Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

VOL. VII. No. 23.]

LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE, 8, 1805.

[PRICE 10D. "Where the supreme authority, not content with winking at the rapacity of its inferior instruments, is so “shameless and corrupt as openly to give bounties and premiuns for disobedience to its laws; when it will "not trust to the activity of avarice in the pursuit of its own gans; when it secures public robbery by all "the careful jealousy and attention, with which it ought to protect property from such violence; the com"monwealth then is become totally perverted from its purposes; neither God nor man will long endure it; "nor will it long endure itself; for, in that case, there is an umatural infection, a pestilential taint ferment“ing in the constitution of society, which fever and convulsions of some kind of other must throw off." -BURKE. Speech on the Nabob of Arcot's Debts, 28 Feb.1785.

833]

LORD MELVILLE & MR. PITT'S
CONDUCT.

The Report of the Select Committee, upon the matters relating to the conduct of Lord Melville and Mr. Pitt, was laid before the House of Commons on the 27th ultimo: it has since been printed by order of that House, and is now published for the information of the people.The Report of any committee, appointed for a purpose like the present, is, comparatively, of little importance, when the whole of the minutes of the Evidence accompany it, the report itself being merely a summary of the evidence. It is, indeed, something of the nature of the summing up of a judge, at the close of an examination; but, it is less necessary, because the jury have no minutes of the evidence, which, in the present instance, we have: and, if the summing up, and explanations of a report of a committee may, in any case, be dispensed with, they surely may in this case; especially when we recollect all the circumstances, under which the committee was formed. The evidence, therefore, or, at least, as much of it as I have room for, and all of it that is very material, I am now about to insert; and, to every part of it, I beg leave to beseech the attention of the reader, reminding him, at the same time, that, in order clearly to understand, and justly to decide upon, the case of either of the persons, who now stand accused before him, he must keep in his view the whole history of the prosecution, from the first examination of Trotter to the notice of the motion to be made next Tuesday by Mr. Whitbread. He must bear in mind, that it was in May, 1804, that Lord Melville and Mr. Pitt turned out the Addingtons, loading them with every species of reproach and contempt; that soon afterwards, June, 1804, Mr. Trotter was first examined by the Naval Commissioners; that Lord Melville was written to by those Commissioners in June, 1804, and was examined by them on the 5th of November, 1804; that almost immediately after that examination a coalition

[834

took place between the Addingtons and Lord Melville and Mr. Pitt, which coalition Mr. Fitt himself solicited by means of a letter conveyed to Mr. Henry Addington through Lord Hawkesbury; that this junction, so formed, so sought for, so humbly solicited, by Mr. Pitt, with persons whom he had turned out under the charge, openly and distinctly made, of "incapacity and imbe

[ocr errors]

cillity," excited very great and general surprise, and was never satisfactorily accounted for, till the Tenth Report of the Naval Commissioners discovered in how great need Mr. Pitt and Lord Melville might stand of friendly comfort. When the reader has thus refreshed his memory as to the occurrences preceding the printing of the Tenth Report, let him look back to the conduct of Mr. Pitt previous to the discussion of the 8th of April, when the resolution of censure upon Lord Melville was passed; let him not forget that it was Mr. Pitt who brought forward the proposition for receiving the Letter, which Lord Melville wrote to the Naval Commissioners after the printing of the Tenth Report; let him not forget, that it was Mr. Pitt, who disputed the ground, inch by inch, for Lord Melville on the 8th of April, after he had read, over and over again, the proofs of Lord Melville's conduct; let him not forget, that it was Mr. Pitt, who opposed, on the 10th of April, the motion for an address to the King to remove Lord Melville from the privy council, and that, at a subsequent period, he notified to the House that he had advised the King to dismiss his Lordship, because he had learnt that the House wished it, and because he was convinced, that any attempt on his part to prevent an address to the King world prove abortive. Let the reader nat forget these things; and, let him remem ber, moreover, that when a motion was made for the purpose of forming a SELECT COMMITTEE to inquire further into the mat◄ ters brought to light by the Tenth Report that Mi. Pitt moved and carried an amendment, so restraining the powers of the said committee as to render it very difficult f

them to touch upon any point, alculated further to develope the transactions between Lord Melville and Mr. Trotter.-As to the case of Mr. Pitt himself, let it be renembered, that, though Lord Melville was the man who drew up the law, which has mw been violated, it was Mr. Pitt who cause it to be drawn up; it was Mr. Pitt who introduced it to the House of Commons; it was Mr. Pitt who boasted, who bragged, of its salutary tendency; it was Mr. Pitt who explained its meaning, and who promised the Commons, that, in future, all the naval money would lie at the Bank of England till the vry moment it was wanted for the service of the nary. Let this important fact be kept in mind, while the reader is going through the evidence of Mr. Pitt, Mr. Raikes, and Lord Harrowby; and, I beg him to mark well the language of the answers of all these persons, as well, indeed, as of all the others that were examined.As to the Committee, when the reader recollects how it was formed and . composed; when he recollects, that it was formed by ballot, that is to say, by lists sent round to the members, whereby he who has a majority in the House is sure to have whatever members he chooses upon the committee; when the reader recollects this, and observes, besides, who were the persons composing a majority of the committee, he will be satisfied, that there has been, on the part of the committee, no partiality shown against Mr. Pitt and his illustrious friend.- The heads, under which the subject divides itself are THREE; to wit; 1. The participation of Lord Melvile with Trotter in the profits made by an unlawful use of the naval money: 2. Mr. Pitt's conniving at the withdrawing of naval money from the Bank, and his unlawfully lending a large sum of the said money, to two loan jobbers, named Boyd and Benfield, the latter of whom is the famous Paul Benfield, whose memorable transactions, in the years 1784 and 1785, are recorded in Mr. Burke's Speech upon the debts of the Nabob of Arcot: 3. Mr. Pitt's conniving at the withdrawing of naval money from the Bank of England to be lodged at the banking House of Coutts and Company, and, of course, to be made use of for purposes of private emolument.These are the THREE HEADS, to one or the other of which all the evidence I am now about to lay before the reader will be found to relate. He should keep them as distinct as possible in his mind. He will find the evidence a good deal mixed, of course; but, though I shall scarcely refrain from subjoining some few observations, I cannot help expressing my firm conviction, that nothing more will

be necessary than a sober and impartial perusal of the evidence itself, as here given by

me.

The whole, however, must be read. Ít must be read, too, with care, and without losing sight, for one moment, of the circumstances above pointed out. When the reader has taken a few minutes to refresh his memory as to those circumstances, let him sit down to the perusal; and, above all things, let him first banish from his mind every party propensity. He, doubtless, will, and he ought, to remember, that my fixed opinion is, that Mr. Pitt's system of administration is hostile to the well-being of England; and, of course, that I earnestly wish to see that gentleman no longer in power; but, I trust, that no one will impute to me a desire so base as that of seeing him sink undeservedly covered with the infamous charge of having connived at peculation, of having winked at the plundering of the people and the sovereign, who had confided to his hands the guardianship of their treasure. It is difficult, when the temptation presents itself, to avoid taking advantage of circumstances favouring one's views of general hostility; and, therefore, though, during the whole of the discussions connected with this subject, I have endeavoured to detach my mind from all extraneous considerations, any reader, who may happen to place, generally, reliance upon my opinions, will, in this particular instance, do well to be upon his guard against them. Indeed, my opinions ought here to have no weight with him. It is the fact and the reasoning: these cannot be affected by the source whence they proceed; and if in these there be found no ground to condemn Mr. Pitt, I ought to wish, and I hope I do not deceive myself in declaring that I sincerely wish, that he may stand clearly acquitted in the eyes of all mankind.

EVIDENCE,

Reported to the House of Commons, on the 27th of May, 1805, by the SELECT COMMITTEE, appointed to examine into certain matters brought to light in the Tenth Report of the Commissioners of Naval Inquiry, relative to the conduct of

LORD MELVILLE & MR. PITT.

EXAMINATION OF ALEXANDER TROTTER (LATE PAYMASTER OF THE NAVY), ON THE 3D, 4TH, 6TH, 7TH, 9TH, 10TH, 23D, AND 27TH OF MAY, 1805.

3d of May. State to the committee what sums were applied to services not naval, of the monies issued for the ser vice of the navy under the treasurership of

Lord Melville, to what amount, and at what time? A. Lord Melville never gave me any information upon the application of monies issued under such circumstances, and I only judge of the sum alluded to having been applied to other services, from the circumstance of its having been returned by a person acting in another department of government.Q. What was that sum? A. 40,0001. as far as I am informed; it was not issued by me.

Q. By whom was it issued? A. I be lieve, by Mr. Wilson, who officiated for me during my absence, having been at that time in Scotland. Q. What was the date of the issue? A. I am not enabled to inform you with any degree of accuracy, but I think it must have been some time between the middle of August and the end of October, in the year 1796.- -Q. Was Mr. Wilson ememployed to transact business for you during your absence? 4. He was in the habit of officiating for me, but not under any regular power, when I was absent from the office?

1803, when I was out of office.--Q. On
your return from your absences, did Mr.
Wilson give you a regular account in writing
of his transactions in the Navy Pay Office
during such absences? A. No; he was not
in the habit of doing so.- -Q. How then
could you see or come at the knowledge of
what those transactions had been, or what
the conduct of Mr. Wilson had been? A. I
was informed of his transactions, as I have
already said, by correspondence with him;
and from his very high character and the
perfect confidence which I had in him, I did
not find it necessary to require more from
him than yerbal explanations upon any par
ticular point of transactions which had taken
place in my absence.- -Q. Did Mr. Wilson
keep any account-books of ledgers in which
those transactions were registered? A. I do
not believe that any entry was made in any
ledger of the transactions which you have
particularly alluded to.-Q. (Repeated.)
A. He kept the public ledgers of the office
in which all my public transactions have been
regularly entered.-Q. Are those ledgers in
existence? 4. They are, and in the Navy
Pay Office.- Q. Was the sum of 40,0001,
alluded to by you as having been paid by Mr.
Wilson for services not naval, in the year
1796, the only sum paid under the same cir-
cumstances of which you have any know-
dedge? A. It was, as far as I recollect.-
Q. Did you never pay any sum or sums your-
self by draft or notes, or payment of any de-
scription, into the hands of Lord Melville, or
any person authorised by him, or on his ac-
count, of public money issued for naval ser-
vices, for purposes not naval? A. I have
already explained my difficulty to the Com-
missioners of Naval Enquiry, of discrimina-
ting between my public and private monies,
and I have already declared to you, that I did
not know the application which Lord Mel-
ville may have made of advances which I
kare necasionally made to his lordship.
Q. (Repeated.) 4. I presume I have.→→→
Q. At what time and to what amount ?
My recollection does not enable me to an-
swer that question.-Q. Were any entries
made by you, or any person authorised by
you, in any books or ledgers, or any memo-,
Pandum kept of any description, of such pay-
ment? A. I kept regular accounts of all
my money transactions with Lord Melville,
but having closed and settled the whole of
them, and a mutual release having passed be
tween us, I have not thought it necessary to

-Q. By what authority or power could Mr. Wilson issue such 40,0001.? 4. I left him in possession of drafts upon the Bank of England, signed by myself as attorney to the treasurer.- Q. Were those drafts filled up by yourself for certain sums, or your signature left to blanks in Mr. Wilson's possession? A. My signature was affixed to blanks left in Mr. Wilson's possession, and which I found necessary to carry on the business of the Pay Office, to prevent the accident, in case of my illness or occasional absence, of the cashiers making unexpected or sudden demands for the public service.- Q. Were the blanks for the names as well as the sums laft? 4. They were.- -Q. Had you communications with Mr. Wilson during your absence, on the subject of the accounts of the Pay Office? A. Ì had.- -Q. Are those communications preserved? A. They are not, as far as I know.-Q. What is become of them? 4. Having closed the whole of this business in question, I did not think it at all necessary to preserve any part of the documents relating to it.-Q. What did you do with them? 4.I looked upon them as papers of no consequence; and they must have been destroyed with other papers, which I may also have looked upon as papers of no consequence to be preserved.---Q. Are you sure they are not now in existence? 4. I am positively certain; and that they never consisted, as far as I know, of more than letters which Mr. Wilson had written to me on the subject during my ab-preserve any documents respetting my trangsence.- -Q. When did you destroy them? A. I cannot recollect, but certainly more than one or two years ago; and I fancy in

mury

A.

actions with his lordship. Q. Are these documents in existence? A. They are not, as far as I know.-Q. When were they

destroyed? 4. At the time I was out of of fice; I think in 1803.-Q. Did you destroy them? A. I did; I burnt those I thought unnecessary to keep.-Q. Did those books or documents contain your accounts with any other persons besides my Lord Melville? 4. They did.-Q. When was the release before-mentioned executed? A. In the year 1803, to the best of my recollection.- -Q. When payments of the description above stated were made, were they always made to Lord Melville personally? A. Not always.- Q. Did you ever? A. I do not, at this moment, recollect I ever did.- Q. To whom did you ever pay, on Lord Melville's, account, public money for purposes not naval? A. I used most frequently to pay them into the hands of the principal money conductor, one of the officers of the Navy Pay Office.-Q. What was his name? 4. Mr. Tweedy; he is now dead.Q. What other persons did you make such payments to? A. I cannot recollect any other persons at this moment.Q. How long has Mr. Tweedy been dead? A. Two or three years since Lord Melville's Treasurership ceased.- -Q. To what other persons did you make such payments to? A. I do not recollect any other person.Was there any account kept between Mr. Tweedy and you? A. None.-Q. What was the nature of the discharge you received from Mr. Tweedy? 4. I took no discharge.

-Q.

A.

-Q. What authority did Mr. Tweedy produce to you for the payment of such money? A. The demand for such money had previously been made by Lord Melville to myself.Q. Verbally, or in writing? 4. Verbally.- -Q. Did you keep any account of the sums paid to Mr. Tweedy, in consequence of such verbal demands of Lord Melville? 4. I entered them in the accounts which I kept with his lordship.—Q. Are they in existence? A. I have already mentioned, that I had not thought it necessary to preserve any accounts between Lord Melville and myself, a mutual release having passed between us.―― -Q. Do you know the amount of any such sums which you may have paid to Mr. Tweedy? 4. My recollection does not serve me to specify any such sums. -Q. Do you recollect any thing about the date of such payments? A. I do not.- -Q. Do you recollect what sort of sums they may have been? A. Once or twice they may have amounted to between three or four thous rd pounds, but not larger.

-Q. In making such payments to Mr. Tweedy, did you consider him as a public officer, or a private agent of Lord Melville? A. I obeyed Lord Melville's directions in

paying the money to him, without pretending to consider whether he was a private agent or not.-Q. Had you any public money transactions with Mr. Tweedy offcially? A. I had.- Q. Where were those public official transactions recorded? A. In the Navy Pay Office.-Q. Are the payments to Mr. Tweedy, by Lord Melville's verbal order, recorded there also? A. They are not in any instance.- Q. Do you know into whose hands the 40,0001., paid by Mr. Wilson during your absence in the year 1796, for purposes not naval, was placed? 4. I only know from the information which Mr. Wilson has given me upon that subject.—— Q. What was that information? 4. That he had paid the money to Lord Melville.-Q. By whom, and at what time was that money returned? A. I have already stated in general terms, that I believe it to be returned by Mr. Long; but I can only speak with my own knowledge in respect to the last payment, which, as far as I can recollect, amounted to 6,0001., and which was returned to me by Mr. Long some time in January, 1798.-Q. At what period or periods was the 34,000 I. returned, and to whom? 4.I have no further knowledge of the circumstance, as I was much in Scotland in the latter end of 1796 and in the year 1797, and the repayments were made, to the best of my knowledge, during my absence; but I am very certain that the 6,0001., which I received in January, 1798, completed the full repayment of the 40,0001.- -Q. Were any entries made in the office-books of such repayments? 4. None that I know of.—— Q. How then did you come to the convic tion of the payment of 6,000 1. in January, 1798, making the balance of the 40,0001. paid out as before stated in the year 1796? 4. From a knowledge which I have at all times had of the state of my balances, by which I must have seen when any deficiency that may have existed was paid up.—Q. How came you then not to see the dates of the repayments of such 34,000l.? A. I make no doubt that I may have seen the dates, but I have no recollection of them whatever? -Q. Where were they recorded? A. In my own private books.- -Q. Where are those books? A. They are the books before-mentioned, which I did not think necessary to preserve.- -Q. Were the sums paid to Mr. Tweedy by Lord Melville's verbal order ever returned to you, or in any way repaid to the account of the public in the Navy Pay Office, or to any other fund? A. They have unquestionably been all repaid to me, and I have accounted for the whole of the money that has been put

-Q.

under my charge for naval services.——Q. Did Lord Melville pay interest to you for such sums during the time they were in his possession? A. Lord Melville has paid me interest for sums of money, but not upon those which I have stated to have been paid to Mr. Tweedy.-Q. Who are Mr. Tweedy's executors? A. He left two sons, but whether they are his executors or not I do not know.-Q. Was any interest paid on the 40,0001. advanced during your absence by Mr. Wilson? A. None that I know of.-Q. Were the sums advanced to Mr. Tweedy advanced out of the mixed fund at Messrs. Coutts', or were they advanced out of a fund which consisted exclusively of public money? A. I do not recollect any other advances than those made out of the mixed fund at Messrs. Coutts'.What reason had you for considering that the 40,000 1. was advanced out of public money? 4. It was from a general impression which I received from the communications made to me upon this subject, and I do not know whether this 40,0001. was advanced from Messrs. Coutts' or not.-Q. What may have been the total amount of money, described to be advanced as different times to Mr. Tweedy by order of Lord Melville, as nearly as you can recollect? A. The total amount of monies of this description, to the best of my recollection, have never, in the whole, exceeded 30,0001. until the sum of 40,0001. was added to it; but I cannot state with certainty that the whole of the sums constituting that 30,000 1. was advanced to Mr. Tweedy.- Q. To whom was any part of the 30,0001. advanced, which was not paid to Mr. Tweedy? A. I have already stated, that I do not recollect.-Q. Within what period of time did these issues take place? A. I mean to comprehend the whole time during which I acted as Paymaster under Lord Melville, for 14 or 15 years.- -Q. Why did you destroy papers in which other persons' accounts were kept, as well as Lord Melville's? A. Because the whole of my accounts were closed upon my leaving London, excepting some private family concerns, and very small accounts between my friends and myself, which I carried forward into new books. I desire to state to my former answer, that 10,0001. of the 30,0001. had accrued before I was appointed to my office.Q. By whom was the 10,000l. advanced? A. I do not know.-Q. How did you know the existence of such a debt? A. By Lord Melville's acknowledgment to me. Q. To whom did he acknowledge himself debtor? A. To the office.-Q. Of how long standing had that debt been? 4. I have.

|

·Q.

no knowledge of the circumstance.To whom was that 10,0001. repaid? A. It must have been repaid to me.-Q. In what capacity did you receive that sm that you had never advanced? A. In capacity of pay master.——. Did you then conceive it to be a debt due to the public? A. I did.

Q. Was any interest paid upon it? A. None.-Q. Had not Lord Melville made such acknowledgment, could you have traced such debt due from him to the public, in any of the office-books? 4. I could certainly have told that the balance of the account put under my charge was so much deficient.Q. Was Lord Melville debited for such sum in any of the books? A. He was not. Q. What was the nature of the acknowledgment of Lord Melville? A. Merely verbal.—Q. Did you conceive Mr. Tweedy acting as a private agent for Lord Melville, or ever acting for him in that capacity? A. I consider him, in these instances, to have been acting for his lordship in a private capacity.—Q. Explain private? 4. Merely as a person sent to me by his lordship to receive the money which I had previously been directed to pay to him.-Q. Were those directions from Lord Melville to procure money generally, or to procure him public money ? A. To procure money generally.

Q. Did you consider Mr. Tweedy merely as a messenger to carry the money to Lord Melville, or concerned in the application of the money? A. Merely as a messenger.

4th May- Q. Of the sums you have advanced from time to time to Lord Melville, not exceeding the 20,0001., as mentioned yesterday, do you know whether any part of it was applied to any public purpose? 4. I do not, but I beg to be understood, that this sum which I mentioned yesterday, is not connected with the sums which I have mentioned before the Commissioners of Naval Enquiry to have been occasionally in advance to Lord Melville, and for which I accounted his lordship my private debtor.

Q. In the Tenth Report it is mentioned, that a certain sum was left in Mr. Trotter's hands, as the balance of the first part of the second treasurership, where is that sum now, amounting to 25,484. 15. 3.? A. The greater part of it is still in ny possession, but a small part has been paid away at one payment.- Q. What was the amount of the small payment? A. I issued two hundred pounds to the cashier to make payment of a larger demand, assisted by money in the cashier's hands.-Q. When was that payment made? 4. It was made in December, 15.4, and I have taken measures within these two days to pay up the whole balance.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »