« ZurückWeiter »
account-current, and the balance of the 22d of November and the 19th Decemchest-account, the whole of Lord Mel: ber, 1782, of several sums amounting ville's debt, in May, 1800, amounted to together to upwards of 188,000l, out of about 70,00cl, which was discharged which 11,000l. was received in cash, by borrowing 13,000l. of Messrs Coutts, and the rest by credit on the bank. upon the Security of his Lordship, and One of the bank notes, for 1000l. rehis son Mr Robert Dundas ; and by ceived at the Exchequer on the 6th No. borrowing a further sum of Mr. Mark vember 1732, was paid a week after. Sprott upon the security of Lord Mel wards into the banking house of Messrs ville's stock.
Drummonds (but it did not appear by Mr Whitbread then uttered a fine who.n) to the credit of Lord Melville's panegyric upon Lord St. Vincent, who private account, and one of the nutes had been the occassion of the act for received at the Exchequer on the 22d appointing Commissioners of Naval En. November 1782 was paid a fortnight afquiry, and highly commended the con- terwards to Messrs Moffatt and Co. duct of those commissioners who had bankers, to take up a bill drawn by Mr laid the foundation of this prosecution. New,iggin upoa Lord Melville. Se. He disclaimed all intention of imputing veral sums were paid by Mr Douglas to Lord Melville the sordid passion of to Lord Melville's private account with avarice. He admitted that his lordship Messrs Drummonds, during 1782, 17833 was of a frank and generous spirit in 1784, and 1785. Messrs Drummond gave money matters, but argued that, al- notice to Lord Melville, that his account though he might not be desirous of ac- was overdrawn on the 230 June 1785, quiring wealth, he might have the desire to the amount of 29501. and upwards. of being supplied with money to gratify The sums which were paid in to the crehis love of hospitality and thirst für dit of this account next after that notice power.
were the sum of 2000l. paid in on the Mr Whitbread then concluded, and 4th day of October 1785, being a bill the court adjourned to the following remitted from Scotland, and the sum of day.
3600l. paid in on the 29th day of DeThe next four days were occupied in cember 1785, being another remittance proving some of the formal parts of ine from Scotland. Differences were proved case, and in the examination of various to exist between the official balances of persons from the Exchequer, the Trea- the Treasurer of the Navy, and the ba. sury, the Bank of England, the Navy lances of the bank, at several periods Pay - office, the Banking Houses of between the date of Lord Melville's Messrs Drummond, Messrs Moffatt and first appointments, and the month of Co. and Messrs Smith, Payne, and December 1785, and in that month the Smith, the substance of whose evidence difference was 10,60ol. In December was as follows.
1785 Mr Douglas died, and his execu. Previous to the act 25 Geo. 3. C. 31 tor paid to Lord Melville upwards of (for regulating the office of Treasurer 4000l., the balance of Exchequer fees of the Navy) it was the practice for the then in his hands. Paymaster of the Navy to attend at te Mr Whitbread (one of the managers) Exchequer, and receive in cash so much then offered himself as a witness, and
of the money directed to be issued to proved that on the rith June 1805, he 1, the Treasurer, as he thought fit so to re- heard Lord Melville declare in the ceive, and to receive the rest by' a cre. House of Commous, that, during the dit on the Bank of England. From the paymastership of Mr Douglas, he pos. time of Lord Melville's appointment in sessed himself of public money to the 1782, until December 1785, during so amount of 10,000), or thereabouts, and long as his Lordship was Treasurer, the that he would not reveal the applicalate Andrew Douglas acted as his Pay- tion of it, being impelled by motives of master, and attended at the Exchequer public duty, private honour, and perfor this purpose. He also drew all the sonal convenience, to conceal it ; and 'money from the bank which was issued that he accompanied this admission with for Navy services. Three several is- a declaration, that he had not converted sues were made from the Exchequer to any part of this sum to his own profit Mr Douglas. on the 6th November, thc or emolument.
The examination of Lord Melville that speech, I will tell him whether I taken before the Commissioners of Na. can repeat the substance of it or not. val Enquiry in November 1804, and Did the Noble Lord, in the course of two 'letters from his Lordship to the his speech with respect to the sum in Commissioners, were read.
questioni, negative the appropriation of The sixth and seventh days were that sum, the same as of the other, to principally occupied with the examina. · his own private use?-I understood him tions, first of Mr Whitbread, and after. to do it exactly in that way as with re. wards of Mr Trotter, both of which are gard to the other sum of 10,000l. given at length,
Do you recollect that the Noble Lord Mr Whitbread, one of the Managers for at the same time, in the most positive the Commons, rose and said—I again offer and explicit manner, did deprecate any myself as a witness to your Lordships, appropriation of these sums to bis own and I swear, that on the uth of June private use, or Mr Trotter's ?-I do 1.805, I heard Lord Melville declare, not think that he did, in precise and exwith reference to another sum of 10,000l. plicit terms, negative that fact. than that respecting which I de posed Can you, by referring to the notes on the other day, that he did, at a sub- you took at that time, be able to speak sequent time to the time at which he with more positiveness and precision possessed himself of the first 10,000l., upon that part of the subject ?-I do possess himself of another sum, nearly not think I could speak with more poto a similar amount; and I understood, sitiveness and certainty. in substance, that Lord Melville said, Was no note taken upon that subject? that he would not reveal the application - Yes; but when expressions are equiof that money, any more than the first vocal, it is difficult by any note exactly 10,000l., and from the same motive. to give the precise meaning the words This was said in the presence of hun, are meant to convey. dreds of persons; and I propose, on a
What was that equivocal expression future day, to call another witness to that was used upon that occasion ?-I the testimony which I have given. do not recollect the precise words, but
without recollecting the precise words, Cross-examined.
one may have a recollection that there It is presumed the honourable Mana. was an equivocal sense pervading seveger, upon this subject any more than ral sentences. the other, did not, at the time, take any Endeavour to recollect the substance note or minute in writing of what pas- of what was said in that part of the no-, sed?-I certainly at that time took a ble lord's speech that made that imprese note of the substance of all that Lord sion ?--The impression intended to be Melville said, but not of the exact, conveyed by that part of the ·nobie, words.
lord's speech to which I presume the The speech of Lord Melville in the learned counsel means to refer; the imhouse took up a considerable time? pression intended to have been convey, Yes, upwards of two hours, I dare say.'. cd, I apprehend to have been, that he had
Could you undertake to repeat by not directed Mr Trotter to make use heart any passages that made favourably of any public money for his private ad. : for Lord Melville, as well as those that vantage. With regard to the permission you have now given to the court? --Iwhich he had given to Mr Trotter, I have repeated by heart certain words think the words were pretty precisely which I have sworn that Lord Melville, that he had given Mr Trotter such pera spoke; any other particular words of mission. his speech I am not quite sure that I Permission to do what?--To place could repeat : I am only swearing to the public money at other places than the substance of what Lord Melville said, the bank, and also to make use of a
Can you repeat the substance of any part of it for his own advantage. other part of Lord Melville's speech It is begged to repeat the question, which was favourable to Lord Melville? whether the noble Lord did not in the If the learned counsel will point my most explicit and positive attention to any particular passage of deny that he had either given any per
mission or had any knowledge of the solemnly assert, before that house, that public money being laid out to any he never knew that Mr Trotter had purposes of private emolument or pro- drawn any money for the purposes of ht, either for himself or Mr Trotter?- private emolument, in manifest evasion I wish the learned counsel to interpret of the act? I am speaking to the what ke means by“ laid out :' I unders speech, and not to the pamphlet; the stood the noble Lord to say, or at least pamphlet, which I have read niore than implied from it, that he had permitted once, does not in every part of it exactly Mr Trotter to place the public money correspond with the speech as delivered at other places besides the bank, for his by the nobie defendant in the House of own private purposes ; with regard to Commons, to the best of my recollec other places, that he did not do any tion and belief. Whether those precise such thing.
words were uttered in the House of Whether the honourable manager Commons, it is impossible for me to does not distinctly recollect that the say; but whether they were or not, averment of the noble defendant upon the context of all he said was, to make that subject, of placing it, was, that he the impression upon my mind which ! had given no other permission but to have had the honour of stating to the remove the money from the bank to a court. private bank, for the convenience of · It is begged to have a precise ansi appropriating it to the public service ? swer, whether those words, or to that Certainly one of the reasons given by effect and substance, were used by the the noble Lord was, that he had allow. noble defendant : I will repeat them ad ed the money to be removed to a pri gain, “ I never knew that Mr Trotter vate banker's, for official convenience, « had drawn any money for private tu but it did not appear to me that that “ molument in manifest evasion of the was the only reasoni.
" act" ?-I can give no other answer Then, having said one of the reasons than I have heretofore done, and I hopen assigned by the noble Lord was, that it that is perfectly satisfactory to the might be there for the public conveni- court that. I am not speaking to the ence, did he give any other reason be. words of that pamphlet, but to the sides ?-Yes, I understood for the emo. words of the speech, without recolleclument of Mr Trotter; and the noble ting precise parts of it. Lord described the manner in which he The word pamphlet' has noti boen thought that emolument had accrued, made use of; but it is asked, whether namely, by interest paid by Mr Coutts in substance the noble defendand did
Mr Trotter for lodging that money. not imply to the effect Lam stating? Be so good as refresh your memory I do not recollect the precise words, upon the subject, and say whether the, nor do I think that the very substance sole reason given by the noble defen- of those words was uttered in any predant was not, that the sole object of re- cise form by the noble Lord, moving it from the bank was for pub.. Whether you mean not only to nega. lic convenience; but at the same time tive the precise expression that has did suspect or believe that an advan. been stated, but to negative also the tage had accrued to Mr Trotter from substance ?-I do not mean to negative that act, which was not done for his ad- the substance altogether of Lord Melli vantage, but for public convenience ? ville having criticised upon what the
- That was not the way in which I un- words: “ manifest evasion' meant; the derstood it altogether.
substance of the speech was what I have Whether you have refreshed your me, given to your Lordships : the words mory since you heard the speech, by a themselves I do not recollect. i 4.9.2011 reference to what was stated on Satur. I am not answered yet; I wished to day as intended to be read in evidence, know, whether in words and in '30bthe substance of the speech delivered ? stance, and also to the effect of what was I have not looked at the pamphlet in stated just now, was or was not made question since I have been otherwise use of by the noble Lord !--Not to that most laborivusly occupied.
precise effect ; to an effect very nearly Whether the noble defendant did similar, not, in express terms, say, that he did State what was the averment upon
that subject, as near as you can recold only supposed it; he did not admit that
Mr Trotter had invested any money on
That he never knew he had put any Do you mean that he allowed it in money upon security of stock !-I beany other respect than as a benefit lieve he said só. might arise to him from depositing it That he never knew he had employfor the convenience of the public ser- ed any money in discount of private viçe-at another bank!--The noble Lord bills ? -I believe he said so. had first of all contended, that the act That he never knew he had employ. was not evaded ; and therefore there ed any money in the purchase of bank comes a question, what was the evasion or India stock?--I believe he said so, of the act ; not a manifest evasion of Whether you recollect at the same the act, according to the construction time, the noble defendant declaring, of the Noble Lord; but according to that he had not the smailest knowledge the construction I put upon it, it was in or belief that Mr Trotter ever did lay manifest evasion of the act.
out for his use or any benefit in any Whether the noble Lord admitted such modes, any sum of public money that he had ever permitted Mr Trotter whatever?--Please to read the passage to derive any private benefit from the over again, and tell me to whom that publie money, except the benefit arising his refers, whether to Mr Trotter or from a deposit made at a private bank- Lord Melville. er’s for the purpose of official conve- Question repeated. I do not think nience?--hunderstood Lord Melville to so precisely as it is put in those words. say for Mr Trotter's convenience also. What was the averment upon that
Whether, upon recollecting yourself subject ?-Pretty nearly amounting to upon this subject, you mean to state, precision, but not altogether; the inthat the noble defendant admitted that pression made upon my mind was, that he knew or permitted any emolument the denial was not positive and precise. to be derived to Mr Trotter from the Can you with any distinctness recol. public money, save and except whatre- lect the substance of the expressions sulted from its deposit at a private ban- used ?-I cannot recollect further than ker's for official convenience? The I have stated; I cannot discriminate noble defendant stated, that he had al- more nicely; I wish I could, for the lowed the money to be placed at a pri- benefit of the learned counsel, as it vate banker's for official convenience; would save him trouble. and when there, he had allowed or pero Is there any part of this expression mitted, or not prevented Mr Trotter which you think was not used; I will from making a private emolument from read it again ?-It is not the expresit: and that emolument arising from sion, it is the general impression of the the interest he was to make of it from same words in another order; the in Mr Courts's.
sertion or the omission of one word will Whether the noble defendant admit. make all the difference to the constructed his consent or knowledge of any tion of the passage. other benefit to Mr Trotter from it? Have you the notes with you,
which The noble Lord never said he had re- you took as the tims?-I have not; stricted Mr Trotter from making advan- they were notes I then took being then tage in any way, to the best of my re- in the House of Commons, and endea. collection and belief; and he then stat vouring to prepare myself to answer the ed that he had made it in that way. speech of the Noble Lord; they were
The question is not, whether he re- notes of that sort, that if I were to re. stricted him, but whether he said he fer toʻthem now, I do not know that I knew of his having any other advantage, should be able to understand them, and excepting the advantage before stated ? whether they are in existence or not, I He did not say he even knew it, but cannot say.
This passage, which is favourable to know it?
I am at a loss to ascertain Lord Melville, you have no distinct rc- that precisely ; but my relation Mr collection of the terms made use of ?- Coutts had applied to Mr Pitt, and I The only precise words I have any dis- believe Mr Pitt had made interest with , tinct recollection of, I have sworn to ; my Lord Melville, to appoint me to I have no recollection of those words that situation ; I do not know whether stated by the learned Counsel to the that was the only interest employed or Court, whether favourable or unfavour. not. able.
When you were appointed PaymasExamined by the Lords.
ter what was your salary socl. i Question from a Lord.—When Lord year with some deduction of taxes. Melville stated, that he would not re- As Paymaster of the Navy, did you veal the application of a sum of 10,000l. receive the balance of public money or thereabouts, did he state to the house which was due from your predecessor? his reason for declining so lo reveal it? The bank bouks were delivered to me, -In mentioning of the first 10,000l. or I believe by Lord Melville, and I was whether he coupled the two together, I told that the public balance was at that am not quite sure ; but the words he time in the bank, excepting the sums used and the motives he said that pre- that were in the hands of the Sub-acvented him from revealing the applica- countants, and a sum which his Lord. cation of that money, were motives of ship mentioned to me. public duty, of private honour and per. Do you recollect what that sum was sonal convenience; I understood him to which Lord Melville mentioned to you? apply those words to both sums.
I had stated it upon the best of my Then ALEXANDER TROTTER, recollection upon a former occasion to Esquire, was examined as follows : bę 10,00el., but have been induced from
Were you ever in the Navy Pay Of- many things I have seen since, to be. fice ?-I was.
lieve it was 10,600l.; 1600l, a balance When did you first enter the Navy due from his first treasurership. and Pay Office !--I believe in the latter end 9000l, a balance due on the first part of the year 1776.
of the second treasurership. What was your salary when you were Did you examine the public cash at first appointed ?-I went into the Pay the time you became paymaster-No Office a junior clerk; I believe upon a further than by observing by the books salary of sol. a year.
that the balance was in the bank. How long did you continue in the Where was that 10,000!. which you Navy Pay Office? I continued I be. have thus divided into two sums? lieve till the year 1784, as a clerk. My Lord Melville told me that he
Was your salary increased from your should account for it. first entering the office up to the day of Did he tell you in whose possession your quitting the Navy Pay office ?- it was ?-He did not. I apprehend it may have been, but not Whether you received the balance of materially ; I do not recollect.
exchequer fees !--I did. Was it doubled I do not think it What is the distinction between ex
chequer fee money and the public moHow long did you remain out of the ney deposited at the bank!--Exchequer Navy Pay Office !-My recollection fee money is imprested into the bands does not serve me to state that precise. of the Treasurer of the Navy, who al. ly,, but I believe nearly a twelve- lows the Paymaster to have entirely the month,
management of it, for the purpose of What office did you hold when you paying fees at the Exchequer, and some were replaced in the Navy Office ?-1 other contingencies. was appointed Paymaster under the Is the exchequer fee money imprestTreasurer of the Navy.
ed to the Treasurer of the Navy in the Who appointed you Paymaster ?- same manner as the other public money? My Lord Melville.
It is the only instance in which it dif. Upon whose recommendation if you fers. (To be continued in our next.)