mission or had any knowledge of the public money being laid out to any purposes of private emolument or proht, either for himself or Mr Trotter?I wish the learned counsel to interpret what he means by laid out :' I understood the noble Lord to say, or at least implied from it, that he had permitted Mr Trotter to place the public money at other places besides the bank, for his own private purposes; with regard to other places, that he did not do any such thing.

Whether the honourable manager does not distinctly recollect that the averment of the noble defendant upon that subject, of placing it, was, that he had given no other permission but to remove the money from the bank to a private bank, for the convenience of appropriating it to the public service? Certainly one of the reasons given by the noble Lord was, that he had allowed the money to be removed to a private banker's, for official convenience, but it did not appear to me that that was the only reason.

Then, having said one of the reasons assigned by the noble Lord was, that it might be there for the public convenience, did he give any other reason besides?—Yes, I understood for the emolument of Mr Trotter; and the noble Lord described the manner in which he thought that emolument had accrued, namely, by interest paid by Mr Coutts to Mr Trotter for lodging that money.

Be so good as refresh your memory upon the subject, and say whether the sole reason given by the noble defendant was not, that the sole object of removing it from the bank, was for public convenience; but at the same time did suspect or believe that an advantage had accrued to Mr Trotter from that act, which was not done for his advantage, but for public convenience? -That was not the way in which I understood it altogether.

Whether you have refreshed your memory since you heard the speech, by a reference to what was stated on Saturday as intended to be read in evidence, the substance of the speech delivered? I have not looked at the pamphlet in question since I have been otherwise most laboriously occupied.

Whether the noble defendant did not, in express terms, say, that he did

solemnly assert, before that house, that he never knew that Mr Trotter had drawn any money for the purposes of private emolument, in manifest evasion of the act? I am speaking to the speech, and not to the pamphlet the pamphlet, which I have read more than once, does not in every part of it exactly correspond with the speech as delivered by the noble defendant in the House of Commons, to the best of my recollecs tion and belief. Whether those precise words were uttered in the House of Commons, it is impossible for me to say; but whether they were or not, the context of all he said was, to make the impression upon my mind which D have had the honour of stating to the

It is begged to have a precise an swer, whether those words, or to that effect and substance, were used by the noble defendant: I will repeat them adi gain, I never knew that Mr Trotter "had drawn any money for private eu "molument in manifest evasion of the "act"?—I can give no other answer than I have heretofore done, and I hope that is perfectly satisfactory to the court that I am not speaking to the words of that pamphlet, but to the words of the speech, without recollecting precise parts of it.

The word pamphlet has not been made use of; but it is asked, whether' in substance the noble defendant did not imply to the effect Leam stating? I do not recollect the precise words, nor do I think that the very substance of those words was uttered in any pres cise form by the noble Lord.

Whether you mean not only to nega. tive the precise expression that has been stated, but to negative also the substance? I do not mean to negativel the substance altogether of Lord Mel ville having criticised upon what the words manifest evasion' meant ; the substance of the speech was what I have given to your Lordships: the words themselves I do not recollect. Wt [Ye

I am not answered yet; I wished to * know, whether in words and in substance, and also to the effect of what was stated just now, was or was not made use of by the noble Lord ?-Not to that precise effect; to an effect very nearly similar.

17 t

State what was the averment upon that

that subject, as near as you can recol lect? The averment upon that subject I took to be to import, that he had not allowed Mr Trotter to do that to the extent which it had been done.

Is it to be understood, that your recollection is, that he allowed it to any extent?—Undoubtedly.

Do you mean that he allowed it in any other respect than as a benefit might arise to him from depositing it for the convenience of the public service at another bank?-The noble Lord had first of all contended, that the act was not evaded; and therefore there comes a question, what was the evasion of the act; not a manifest evasion of the act, according to the construction of the Noble Lord; but according to the construction I put upon it, it was in manifest evasion of the act.

Whether the noble Lord admitted that he had ever permitted Mr Trotter to derive any private benefit from the public money, except the benefit arising from a deposit made at a private banker's for the purpose of official convenience?-Iunderstood Lord Melville to say for Mr Trotter's convenience also. Whether, upon recollecting yourself upon this subject, you mean to state, that the noble defendant admitted that he knew or permitted any emolument to be derived to Mr Trotter from the public money, save and except whatre sulted from its deposit at a private banker's for official convenience?-The noble defendant stated, that he had allowed the money to be placed at a private banker's for official convenience; and when there, he had allowed or per mitted, or not prevented Mr Trotter from making a private emolument from it and that emolument arising from the interest he was to make of it from Mr Coutts's.

Whether the noble defendant admitted his consent or knowledge of any other benefit to Mr Trotter from it? The noble Lord never said he had restricted Mr Trotter from making advantage in any way, to the best of my recollection and belief; and he then stated that he had made it in that way.

The question is not, whether he restricted him, but whether he said he knew of his having any other advantage, excepting the advantage before stated? -He did not say he even knew it, but

only supposed it; he did not admit that he knew of any other.

Whether he did not also state, in the same speech, that he never knew that Mr Trotter had invested any money on exchequer or navy bills?—I believe he said so.

That he never knew he had put any money upon security of stock?—I believe he said so.

That he never knew he had employed any money in discount of private bills? I believe he said so.

That he never knew he had employed any money in the purchase of bank or India stock?-I believe he said so.

Whether you recollect at the same time, the noble defendant declaring, that he had not the smallest knowledge or belief that Mr Trotter ever did lay out for his use or any benefit in any such modes, any sum of public money whatever?-Please to read the passage over again, and tell me to whom that his refers, whether to Mr Trotter or Lord Melville.

Question repeated. I do not think so precisely as it is put in those words.

What was the averment upon that subject?-Pretty nearly amounting to precision, but not altogether; the impression made upon my mind was, that the denial was not positive and precise.

Can you with any distinctness recollect the substance of the expressions used?-I cannot recollect further than I have stated; I cannot discriminatę more nicely; I wish I could, for the benefit of the learned counsel, as it would save him trouble.

Is there any part of this expression which you think was not used; I will read it again?—It is not the expres sion, it is the general impression of the same words in another order; the in sertion or the omission of one word will make all the difference to the construction of the passage. 1

Have you the notes with you, which you took at the time?-I have not; they were notes I then took being then in the House of Commons, and endea. vouring to prepare myself to answer the speech of the Noble Lord; they were notes of that sort, that if I were to refer to them now, I do not know that I should be able to understand them, and whether they are in existence or not, I cannot say.

This passage, which is favourable to Lord Melville, you have no distinct recollection of the terms made use of? The only precise words I have any distinct recollection of, I have sworn to; I have no recollection of those words stated by the learned Counsel to the Court, whether favourable or unfavourable.

Examined by the Lords.

Question from a Lord.-When Lord Melville stated, that he would not reveal the application of a sum of 10,000l. or thereabouts, did he state to the house his reason for declining so to reveal it? -In mentioning of the first 10,000l. or whether he coupled the two together, I am not quite sure; but the words he used and the motives he said that prevented him from revealing the applicacation of that money, were motives of public duty, of private honour and personal convenience; I understood him to apply those words to both sums.

Then ALEXANDER TROTTER, Esquire, was examined as follows: Were you ever in the Navy Pay Office?-I was.

When did you first enter the Navy Pay Office?-I believe in the latter end of the year 1776.

What was your salary when you were first appointed?-I went into the Pay Office a junior clerk; I believe upon a salary of 50l. a year.

How long did you continue in the Navy Pay Office ?-I continued I believe till the year 1784, as a clerk.

Was your salary increased from your first entering the office up to the day of your quitting the Navy Pay office?I apprehend it may have been, but not materially; I do not recollect.

know it? I am at a loss to ascertain that precisely; but my relation Mr Coutts had applied to Mr Pitt, and I believe Mr Pitt had made interest with my Lord Melville, to appoint me to that situation; I do not know whether that was the only interest employed or

not.

When you were appointed Paymaster what was your salary 500l. year with some deduction of taxes.

As Paymaster of the Navy, did you receive the balance of public money which was due from your predecessor?

The bank books were delivered to me, I believe by Lord Melville, and I was told that the public balance was at that time in the bank, excepting the sums that were in the hands of the Sub-accountants, and a sum which his Lordship mentioned to me.

Do you recollect what that sum was which Lord Melville mentioned to you? -I had stated it upon the best of my recollection upon a former occasion to be 10,00el., but have been induced from many things I have seen since, to believe it was 10,600l.; 16vol. a balance due from his first treasurership, and 9000l, a balance due on the first part of the second treasurership.

Did you examine the public cash at the time you became paymaster?No further than by observing by the books that the balance was in the bank.

Where was that ro,oool. which you have thus divided into two sums?My Lord Melville told me that he should account for it.

Did he tell you in whose possession it was? He did not.

Whether you received the balance of exchequer fees?—I did.

What is the distinction between exchequer fee money and the public money deposited at the bank?-Exchequer fee money is imprested into the hands of the Treasurer of the Navy, who allows the Paymaster to have entirely the management of it, for the purpose of paying fees at the Exchequer, and some other contingencies.

Is the exchequer fee money imprested to the Treasurer of the Navy in the same manner as the other public money? -It is the only instance in which it differs.

PRO

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Tuesday, April 20.

Lorth to a most important subject. He observed that within the last fifteen years, this country had expended, for corn imported, about fortyfive millions sterling. There was at present every prospect of the ports in the Baltic being shut against us. From

ORD Stanhope called the attention

a friend, who had travelled very recent. ly in various parts of the country, he was informed there was reason to apprehend a failure of the crops in many districts. With the knowledge of these facts, our situation was truly alarming; yet he understood considerable quantities of barley were daily exported to Ireland to be made into spirits. Previous to any proposition being submitted by him to the House, he wished to obtain an account of the exports and imports, in flour and grain, since the 1st day of January 1800, specifying the different years. Lord Moira said that it was the first time he had ever heard that there was any ground whatever for such an alarm, and both from his own inspection, and the opinion of others on whom he could fully rely, he had no difficulty in saying, that it was totally void of foundation. Lord Auckland concurred with Lord Moira, in stating that there was not the least reason for the alarm which might have been excited by the language of the Noble Lord who had preceded him: Neither was there any reason to suppose that the ports of the Baltic would be shut against us. The fact was, that foreign corn daily arrived in such quantities, that licences were frequently applied for and granted for its re-exportation. The motion was then agreed to.

Monday, May 12.

A message from the King was presented by Lord Grenville, informing their Lordships, that his Majesty had settled an annuity of 5000 l. on the present Earl Nelson, and his next heirs, and appropriated the sum of 120,000l. to the purchase of a house and lands to June 1806.

be settled in perpetuity on the family; and hoping their Lordships would enable his Majesty to carry the same into effect.

Friday, May 16.

The third reading of the slave importation restriction bill was opposed by the Dukes of Clarence and Sussex, the Earl of Westmoreland, the Marquis of Sligo, Lords Eldon and Hawkesbury, &c. upon the ground that the bill was destructive of a great branch of our trade, and that it was little better than an abolition of the trade in disguise.--The Bishop of St Asaph said, he was no friend to any thing in disguise, but while he sat in that House, he would, by every means in his power, whether fair or foul, whether by open hostility or secret stratagem, labour to destroy that infamous traffic, which was no less a disgrace to humanity than it was destructive of the morals of the nation. Regarding this bill as a step towards its abolition, he gave it his warmest support. On the same grounds, as well as on those of policy, the bill was supported by the Bishop of London, the Duke of Gloucester, the Earl of Suffolk, and Lords Holland, Darnley, Grenville, Elenborough, Sidmouth, and Auckland. The bill was passed, after a division, for it 43, against it 18.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, April 14.

MR. Hobhouse obtained leave for a

bill to enable the Commissioners appointed by Act of Parliament, to carry into execution the agreement entered into by the East India Com-pany, the Nabob of Arcot, and certain private creditors. He entered into a long but dry detail of the transactions connected with this object.

Lord Garlies wished to know, now that the capture of the Cape of Good Hope was completed, whether it was intended to propose a vote of thanks to the officers and men engaged in that important service. Mr Windham replied in the negative. It was not, he

said,

said, a service of that magnitude to call for such a mark of public approbation*. Wednesday, April 16.

Leave was given for bills for opening and improving the streets, and for remov ing the slaughter house in Glasgow; for opening and lighting the streets, and erecting a Bridewell in Paisley; and for repairing roads in the county of Renfrew.

Thursday April 17.

In a Committee resolved, that 10,000l. be granted for the encouragement of discoveries at sea, connected with the longitude. In a Committee on the bill respecting the liability of witnesses to answer certain questions, the Master of the Rolls moved a clause, that a witness should not be compellable to auswer in a Court of Law, a question which he might demur to in a Court of Equity. After a long conversation, the clause was negatived without a division

Mr Yorke moved for copies of all opi nions transmitted in writing to Ministers, by General Officers, respecting the expediency of enlisting men for a limited term of years. The motion was resisted, chiefly upon the ground of the indelicacy of publishing opinions confidentially given to the Commander in Chief. After a conversation of some length, the motion was negatived without a division. On the motion of Sir 3. Sinclair, a Select Committee was appointed to examine the accounts relative to the forfeited estates in Scotland.

* On the 27th of May a motion of thanks to the same effect was made in the Common Council of the city of London, but negatived on the ground of its having been refused in the House of Commons. The value of the colony of the Cape seems to have wonderfully depreciated within these ten years. In 1795, Lord Keith and General Clarke received the thanks of both Houses for its capture, and the cession of that co. lony by the peace of Amiens was loud. ly and generally reprobated. Now, however, its recapture, which has been effected at a vast expence, is not worth a vote of thanks.

papers respecting East India affairs, which, after a long but uninteresting conversation, were ordered.

Mr Serjeant Best moved for a Bill to

prevent the publication of all ex parte e-. vidence taken before the trial of offenNo one, he said, was less dispos

ces.

ed to trench upon the liberty of the Press than he was, or could think more highly of its importance. But it was of equal importance to preserve the fair and unbiassed distribution of justice ; and while ex-parte evidence continued to be circulated, as at present, through the whole country, no Jury could come to the trial of an offence perfectly im partial and free from bias. It was indeed held at present by lawyers, that the practice was contrary to law; but as the law now stands, it cannot be executed but on the prosecution of those who are the sufferers from the practice, or on that of the Attorneygeneral. The interference of the latter, he thought, would be equally unavailing, from the present defective state of the law on the subject. He wished therefore to make it the interest, of some other persons to prosecute; and for this. purpose, he meant that one of the clauses of the bill should give a penalty of rool, on the publisher, to any persone who should prove the fact of publication, and also empowering the Court to punish the offender, by way of imprisonment. Such were the objects of the Bill which he moved for Leave was granted accordingly.or

Tuesday, April 22.

The Hon. Henry Erskine took his seat, and, on the motion of Sir John Sinclair, his Lordship's name was added to the Committee to whom the accounts of the forfeited estates in Scotland were' referred. The order of last Session for suspending the civil prosecution against Mr Trotter, for misapplication of the public money, was, on the motion of Mr Whitbread, discharged.

Mr Paul brought forward his charges against Marquis Wellesley, which extended to the whole of that Nobleman's government in India, and charged him with corruption, extravagant waste of the Company's money, to gratify his own love of pomp and splendour, disobedience of orders, oppressing to the native Princes, and, in short, with entirely

causing