mr. Trotter were now proved to be entirely "innocent;" hints were thrown out, that the former might soon be expected to be re-instated in office; and, as to Mr. Pitt, it was said in so many words, that the House "of Commons would do an act of injustice "if they refused to vote him their thanks "for his conduct." Such, unpardonably insulting as it is to the understanding and.. integrity of the nation and more especially of the House of Commons; almost exactly such was, as the public will recollect, their language relative to the conduct of Lord Melville and Mr. Trotter, when the Tenth Report first made its appearance. It is not unamusing, and it is very useful, to bear in mind, the variation in their tone at the several successive stages of the proceedings against Lord Melville. At first, both he and Mr. Trotter were perfectly innocent;" and though, there had, indeed, been some little irregularity," yet as it was for the public good, Lord Melville was to blame only because he had not the precaution to obtain a bill of indemnity," which, therefore, they suggested the propriety of his obtaining now, Finding, however, that the facts of the Tenth Report made, upon the public mind, an impression not to be weakened by assertions like these, they began to confess that Lord Melville had connived at a breach of the law in behalf of Mr. Trotter; but, they insisted, that his Lordship had been deceived by Mr. Trotter, and that he himself had never thought of putting a farthing of the profits in his pocket, upon which last point they endeavoured to make the whole question revolve. When, therefore, his letter to the Commissioners was brought forward by Mr. Pitt, they congratulated their readers, actually congratulated them, on the "com"plete justification of the noble Lord," and in the disappointment of the opposition, who, they said, were now foiled in their views of "depriving Mr. Pitt of so able and upright "a coadjutor." The vote of censure lowered their tone till the motion of Mr. Whitbread for an address to the King to remove Lord Melville from the privy council was rejected by the House; but that rejection, that retrogade step, was the signal for their setting up the cry of persecution; " enough "had been done;" the people and parliament, " upon a dispassionate view of the matter, were returning towards modera"tion." Their exultation at the result of the discussions, between the vote of censure and the 6th of May, will be well remembered; but, when they found, that, notwithstanding those symptoms of " a return to "moderation," Mr. Pitt himself had advised the dismission of Lord Melville from the privy council for fear the House of Commons should carry such advice to the throne, they appear to have thought it high time to quit Lord Melville and to betake them to their last remaining hold, Mr. Pitt, respecting whose conduct, they have now assumed precisely the same tone that they held with regard to Lord Melville upon his being first openly accused.At every stage of the proceedings, these gentlemen have, it will be observed, endeavoured to give to the question the character of party; to make the people believe, that were it not for the sake of turning out the ministers and getting into their places, no proceedings at all would have taken place against Lord Melville; in short, to represent the main concern of all the leading men in parliament, and, indeed of the whole parliament, to be a scramble for office, or, as the phrase is, for the loaves and fishes. This representation, so exactly what the Jacobins, with Paine at their head, have been constantly holding up to the peo ple, and which the people, should justice be finally eluded, will, perhaps, be but too likely to take for a reality, is now pressed forward upon us with greater zeal than ever. "Whatever," says the Oracle of the 6th instant, "be the fate of Lord Melville, the "conduct and character of Mr. Pitt remain " as pure and unsullied as ever." [An opinion to which thousands and hundreds of thousands will now readily subscribe.] It is this important fact which checks the ambition "of Messrs. Fox and Grey; it is this in"portant fact which maddens their disap pointment, and heightens their fury; it "is the important fact that Mr. Pitt will “not retire from office to make room for a "desperate faction, which disturbs their “minds, and reduces them to the extre "mity of distress and despair. No wonder, "therefore, that the Opposition should be "unbounded in expressions of indignation; "no wonder, therefore, that in the height "of their rage they should move an in"peachment against Lord Melville, and "menace Mr. Pitt with the odium of their "tremendous resolutions. As for Mr. Pitt, no defence is necessary on his part; for "had he acted differently on the occasion of "the 40,0001. loan to Messrs. Boyd and Benfield, he would indeed have acted cri minally. He deserves the thanks of the "country for thus saving public credit from "the serious shock with which it was "threatened. Messrs. Fox and Grey would, "perhaps, readily acknowledge this truth; "but they cannot pardon Mr. Pitt for keep"ing them longer from office. When the "fates had deprived Mr. Pitt of the power. "ful co-operation of Lord Grenville, it was thought that the minister could not form "an administration, because, with the ex"ception of Lord Melville, they reported "him without any man of talents. An ad, "ministration was formed of the same ma "terials which Opposition had been con: “stantly ridiculing. Another precious op "portunity presented itself; the fall of Lord "Melville. Their fondest hopes were now "about to be confirmed. Deprive Mr. Pitt, "they said, of. Lord Melville, and his ruin is certain. Such a deprivation is certain, ly a very serious loss; but Mr. Pitt still Sall of Lading of Jamul in 15 201 “ remains firm and unshaken. The inquiry "has redounded to his honour, and his fume is increasing daily." What! increasing? And increasing daily, too? The fame of Mr. Pitt increase! This, if true, is a serious truth for that gentleman, especially when he adverts to the source whence it proceeds. It must indeed be highly gratifying to Mr. Pitt to find that his character's remaining" pure * and unsullied" is, and by his defenders too, regarded as an important fact."----When men fly off from their subject, when they are continually ranabling into extraneous matter, and are calling in the aid of premises and conclusions unconnected with the question before them, you may be certain, not only that their cause is bad, but that they themselves are fully convinced of the fact. When, therefore, in an attempt to defend the conduct of Lord Melville and Mr. Pitt in misapplying, or conniving at the misapplication of, the public money, you find yourself led into a censure of the opposition of Mr. Fox to the last or the present war with France; when you are asked what would be the measures, which that gentleman, if minister, would pursue with regard to the enemy; when you see the topic of coalition introduced, where you would naturally look for arguments to invalidate a charge of peculation; when this is the case, you may be sure that the defence is a desperate cause, and that the writer appeals to your passions and your prejudices merely because he dares not appeal to your reason and your justice. It is possible, though not very likely, that greater injury and greater dishonour might have arisen from peace with republican France than from wars such as Mr. Pitt's; and, as it is not quite impossible to find a man to believe, that Mr. Fox, if minister, would conduct the present war in such a manner as to render us more despicable in the eyes of the enemy than we have been rendered by Mr. Pitt, so there is a bare possibility of finding some one to think, that Mr. Pitt may coalesce with whomsoever he pleases, without any deviation from the rules of political rectitude; that, after opposing Mr. Dundas and Mr. Eden, he might coalesce with them; that he might afterwards coalesce with the Portland party that he might then coalesce with Mr. Fox for the purpose of turning out the Addingtons, whom he had introduced with the recommendation of the highest capacity, and whom he turned out branded with the charge of incapacity and imbe cillity and that, finally, he might coalesce with these very Addingtons: there is a bare possibility of finding some one to think, or, at least, to pretend to think, that all this is perfectly justifiable in Mr. Pitt, while, if aimed against his power, he has a right to consider the co-operation of any two persons in the world, who have ever disagreed in their lives, as an act of inconsistency proceeding frein a total want of principle; but, if even such a mortal as this were to be found, it would, I think, be impossible to persuade him, that Mr. Fox's opposition to the late war, that his present opinions as to the continuation or the manner of conducting hostilities, or, that his having formed a coalition with gentlemen to whom he was formerly opposed, has any thing to do with the charges against Lord Melville and Mr. Pitt. Such a man may think that all these are grounds of objection to Mr. Fox; but still he must ask himself, what have they to do here? What, in the name of common sense, have they to do with a defence against charges respecting the disposition of the public money by Lord Melville and Mr. Pitt? The truth, is, that, at every step, these advocates perceive the badness of their cause; and the language of their hearts is simply this: we must divert the attention of the people; we must revive the most powerful prejudices of those who have been long accustomed 'to support our clients against the men who are now their immediate accusers; we must, at whatever risk to the reputation ' of parliament and to the safety of the constitution, persuade the people that this is a party question; and thus shall we confuse and bewilder their minds, blunt the edge of their indignation, and prevent the execution of that justice which is de'manded by the merits of the case.' That they will succeed, and that indeed they have already succeeded, to a certain degree is evident enough; but, the effect of their success will, I am persuaded, be only temporary. As to its main object, the preserving of the power of Mr. Pitt, it must completely fail; for, to suppose that that power could be of any long duration, after perusing the evidence, upon which we are now about to comment, would be to impute to a decided majority of the nation, such a total want of honourable sentiments and even of common honesty, such a proneness to base submission, as would render the faculty of ruling over them unworthy of the name of power, and would degrade the office of prime minister of England to a level with that of a whipper-in or a swineherd. The FIRST of the three heads, as stated in the preface to the Evidence, relates to Lord Melville's participation in the profits derived from the misapplication of the public money. It will be remembered, that, if Mr. "often in the practice, since I retired to "Scotland, of employing some time in "assorting my papers, and destroying those "that were useless, I am satisfied that there "does not exist any one material; by which I could make up such an account as you specify." Now, from this letter, who would not have imagined, that the destroying of these papers was rather a thing of accident than otherwise? Who would have imagined, that they had been destroyed in consequence of a deed, mutually made and ratified between him and Mr. Trotter, for the purpose of insuring the destruction of "all vouchers or other memorandums and "writings, that at any time heretofore may "have existed, passed, or been interchanged "between them relative to the said ac counts, and the different items and arti"cles of which the said accounts are com"posed or consist?" Who would have imagined that the destroying, which his lordship spoke of in his letter above quoted was of this general and sweeping nature? If, as Mr. Trotter wished to make it be be lieved, there had been no criminal intention in the deed of release, or of destruction, as it ought to be called, how came Lord Melville to disguise the fact from the Naval Commissioners? How came he not to tell them, at once, that all the papers and accounts had been destroyed by agreement? It was so natural for him to have said this, if he had not been conscious of some guilty intention. Mark the time, too, when this solemn agreement was made. It was not immediately after. Lord. Melville left the treasurership of the navy; yet, that is the Whitbread's motion had been carried, the Committee, by whom the above evidence was taken, would have been enabled to inquire into the whole of the matters connected with the application or employment of the naval money; but that, in consequence" of the restriction proposed by Mr. Pitt, and finally carried, no inquiry could be made, except incidentally, respecting any of the facts tending to discover the nature of the transactions between Lord Melville and Mr. Trotter. Nevertheless, such facts have come out as prove beyond all contradiction, that Lord Melville did participate in the profits; for, it appears from the evidence of Mr. Trotter, 1. that there was a sum of 10,0001. of the public money, which Lord Melville held, without interest, for the whole sixteen years that Mr. Trotter was paymaster under him; 2. that there was a sum of 20,000l. one half of which was public money, advanced to Lord Melville by Mr. Trotter, and upon which no interest was paid; 3. that there was an account current advance to him of from 10 to 20,0001. upon which no interest was paid. On this latter account a very small balance was, nowand-then, in favour of Lord Melville, but, it appears, that no interest was ever paid on either side. There is no proof that the principal was ever paid back by Lord Melville, or by any person for him, out of his own property. Mr. Trotter says, it was paid back, but he gives no account of the time when it was paid; he remembers nothing of the sources whence it came, though he was Lord Melville's private agent as well as public deputy'; and he affords not the slightest trace as to the person or persons by whom the re-pay-time, if ever, that a man might be expec ments, or any of them, were made; and, therefore, the conclusion is, that they came out of the profits of those speculations in the funds, which, in the hands of such a firm, could scarcely fail to prove uncommonly proditetive. This would have been easily ascertained, if the prudent parties had not taken care to destroy their account books, and all other written evidences relating to the transactions between them. This circumstance has been called suspicious". | It is not suspicious: it is proof of guilt: proof much stronger than that which many a man has been convicted upon in a court ofceived intelligence, that an act had kom justice. Lord Melville, in his letter, writ ten to the Commissioners of Naval Inquiry previous to his examination, says (see p. 455) "It is more than four years since I left the "office of Treasurer of the Navy. From "that time: I never considered any one paper or voucher that remained in my "hands as of the smallest use to myself or any other person, and consequently, being ed to think of such a step. It was not when Mr. Trotter and he finally closed all accounts between them; for Mr. Trotter continued to be his private agent long afterwards, an does so continue to this hour, perhaps. It. was not, as Mr. Trotter pretends, at the time when Lord Melvile, was retiring to live in Scotland; for he left London in the spring of 1802, and the deed, the destructive deed, was not executed till the month of February, 1803. It was at none of these epochs; but, it was just after Lord Melville, who was then in Scotland, must have it passed constituting a board of commissioners. to inquire into the abuses and frauds com-. mitted by persons in the several offices it longing to the navy. This was the time a which it entered into, the minds of Lord Melville and his worthy paymaster to destroy, nay, to insure the destruction, of all the books and papers relating to transactions between them; the very time at which, bed |