did not act according to his public duty. -Mr Whitbread then entered into an argument upon the construction of some parts of the act, but as all questions upon it are now disposed of by the unanimous opinions of the judges, it is not thought necessary to state particu. larly the points Mr Whitbread relied on. It is necessary (continued the honourable Manager) to state to your lordships that there are three branches in the payment of the navy services: the pay branch: the victualling branch: and the navy branch. It so happens that upon the navy and victualling branches assignments are always made by the respective boards for every farthing to be paid out to the individuals, who furnish materials for the navy, and so forth. Upon the head of pay, assignments are made n part, but not upon the whole of it. My Lords, the assignments having been so made, it is the duty of the treasurer, under the form prescribed by the act, to draw the money from the treasury, which money is there paid into the bank, and the treasurer is directed hot to take it out, either by himself or by any other person, unless he has a navy service to which it is applicable.

in

My Lords, I also heard the defendant, to my astonishment, say, that there was a difference between the assigned and unassigned balances, as if he had, after the passing the act of parliament, the perfect controul over such assign ed balances as were unclaimed. Good God my lords, if there is an assigned unclaimed balance, to the amount of 400,000l. which the treasurer or his pay. master, b by his experience, knows will not be called for to its full extent, is it not the most preposterous thing in the world to say, I will give you a draft in, the proper form; I will take the whole 100,000l. though, I know only 20,000l. is wanted for the public service, and I will put the other so,obol. in my poc ket for purposes of my own, till people come with their bills? Your Lord ships will, perhaps, be surprised to hear, that the unclaimed assignments ordinari ly amount to the sum of 140,000l. so that the noble lord was giving to his paymaster (reckoning that sum at 5 per cent.) 7000l. a year for the execution of an office for which the public allow only sool. But I say there is no difference between assigned and unassigned moJune 1806.

2

་་

ney; they are both equally the proper. ty of the country till claimed.

I presume your lordships would' not say that a man draws out money for a navy service, if he draws out 8ocol, to purchase India stock, in the name of Henry Dundas. I do not suppose that if a person draws out a million of money, and puts it into the hands of his private banker, when the assignments do not amount to above a fifth part of that sum, your lordships would say that was for navy service; and yet such things have occurred.

The honourable Manager then argued that the act, to indemnify the persons engaged in the advance of 40,000l. to Boyd, Benfield, and Co. was a legisla tive declaration that the transaction was illegal.

My Lords, (continued he) the defendant, in an examination taken upon oath before the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry, confesses (and takes some credit to himself for so doing) that circumstances induced him to give permission to his paymaster to draw the money from the bark. The question put by the commissioners was, ** Did you anthorise the paymaster, in or about the year 1786, to draw the money applicable to naval services from the bank, and lodge it in the hands of a private banker?" The answer of Lord Melville is,

I cannot precisely state the time, but I am certain that I did permit Mr Trotter to lodge any money, drawn from the bank for public services, in his pri vate banker's hands, during the period it was not demanded to the purposes for which it was drawn."

Now, my Lords, Mr Trotter took large sums of money from the bank, and lodged them in the hands of pri -vate bankers, assigned or unassigned was matter of no consideration with him. Navy, pay, or victualling, he took equally under each of those heads. He equally paid them into Mr Coutts's, and drew them out of Mr Coutts's, without the least regard to naval service at all. We can shew your lordships every month from the beginning of these transactions down to the month in which he quitted the navy pay office, to what amount he did these things. He began with 10,000l. then went on to 20,000l.; then in 1793 to 1or,oool. ; and at last it comes to so large a sum as 490,00017

and

Trotter to him. He participated, secondly, in a transaction in which interest was charged by Mr Trotter to him. He participated in a third transaction where no interest was charged by Mr Trotter to him: they stand in the articles in that order, but, for the purpose of explaining the transactions to your Lordships more perspicuously, I beg to alter, but not to invert the order of them; and to take the middle charge first and then the other two together,

By the eighth article it is charged that Lord Melville obtained and received of Mr Trotter a sum of 22,0col., or some other large sum of money advanced to him by Mr Trotter, and for which it has been alledged by Lord Melville that he was to pay interest. And we further charge a destruction of papers to conceal this account also.

Mr Whitbread then stated the cir. cumstance of the purchase of 13,500l. East India stock, the particulars of which are detailed in Mr. Trotter's evidence; and insisted, that from the circum

stances Lord Melville must have known the loan was a loan of public money.

He then stated that Mr Trotter kept two accounts with Lord Melville, the one entitled the Account Current, consisting of receipts and payments of a private nature; and the other entitled the Chest Account, consisting of advances made to Lord Melville out of the public money.

He then proceeded-Your Lordships recollect that in the year 1797 a loan was obtained from the public by the subscription of a vast number of eminent individuals, as well as respectable pri vate persons, and respectable merchants, called the Loyalty Loan, to which I heard Lord Melville say, it was generally understood that all persons in high situations of government would subscribe, and he put down his name for 10,000l. This 10,000l. he candidly ac knowledged was not in his possession, he therefore was to obtain it from friends. Some persons have suspected these payments were made from Scotland, but not a shilling of them came from that quarter: every payment was made by Mr Trotter, out of the public money.

Mr Trotter first of all carried this 10,000l. to the account-current, and afterwards transferred it to the chest

account. He contended that Lord Melville knew the chest account contained advances of public money, and that he authorised this transfer:

Mr Whitbread then stated the circumstances from Trotter to be such that the advances he made to Lord Melville could not be made out of his private fortune. That in 1787 he advanced to Lord Melville on, bond the sum of 4,000l., for which it appeared no interest was paid, and therefore the advance must have been known by Lord Melville, to have been out of public money. He stated that Mr. Trotter was in the constant receipt of his lordship's salary, which was originally kept in a separate account; that there was another separate account kept for the Melville Castle, but it being afterwards found inconvenient to keep so many accounts, they all resol ved themselves into two, viz. the Account Current and the Chest Account.

Mr Whitbread proceeded-I would not consume your Lordships time in minute detail, but perhaps it may be as well to say that large sums were paid through the account current to particular individuals. Messrs Mansfield, Ramsay, and Co. received to the amount of 5,00ol, which was sent thro' Mr Robert Trotter to Edinburgh, with which 5oool. a heritable bond on landed security was redeemed, by which means Lord Melville got rid of the payment of 54. per cent. upon so much, having obtained that loan without interest, for no interest was charged in the accountcurrent or the chest account. Another sum, which it is not material to specify, was paid through Mr Robert Trotter to Sir William Forbes, by which Lord Melville also redeemed securities at interest. He also relied on the circumstances of 2000l. East India stock, and 7000l. in the 3 per cent. Reduced, for the benefit of Lord Me ville, as shewing that the public money was laid out for his benefit.

He then stated, that in May, 1800, Mr Trotter told Lord Melville, when he was going out of office, that it was necessary his balances should be made good, and he laid before him an accurate statement in writing of what his lordship was to make up.

He then stated that, including the money due for the East India stock, the loyalty loan, the balance of the

ac

account-current, and the balance of the chest-account, the whole of Lord Melville's debt, in May, 1800, amounted to about 70,000l. which was discharged by borrowing 13,000l. of Messrs Coutts, upon the Security of his Lordship, and his son Mr Robert Dundas; and by borrowing a further sum of Mr Mark Sprott upon the security of Lord Melville's stock.

Mr Whitbread then uttered a fine panegyric upon Lord St. Vincent, who had been the occassion of the act for appointing Commissioners of Naval Enquiry, and highly commended the conduct of those commissioners who had laid the foundation of this prosecution. He disclaimed all intention of imputing to Lord Melville the sordid passion of avarice. He admitted that his lordship was of a frank and generous spirit in money matters, but argued that, although he might not be desirous of acquiring wealth, he might have the desire of being supplied with money to gratify his love of hospitality and thirst for power.

Mr Whitbread then concluded, and the court adjourned to the following day.

The next four days were occupied in proving some of the formal parts of the case, and in the examination of various persons from the Exchequer, the Treasury, the Bank of England, the Navy Pay office, the Banking Houses of Messrs Drummond, Messrs Moffatt and Co. and Messrs Smith, Payne, and Smith, the substance of whose evidence was as follows.

Previous to the act 25 Geo. 3. c. 31 (for regulating the office of Treasurer of the Navy) it was the practice for the Paymaster of the Navy to attend at the Exchequer, and receive in cash so much of the money directed to be issued to the Treasurer, as he thought fit so to receive, and to receive the rest by a credit on the Bank of England. From the time of Lord Melville's appointment in 1782, until December 1785, during so long as his Lordship was Treasurer, the late Andrew Douglas acted as his Paymaster, and attended at the Exchequer for this purpose. He also drew all the money from the bank which was issued for Navy services. Three several issues were made from the Exchequer to Mr Douglas on the 6th November, the

22d of November and the 19th December, 1782, of several sums amounting together to upwards of 188,000l. out of which 11,000l. was received in cash, and the rest by credit on the bank. One of the bank notes, for 1000l. received at the Exchequer on the 6th November 1782, was paid a week afterwards into the banking house of Messrs Drummonds (but it did not appear by whom) to the credit of Lord Melville's private account, and one of the notes received at the Exchequer on the 22d November 1782 was paid a fortnight afterwards to Messrs Moffatt and Co. bankers, to take up a bill drawn by Mr Newbiggin upon Lord Melville. Several sums were paid by Mr Douglas to Lord Melville's private account with Messrs Drummonds, during 1782, 1783, 1784, and 1785. Messrs Drummond gave notice to Lord Melville, that his account was overdrawn on the 23d June 1785, to the amount of 2950l. and upwards. The sums which were paid in to the credit of this account next after that notice were the sum of 2000l. paid in on the 4th day of October 1785, being a bill remitted from Scotland, and the sum of 3600l. paid in on the 29th day of December 1785, being another remittance from Scotland. Differences were proved to exist between the official balances of the Treasurer of the Navy, and the balances of the bank, at several periods between the date of Lord Melville's first appointments, and the month of December 1785, and in that month the difference was 10,600l. In December 1785 Mr Douglas died, and his executor paid to Lord Melville upwards of 4000l., the balance of Exchequer fees then in his hands.

Mr Whitbread (one of the managers) then offered himself as a witness, and proved that on the 11th June 1805, he heard Lord Melville declare in the House of Commons, that, during the paymastership of Mr Douglas, he possessed himself of public money to the amount of 10,000), or thereabouts, and that he would not reveal the application of it, being impelled by motives of public duty, private honour, and personal convenience, to conceal it; and that he accompanied this admission with a declaration, that he had not converted any part of this sum to his own profit or emolument.

The

The examination of Lord Melville taken before the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry in November 1804, and two letters from his Lordship to the Commissioners, were read.

The sixth and seventh days were principally occupied with the examinations, first of Mr Whitbread, and afterwards of Mr Trotter, both of which are given at length.

Mr Whitbread, one of the Managers for the Commons, rose and said—I again offer myself as a witness to your Lordships, and I swear, that on the 11th of June 1805, I heard Lord Melville declare, with reference to another sum of 10,000l. than that respecting which I deposed on the other day, that he did, at a subsequent time to the time at which he possessed himself of the first 10,000l., possess himself of another sum, nearly to a similar amount; and I understood, in substance, that Lord Melville said, that he would not reveal the application of that money, any more than the first 10,000l., and from the same motive. This was said in the presence of hun. dreds of persons; and I propose, on a future day, to call another witness to the testimony which I have given.

Cross examined.

It is presumed the honourable Manager, upon this subject any more than the other, did not, at the time, take any note or minute in writing of what passed? I certainly at that time took a note of the substance of all that Lord Melville said, but not of the exact words..

The speech of Lord Melville in the house took up a considerable time? Yes, upwards of two hours, I dare say.. Could you undertake to repeat by heart any passages that made favourably for Lord Melville, as well as those that you have now given to the court?-I have repeated by heart certain words which I have sworn that Lord Melville, spoke; any other particular words of his speech I am not quite sure that I could repeat: I am only swearing to the substance of what Lord Melville said. Can you repeat the substance of any other part of Lord Melville's speech which was favourable to Lord Melville?

If the learned counsel will point my attention to any particular passage of

that speech, I will tell him whether I can repeat the substance of it or not.

Did the Noble Lord, in the course of his speech with respect to the sum in question, negative the appropriation of that sum, the same as of the other, to his own private use?—I understood him to do it exactly in that way as with regard to the other sum of 10,000l.

Do you recollect that the Noble Lord at the same time, in the most positive and explicit manner, did deprecate any appropriation of these sums to his own private use, or Mr Trotter's ?—I do not think that he did, in precise and explicit terms, negative that fact.

Can you, by referring to the notes you took at that time, be able to speak with more positiveness and precision upon that part of the subject?—I do not think I could speak with more positiveness and certainty.

Was no note taken upon that subject? Yes; but when expressions are equivocal, it is difficult by any note exactly to give the precise meaning the words are meant to convey.

What was that equivocal expression that was used upon that occasion ?—I do not recollect the precise words, but without recollecting the precise words, one may have a recollection that there was an equivocal sense pervading several sentences.

Endeavour to recollect the substance of what was said in that part of the noble lord's speech that made that impres sion?-The impression intended to be conveyed by that part of the noble. lord's speech to which I presume the learned counsel means to refer ; the impression intended to have been conveyed, I apprehend to have been, that he had not directed Mr Trotter to make use of any public money for his private ad.: vantage. With regard to the permission which he had given to Mr Trotter, I think the words were pretty precisely that he had given Mr Trotter such permission.

Permission to do what? To place the public money at other places than the bank, and also to make use of a part of it for his own advantage.

It is begged to repeat the question, whether the noble Lord did not in the most explicit and positive terms deny that he had either given any per