Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

My Lords, I am commanded to open to your Lordships, at once, all the charges exhibited against Henry Lord Viscount Melville. This course is adopted, as much because the matters of charge are of themselves difficult of separation, as because those, to whom the management of this cause has been entrusted, have determined that upon them shall rest no imputation of delay,

My Lords, I fear it will be necessary for me to enter into a 'long and fatiguing detail of perplexed accounts, and to give a narrative of dry facts, which are susceptible of no embellishment.

I trust, my Lords, in the course of this prosecution, that, whatever ardour I may feel to bring to an issue the most honourable to the Commons of Great Britain, that charge which they have ex hibited against the Defendant, I shall not be betrayed into any intemperance or expression whatever towards the Defendant. My Lords, truth delights in the language of temperance, and she makes her most forcible appeal in the accents of moderation; and I may be believed when I say, my Lords, that I am as anxious to avoid the infliction of unnecessary wounds upon the Defend ant himself (and much more upon those who are most near and dear to him) as I am anxious to obtain a legal conviction of that which I know to be moral guilt. But, my Lords, neither will I sin in the opposite extreme, nor be betrayed by the affectation of candour into a dereliction of duty. My Lords, I will speak for that I love I will speak for justice. If the party accused have done so as we charge, his fault is double, for he came in upon reformation, having discovered the abuses of others; and this

I would say unto you, if I were to die this hour faults by mistake, God for bid that you should be harsh in censuring, but errors that are wilful, spare them not. My Lords, the office of Treasurer of the Navy was founded in the begin. ning of the century before the last; a certain stipend was allowed to the person who executed that office; and although it was never legal so to do, yet down to a certain period it was irreproachable to those who exercised that office, to make use of the publico money which passed through their hands,

My Lords, at the close of the

[ocr errors]

Ame

rican war, when the expences of the country had risen to a very consider

[ocr errors]

50

able height, when it was necessary to be begin plans of economy and reform, andia when there existed in the House of Commons of that day, spirits who were deter mined to inquire into the true situation of the country; a commission of ac counts was instituted by act of parliament, to ascertain what had been the mode of the expenditure of public mo, ney, what balances it was right to call for, and what enactments it was right. to make in future for the due execution of this office. These commissioners, one of whom is in the box, a fellow-manager of mine, executed the trust reposed in them with diligence and ability, and they made a variety of reports, among others, a special report in the office of Treasurer of his Majesty's Navy. Theyới stated the balances that had been in the the hands of the Ex-Treasurers, and ad-us vised that regulations should be made in future, to prevent such accumulation of balances; that no temptations should ever be held out to any future treasurer to do that which they complained for ou mer treasurers had done..

Mr Whitbread then stated certain resolutions of the House of Commons, and the measures which were taken by ano17› the King to increase the salary of Menabre Barre (who was Treasurer of the Navy 4. in 1782) to 4000l. a year, in lieu of all, emoluments theretofore enjoyed by former Treasurers of the Navy, dama vd

P

[ocr errors]

3.

[ocr errors]

He then stated, that when Mr Barre, quitted the office of Treasurer of the v Navy, the noble defendant succeeded him; and that he was bound by his (97 Majesty's warrant, granting the salary of 4000 per annum, to make no use of v the public money to his interest or ad-ichvantage, My Lords (continued ha): 1'0

[ocr errors]

defendant at the time he came intɗisease that office, appointed Mr Douglas, to I be his paymaster; a gentleman whois.pr had exercised the office of paymastersv under several Treasurers of the Navy I believe for a succession of almost 31 fo eighteen years, with a slight interrupte tion during the time that Mr Barre exon ercised that office. My Lords, nwC90 S charge, in the first article, of impeach-tree ment, that the Noble defendant during i the time Mr Douglas was his paymaster, and previous to o an act of parliament, have occasion Bhall

to which

to call the attention of your Lordships,

did, in breach of his duty, possess hime self of a certain sum of money. My

Lords,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

your

1940

[ocr errors]

453

either interest or advantage of the pub
blic money.

[ocr errors]

tion and sense

[ocr errors]

a manner as

[ocr errors]

Lords, I beg your Lordships to consider at this period the situation in which the Commons have stood with regard to the The noble Lord is a man of educaEg batidy articles that they have exhibited to y Lordships. At the time they were ex-vour of his Majesty, and in consequence is elevated by the fahibited, the committee were not in pos- of services which his Majesty has been session of a great part of the evidence pleased to acknowledge, to a situation in which I shall now have the honour to which he passes sentence, in this house, open to your Lordships. We "drew as a judge upon life and death, upon his the charges as it were in the dark, but honour, in fram'd them in such a , in cases of felony and treason. And yet, my Lords, that noble Lord that the evidence, whatever it might be, said thight apply to some of the articles, or undertake to prove that he did, and e, that he never that, which rather some parts of the charge, which he has said, and subscribed his name to we have adduced against the noble that Lord. And I also beg your Lordships the solemn sanction of an oath to that assertion, that he was ready to take to consider, that the lapse of time, from e effect. the date of the crime which we charge from silu suza qe et grad of My Lords, I charge that the noble ken upon the defendant in the first article, Lord not only took this money, but och is no less than twenty four years; that that he used it for his own advantage, many of the persons who acted in these and part of it for his own interest. transactions have been long since asleep Your Lordships know, that I am now in their graves; that much of the writ- adverting to the first charge, which is, ten evidence which we ought to have that Lord Melville had possession of a been able to collect has been purposely certain sum of 10,000l. Now Lorefere destroyed, and put out of the way your lordships to the tenth article, for su that much has been accidentally lost; and it is necessary that we should take that we are now driven to living wit- those two articles together; the 10,000/$ nesses, who were actors in these transactions, in order to establish before your being involved in as your Lordships will find hereafter, in the 27,000l. which is Lordships the guilt of the person whom charged in the tenth article, as I shaliis we accuse. But our difficulties are sur- have the honour to explain to your mounted, I trust; and we shall be able Lordships presently. to lead your Lordships by a circuitous path; by small steps perhaps at first, as I have the satisfaction

to say,

to an eminence, t from whence

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

F First of all though upon the tenth article itsel, how are the Commons prepared to prove that article?And

duced to you upon this occasion? Why

but are plain and open road, what is the evidence that is to be ad survey all the transactions of Jou shas my Lords, no less than a confession, the difficulties of wing all himself)

è last eigh

dant, during the course of the teen years.au

th

which I heard made by the defendant in the House of Commons. He avowed that he had taken 10,0col, bof the public money; he asserted that he had not used it to purposes of private profit or advantage, but he told the House of Commons this remarkable fact, that he was determined he never would application of that 10,000l. was. That reveal, to any human being, what the expression the defendant uttered in the face of the House of Commons; and which, perhaps, may now be to be rear on peated, in the face of your Lordships and his impeachable offence. He, nor any man Country, That I say was an w breathing, had a right to set himself There is no daw which

with, the result shall be such as to establish an irresistible conviction in the minds of of your Lordships. My Lords, if we have conquered our difficulties we cannot however conquer our feelings, and it is a most painful task which I am now about to undertake; for, my Lords, your Lordships perhaps may know, (if not, we know, and we are to prove,) that at a certain time in the course of the last spring, the defendant did, in a moment of forgetfulness, write a letter addressed to the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry which was, by motion, laid upon the table of the House of Com-bove the mons; and which does in substance, contain a denial, that, during the paymastership of Mr Douglas, he made

25

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

and yet he will not tell you, to whom or for what service he paid the money.

My Lords, we not only charge that the noble Lord was possessed of the sum of 10,0004. but we charge also, that he continued in possession of it, after a new æra had taken place in the Navy Pay Office, contrary, as it would then be, to the act of parliament; and we know, not only that he confessed it in the House of Commons, (which I beard,) but that he confessed it to a person, whom I must now name for the first time to your Lordships, Mr Alexander Tratter, and whom hereafter I shall have occasion frequently to name. Soon after Mr. Trotter was appointed Paymaster of the Navy, Lord Melville confessed to him, that he was at that time in possesion of this sum,

On the 19th August 1782, Lord Melville (then Mr Dundas) was, for the first time, appointed Treasurer of the Navy. On the 20th of August the sum of 1000l. was paid by Mr Douglas into Ia banking house with which the noble Lord has an account on behalf of Mr. Dundas.h wody e

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

sum of money ordered to be paid to the Treasurer of the Navy, was delivered to him in such way as he chose to take it: for instance, he might have it all written into his bank book, if he pleased, and carried to the account of the Treasurer of the Navy; or that be might put some in the bank book, and take some away in bank notes or cash, and place it where he thought fit. your

It so happened that, on the 6th of November 1782, Mr Douglas had a payment to receive at the Exchequer, to the amount, I think, of 45,000, Mr Douglas chose to have 40,000l. written into his bank book, and to take socol. away in banknotes. Now this is a transaction that has often taken place before. Former Paymasters of the Navy and Mr Douglas among others, in the execution of that office under other Treasurers of the Navy, have frequently acted in that manner; they have frequently taken sums of money in bank notes, and had the balance written into their book: but as far as we have been able to trace all the sums so subtracted from the aggregate balance impressed to the Treasurer of the Navy, were uniformly sums of 3000, which wer set apart to pay exchequer fees. This 5000. that Mr Douglas so took from the Exchequer, and put into his pocket, was never carried into, anys public ac count whatever; it was carried to a place, according to the statement made by Mi Douglas, which also was a place of safe custody, one in which he had a Fight to deposit it; it was carried to called the iron chest of the office.

[ocr errors]

Now, my Lords, who was Mr Dou glas? for it is necessary we should shew explicitly, by proof, who he was. We shall shew he was paymaster, appoint ed under proper authority by Mr Dundas; and that every act he did at the time, and afterwards, as paymaster of the Navy, had the sanction of the defendant himself; and that he, in a pecu. liar manuer, shewed his private confidence in him, distinct from the public confidence he gave him by his letter of attorney. I do not believe that the Mr Whitbread then stated some par1000l. so paid, was any part of the pub. ticulars of the account Mr Douglas kept lic money, but that upon the first esta of the money then deposited in the iron blishment of the connection of the two chest, but as no evidence was s given men, a payment of roool. was made of them, it is not thought necessary to perfectly legal, and perfectly proper.enter further into the subject. He then Early, however, in November, a payment of a different description was made into the banking house of Messrs. Drummonds, on the behalf of the defendant. It is necessary I should state to your Lordships, that in the then, mode of conducting the office of Trea. surer of the Navy, the paymaster of the Navy was in the habit (after the memorials, had been issued upon which the warrants of money were granted from the Exchequer, of going to the Ex chequer, together with a bank clerk, and, having presented his warrant, the

stated, that of the 5oool, received by Mr Douglas at the Exchequer, one note for 1000l, was sometime afterwards paid to Lord Melville's account at Messrs Drummonds. And that another note for 1oool. received by Mr Douglas at the Exchequer in the same way at a subsequent period, was a fortnight afterwards paid in discharge of a private debt of Lord Melville's, enomme).

Mr Whitbread then continued, I have heard the noble defendant say, that, at the time he office Treasurer of the Navy he was in a vast

va

variety of confidential situations of go vernment, which made it necessary for him to disburse money so secretly, so privately, with so much care, and cauz tion, and circumspection, that he would not tell even his colleagues what he had done with it. Now an individual so unauthorised whilst Treasurer of the Navy, takes this 10,000l. into his own pocket, and then boldly tells you he was the servant of the public; that he took it for the service of the public; to which public he will never reveal it. To whom, after having so possessed himself of it, did he pay this 10,000l.? What became of it? Anu

Mr Whitbread then entered into some details of the accounts of Messrs Mures and Aikinson, with a view of shewing that the 10,000l. was deposited in their hands; but these statements were not given in evidence!» 25-100 (

'He then adverted to certain payments 'made to the credit of Lord Melville's account at the Bank, by Mr Atkinson and Grey in the year 1783.

And he detailed the particulars of various receipts and payments, to shew that the difference between the accounts at the Bank and the official books of the Treasurer of the Navy in December 1785, was 10,000l.

43225

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

ל

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

what I have stated, I think we shall have completely proved the first and the tenth articles of this charged $20 2018 My Lords, we now come to the se cond division, in point of time, of the charges exhibited against Lord Melville; I mean that which took place after Mr Trotter was appointed Paymas ter of the Navy. And here I must take your Lordships back, for the sake of perspicuity, to that new era which had been created in the Navy Pay Office, by passing an act of parliament, which obtained the royal assent, I believe, in the month of June 1785, “ for the better Regulation of the Office of the Treasurer of his Majesty's Navy.”\x

3

My Lords, when I am speaking of the defendant, and of those persons connected with him, upon whom it is my duty severely, but I trust not intemper ately, to animadvert, I wish to say every thing that can go to the illustration of their good deeds in the office which they executed; the one as superior, and the other as subordinate. And so far from imputing any blame to them, for that which does not deserve blame, I wish to give them all the credit and all the praise which is their due, during the time they continued so connected together in that office; and therefore it But, my Lords, (continued the ho- is with satisfaction, I say, that during nourable manager,) how did the de- the time Mr Dundas was Treasurer of fendant act when Mr Douglas died, the Navy, several most beneficial reguand when this deficiency of 10,000l. was lations took place, in that office, which known both to him and those who suc- he has the merit of having produced to ceeded Mr Douglas? Upon that defici- the public. That several acts of p ciency being stated to the defendant, liament were passed for the protection the defendant said that deficiency is and defence of the unprotected and demine; so much I owe to the public. fenceless. I mean the widows and orphans If then he ackowledged the closing ter- of the brave seamen ; and for the allotmination of this account, which was soment of wages to the wives and families "composed as I have stated to your Lordships, I say he acknowledged the whole of it, and that it is impossible he can shew to your Lordships he made any public use of this money. If it were possible, he is impeachable for not revealing the use of it; but there is no for such a defence.

[ocr errors]

par

of those who were fighting the battles of this country. Above all, that several regulations took place, and were enacfed into laws, through the instrumentality of the defendant, which saved a number of lives from public execution; because, my Lords, the net of parliament, to which I now particularly al

In whateds, if that be the con- lude, renders almost impossible the

Now,

dition of Lord Melville,

evidence of Mr Trotter, and the evidence of those who heard him make that extraUrdinary, that unjustifiable, that im peachable, assertion, in the House of Commons, with regard to his determiNation to keep

crime heretofore so common, the forgery of seamen's wills and other instruments to obtain their pay. These checks were devised and carried mto effect by the Noble Lord. For these and other acts of regulation in the Navy Pay Of

from the CP the affairs of the public" fice, the Noble Lord demands the thanks of his country, and the unbounded gra

public themselves, shall prove

titude of that meritorious class of men, the seamen of our fleets. I believe, too, that Mr Trotter was extremely useful in suggesting hints for these several designs, and that he gave Lord Melville material assistance in the detail of all these different plans.

My Lords, Mr Trotter is a person who will be most frequently mentioned hereafter; his name has been much in the public mouth, greatly to the discomfort and dissatisfaction, undoubted ly, of those who are nearly connected with him; and as I shall have occasion to speak of those misdeeds of his, in the way in which my duty will require me to do, I think it right here to state, that he is a person, who in early life ever conducted himself with the greatest possible propriety; that, except in these transactions in the Navy Pay Office, I know nothing, and I believe no man knows any thing to his disadvantage. He was employed by the Treasurer who succeeded Lord Melville; and up to the very moment of the Resolutions, of the House of Commons, he continued in the employ of the last Treasurer. I have heard the defendant honourably, generously, and manfully declare, that Mr Trotter, notwithstanding the cloud which hung over him, was a meritorious man, and one who ought to be trusted. My Lords, I do not know a person more beloved by his immediate relations, and those connected with him, than Mr Trotter; and this is one of the strongest testimonies in favour of

any man.

My Lords, Mr Trotter is a person who is to give you most material information, upon the subject of the transactions of the defendant; whose transactions are so intimately connected with his own. In consequence of that general impression, your Lordships concurred, with the other branch of the legislature, in indemnifying Mr Trotter from all criminal prosecution for his own misdeeds, that he might be rendered a witness, able to speak the truth upon this trial. And it is a very fortunate circumstance for Mr Trotter, who is the only man capable of revealing these transactions, that every thing he will say to your lordships will be confirmed by irrefragable testimony, because it will be confirmed by documents, which now exist; and in every one of the statements I have heard him make he is

borne out by some corroborating witness of veracity, of some book which cannot impose upon you. These are circumstances most fortunate torjustice; fortunate for the prosecution; fortunate for the country; and most fortunate for Mr. Trotter himself.

My Lords, an act of parliament passed in 1785 for better regulating the office of Treasurer of his Majesty's Navy. We should have simply put in this act, and read it, and stated to your lordships the conduct of the defendant, without making a single comment upon the act itself; but, my Lords, to my utter astonishment, I heard the noble defendant say, and my ears still tingle with the sound, that he was yet to learn in what particular he had violated the spirit, or the letter of that act of parliament. Good God! my Lords, is not that act plain? If that act of parliament is not plain; if he who runs cannot read that act, you may as well burn and consume all your statute books; there is not one that will not admit of a double interpretation or a quibble. Magna Charta itself may be misconstrued; the Habeas Corpus Act, the Act of Succession to the Crown of this country, the Bill of Rights, might admit of a double interpretation : nay, my Lords, I had almost said, that Law, which was delivered in all the magnificence of Heaven, written on tables of stone," Thou shalt not steal," might almost be explained away by counsel. I say this act is plain.

My Lords, read the statute and see what it says. Is there any double interpretation to be put upon it? Can the learned counsel torture it? Simple and unlearned as I am; I throw down the gauntlet and defy them; they can put but one interpretation upon this statute, which is, that Lord Melville, from the time of the passing of that act, was bound to place the public money at the bank, and no where else; that he could not withdraw it from the bank for one moment, except for naval services, without having broken, not only the spirit, but the letter of his own act of parlia ment. My Lords, what did he do? He suffered, he will tell you, and he told the House of Commons (I heard him say it,) he suffered his paymaster to do so. In that which he did' by his paymaster he did himself; he was bound to see that he employed no servant `who

did

« ZurückWeiter »