Star. — London, England, 1806-06-13 00:00:00

P I I certainly at that time took a note of the fubftance of all that Lord Melville raid, but not of the met words. The fpeech of Lord Melville in the }Lute took up a confiderable time ?—Yes, upwaills of two hours, I dare fay. C .uld you undertake to repeat by heart any por tages that made favourably for Lord Melville. as well as thnte that you have now given to the Court ? —I have repeated by heart certain,words which I have (worn that Lord Melville (poke ; any other portico • lar words of his fpeech I am not quite lure that I could repeat ; I am now only (wearing to the tub fiance of what Lord Melville laid. Can you repeat the (sibilance of any other part of Lnrd Melville's fpeech which was favourable to Lord Melville ?—lf the Learned Cnunfel will point my at tention to any parti , -ular pottage of that fpeech. I will tell him whether I can repeat the fubßance of it or not. Did the Noble Lord, in the comic of his fpeech, with rerped to the fum in quellion, negative the ap• Eropriati o n o f t h at f um , t h e f ame as o f t h e ot h er , to is own private ufe ?—I underflood him to do it ex slaty in that way as with regard to the other fum of Do you recolleft that the Noble Lord at the fame time in the molt pornive and explicit manner, did, deprecate any appropriation rf thcfe fume to his own private site, nr Mr. Trotter's ?—I do not think that bedid, in precife and explicit termc, negative that fad. Can you. by referring to the notes you took at that time, be able to (peak with more pofitivenefs and precifion upon that part of the fubjeet ?—I do not Think I could (peak with more pofitivenets and cer tainty. Was no note taken upon that rubjed ?—Yes ; but when exprefTians are equivocal, it is difficult by any note exaelly to give the precife meaning the words -"- are meant to convey. What was that equivocal expreffina that was ufed upon that occifion ? Ido not recoiled the precife words ; hut without recolleeting the precife words, one may have a recolleaion that there was an equi. vocal fade pervading feveral fentences. Endeavour to recolleft the fubllance of what was laid in that part of the Noble Lord's fpeech that made shut impreffion ?—The impreffion intended to be con veyed by that part of the Noble Lord's fpeech to which I prefurne the Learned Conniel means to refer, the impreffion intended to have been conveyed, I ap prehend to have been, that he had not direaed Mr. Trotter to make ufe of any public money for his pri vate advantage. With regard tn the permiffion which he had given to Mr. Trotter, ethink the words were pretty precifely that he had given Mr. Trotter fuch perniiffinn. Per minion to do what ? To place the public money at other places than the Bank, and alto to make ufe of a part of it fur his own advantage. It is begged to repeat the queflion, Whether the N Ible Lord did ant, in the molt explicit and port live terms, deny that he had either given any permif- G•ut or had any knowledge of the public money being laid nut to arty purpofes of private emolument or profit, either for himfelf or Mr. Trotter ?—I with the Leatned Counfel to interpret what he means by laid nut :' I underftood the Noble Lord to fay. or at lean implied from it, that he had permitted Mr. Trotter to place tile public money at other places befides the Bank, for his own private purpofes ; with regard to other places, that lie did not do any loch thing. Whether the Honenrable Manager does not &if. tinAly recollec that the averment of the Noble De fendant upon that fubjee, r,f placing it, was, that he had given no other permiffion but to remove the money from the Bank to a private Bank, for the convenience of :tromp, iating it to the public fervice ? Certainly one of the reafons given by the Noble Lord was, that he had allowed the money to be removed to a private bunker's, for official convenience, but it did not appear to me that that was the only mann. Then, having laid one of the reafoLs affigned by the Noble Load was, that it might be there for the pithhc convenience, did he give any other reafon be tides I underflood for the emolument of Mr. Trotter ; and the Noble Lord deferibed the manner in which he thonght that emolument had accrued, namely, by interest paid by Mr. Calms to Mr. Trot ter. for lodging that money. Be fo good as refreUt your memory upon the fob jeS, and fay whether the foie reafon given by the No ble Defendant was not, that the foie objeft of remov ng it From the Bank was for public convenience; but at the fame time did Cape& or believe that an ad vantage h..d accrued to Mr. Trotter from that Aft, which was not done fur his advantage, but for pub lic convenience ?—That was not the way in which I underflood it altogether. Whether you have refreflted your memory lace you heard the fpeech, by a reference to what wax, hated on Saturday as intended to be read in evidence, . the fulitianee a the fpeech delivered ?—I hive not la'ked at the pamplit in quellion force I have been otherwife moll loborinully occupied. Whether the Noble Defendant did not, in exprefs term., fay, that he did folemaly of err, before that Houle, that he never knew that Mr. Trotter had drawn any money for the put poles of private mobs tn•nt, in manifeft evanon of the Aft ?—I am (peak ing to the fpeech, and not to the pamphlet ; the pam phlet. which I have read more titan once, does not in every part of it exallly correfpond with the (patch as delivered by the Noble Defendant in the Houle of Commons, to the bell of my recolleftion and belief. Whether thrift precife words were tittered in the Hoofs of Commons, it is impollible for me to fay; but Whether they were or not, the context of al he (aid was, to make thcimpreMon upon my mind which I hare had the honour of Slating to the Conn. It is begged to have a precife anfwer. whether thofe words, or arthat eft& and fubliance, were ufed by the Noble Defendant s I will repeat them again, " " never knew that Mr. Trotter had drawn any mo- . _ ney for minim emolument in manifell eratinn of " the Ad I"—I can give no other anfwer than 1 have heir infore done, and I hope that is pertatly fatisfac tory to the Court that I am pot (peaking to the words of that pamphlet, but to the words of the (pee* without recollefting prccife parts of it. The wood • pamphlet' has not been made are of; it is :hiked, whether in fubllance the Noble De. , .1, t did not imply to the ace I am Ratio. ?—I • a •' reculleft the precife worth,. nor do I think that the very fabflance of thole words was uttered in any precife form by the Noble Lord. Whether you mean not only to negative the precife expredion that has been Rated, but to negative alto the fhbllance ?—I do not mean to negative the fub• Ranee s k ltogaher of Lnrd Melville having criticifed upon what the words manifeß evafion' meant ; the flibßance of the fpeech was what I have given-to your Lorelltips ; the words themfelves I do not recollee. I am not anfwered yet ; I willed to know, whether in words and In fubilance, and alto to the effeet of what was hated jun now, was or was not made ufe of by the Noble Lord ? Not to that precife effeet ; to an &eft very near fimilar. State what was the averment upon that fubjeft, as near as you can recollect ?—The averment opals that fubjeft I took to be to import, that he had not allow ed Mr. Trotter to do that to the extent which It had been done. Is it to be underllood, that your recolleetion is, that he allowed it to any extent ?-41ndoulstedly. Do you mean that he allowed it in any other refpeet than as a benefit might arife to him from depofiting it for the convenience of the public fervice at another Bank ?—The Noble Lord had firft of all contended, that the AS was not evaded ; and therefore there comes a quehion, what was the "evafion of the'ACl ? not a manifett evafion of the Aft, according to the conllruflion of the Noble Lord ; but according to the conftrudion I put upon - it, it was in manila eva• lion of the Aft. Whether the Noble Lotd admitted that he had ever permitted Mr. Trotter to derive any private benefit from the public money, except the benefit arifing from a depolit made at a private Banker's for the purpote of official convenience?—l underftood Lord Melville to fay for Mr. Trotter's convenience alto. Whether, your recolleaing yourfelf upon this fubjeft, you mean to (late, that the Noble Defendant admitted that he knew or permitted any emoluments to be derived to Mr. Trotter from the public money, fave and except what refulted from its depofit at a private Banker's for official convenience ?—The No ble Defendant Rated, that he had allowed the money to be placed at a private Banker's (or official conve nience; and when there, he had allowed or permitted, or not prevented Mr. Trotter from making a private emolument from it s and that emolument arifing from the intereft he was to make of it for Mr. Coons's. Whether the Noble Defendant admitted his content or knowledge of any other benefit to Mr. Trotter from it ? The Noble Lord never laid he had re• (trifled Mr. Trotter from making advantage in any way, to the belt of my recolleaton and belief ; and he then hated that he had made it in that way. The queltien is not, whether he refiritted him, but whether he laid he knew of his having any other advantage, excepting the advantage before Rated ? He did not fay he even knew it, but only fuppofed it; he did not admit that he knew of any other. Whether he did not alto hate, in the fame fpeech, that he never knew that Mr. Trotter had invehed any money on Exchequer or Navy Bills P—l believe be laid fo. That he never knew he had put any money upon fecurity of Sock ?—I believe he Paid fn. That he never knew he had employed any money in difcount of private Bills ?—I believe he Paid fo. That he never knew he had employed any money in the purchafe of Bank or India Stock ?—I believe he laid Co. Whether you recoiled at the fame time, the Noble Defendant declaring, thai he had not the fpialleft knowledge or belief that Mr. Trotter ever did lay out for his ufe or any benefit in any fuch modes, any furn of public money whatever ?—Pleafe to read the paf fage over again, and tell me to whom that bit refers, whether to Mr. Trotter or Lord Melville. repeated.—l do not think fo precifely as it is put in thole words. What was the averment upon that fubjeCt ?—Pretty nearly amounting to precifion but not altogether; the imprellion made upon my mind was, that the denial was not politive and precife. Can you with any dillinenefs recolleft the rub fiance of the expreifions ufed ? I cannot recoiled further than I have liated ; I cannot difcriminate mute nicely ; I with I could, tnr the benefit of the learned Counfel, as it would five him trouble. is there any part of this exprdlion which you think was not tiled ; I will read it again ? It is not the ex preaion, it it the general imprellion of the fame words in another order; the infertion or Ahe omialon of one word will make all the difference to the contlrultion of the pottage. Have you the notes with you, which you took at the time ? I have nut ; they were notes I then took being then in the Honk of Commons, and endeavour. ing to prepare royfelf to anfwer the fpeech of the Noble Lord ; they were notes of that fort, that it I were to refer to them now, I do not know that I ihould beable to undertland them, and whether they Are inexiltence or not, I cannot fay. • This paffolge, which is favourable to Lnrd Mel. ville, you have no dirlinCt recollatinn of the terms made ufe of ? The only precife words I have any dillinet recolleetion of, I have (worn to ; I have no recllleflittn of thole words Rated by the learned Cttuntcl to the Court, whether favour able or unfit. valuable. Examined by the Lard►. Qt_teßion from a Lord. When Lord Melville Rated thatite wool.' not ►eveal the application of a fum of icsoool. or thereabouts, did he hate t.t the Houle his resins for declining fo to reveal it ? In mentioning of the firft so,oool. or whether be coupled the two together, I -tm not cruse Curet but the words he ufed and the motives he Paid that prevented him from re vealing the application of that money were motives of ;Intik duty, of private honour, and petfonal eon vemence ; I undertlood him to apply thofc wads to bot:s films. Lord Melville's Letter of Attorney to Mr. Trotter, dattd toth January t7d6; Power of Attorney dated tyth July 'B°6, and a mutual Releafe between his Lorchbip and Mr. Trotter, dated the Bath and sad February ttiol, were then read and admitted by Lord counfel. p p !41..VEN rH LAY-TUESDAY, MAY 6. Mr. Trotter again underwent a long examination of but much the lime nature as the fortner. To attempt to detail it would require upwards of twenty of our columns. In sewer to a quellion aim the amount of his property, he replied? I had oecafion about a year ago. t mike op a llittemeut of say property I and at that time I valued it at what I eonfidered to be a very fair valuation, at about Si,oool. or 52,0001. but it was fu inverted, as not to produce me an income of more than :owl. per annum. Has the falary of the Paymafter of the Navy been increafed confiderably fince you were originally ap pointed to it i It has. Mr. Robert Trotter, *Ater to the fignet, brother to the late witnefs, Rated, that by direEtions from his brother he had paid mcney nn account of the Noble Defendant, into the houfe of Sir William Forbes and Co. and Mansfield and Co. in 1787. Sir William Forbes Rated, that Lord Melville kept an account with his Houfe ; they had lent him money on bond, and charged intereft. James Mansfield, Efq. gave fimilar evidence. A payment was made to their honk on account of Lord Melville, on the 23d July, 1787. He reculleeed that Mr. R. Trotter being in London, wrote their houfe to draw upon him, and they did draw, payable to Couts and Co. at different times, to the amount of 35,0001. Then Mr. Robert Trotter was agaia called in and examined as follows: _ .... Is that the letter in your own handwriting ? It is. From that letter do you recollat that you direfted the haute of Mansfield, Romeo'', and Co. to draw upon Contts for to,000l.? I do. What is the date of that letter ? The 15th of Au gull 1787. Look at this letter. Is this your own handwrit ing ? It is. Does that enable you to fay, that you gave direc. tions to Mansfield and Co. to draw for another fum of to,oool ? It does. Did you give further direllinns to the honfe of Mansfield and Co. to draw for a further furn of somo ? I remember giving dirations to draw for thnfe two to,oool. and g,oool. more. Upon whole account was that money paid by the houfe of Courts and Co. ? My brother Alexander's account. Croft exam;ned. (ttieftion by Counfel.—When did you part with thole letters ? About two months ago. To whom ? The Committee of Managers on Lord Melville's impeachment. Have all your papers been delivered to the Corn mittee of Managers too ? Yes. And have ever lince remained in their pnal.flion, have they ? That is all accounts and letters from the year 1786 to ;Soo. All ycur private letters and papers relative to the accounts ? Yes ; they were all delivered over to the Committee, and they kept a great number of them, others they returned back. Quetlion by a Manager.—Whether the Committee did not infpeti your letters, and deliver hack Inch as appeared to you not to relate to the accounts ? Yes, and gave a receipt for what they kept. QLieftion by Counfel.—What means of knowledge have you of the fa& of the aeual payment by Cnuats and Co. to Mansfield and Co. of thofe furns you (poke of ? I never heard more of it than afterwards, when Mansfield's houfe gave the credit for thofe (urns. Have you anyother knowledge of that fail, than its being contained inan account fubfeq uentl ; rendered? Yes, I remember the tranfeeion perfeAly well. Did you fee the money paid ? No, I know no further than getting credit from Mr. Mansfield's houfe for that money. EIGHTH DAY-THURSDAY, MAY S. Mr. Robert Trotter again examined. Look at that account, and (tate to the Court whe ther that account is signed in your own hand-writ ing ?—lt is. Refreflting your memory by that account you now hold in your hand, are you able to hate to the Court that interell was received by you OR account of that fum of ag,oool. ?—I know it was, my Lords. What is the account which you have in your hand, and by whom is it ligned ?—lt is an account be tween my brother and myfelf, wherein I give him credit for interefi 8021. and for 1,1641. los. 4d. For interell upon what fumy?—There was one fum of to,oool. another fum of to,oool. and a (um of 5,0001. ; that was the whole interell I ever received upon thnfe (urns, and it was for two years. Had Mr. Alexander Trotter credit for thole (urns? —Yes; he had, in this very account. Crofi-examined. (lonellion by Counfel.—Were thofe fums of money received upon your brother's account alone ?-1 re ceived the whole of them through the hands of Mr. Mansfield upon Mr. Coutts. Was it fur your brother alone?—it was fur my brother alone. Edmund Antrotus, Erg. a partner in the houfe of Coutts and Co. criminal How many accounts has Mr. Alexander Trotter. nr has he had with the bottle, opened under feparate heads, from the commencement of his account ?—A-; far as I recollett at this moment, he had five. What accounts had he had one in his own name, without any other defignation ; he had One called his feparate account; another his private ac. count ; and one in his own name iti trult for Adam Jellicoe. Was there not silo a Paymafler's account ?—And there was alfh an account in his name as Paymafier. Was it the euilom of she houfe of Marrs. that their accounts fhould be figned by their el& tourers in their books ?—lt is very frequently done ; but it is not neeeffatily to. Did Mr. Alexander Trotter fign his accounts in the books ?—He has rived fume of them ; I do not think he has ligned the whole of them. Had Lord Melville an account opened at the honfe of Meffu. Omits ?—He had. Hasa copy of that account been delivered to Lord Melville ?—A copy of that account has been tranf mined to his Lordfhip. Has that account been figned by Lord Melville ? —The account was tranfmitted to his Lordllip with a duplicate. the duplicate of which he returned figred: — ls that the dnplicate now in your hand, which was to figned ?---This is the duplicate of the account, it is I believe figned by Lord Melville, but I never faw his Lord'hip fign his name. The paper being (hewn to the Connfel for the Vit. count Milville, they admitted the fignature to be his Lord(bip'a hand-writing. The account was then delivered in.—. The witnefs was alkal, Were the vouchers delivered op to 1,...,1 hlt.;.. I. or his agent, a hen that account was to (ailed Lord Melville's Agent brought the account to Inc banking hook in the Strand, when the vouchers were delivered up to him. Who was the Agent ?—Mr. Le Blanc. Whether to your knowledge Mr. Alexander Trot. ter's account at your houfe, was ever overdrawn?— It has been overdrawn. Do you know that the credit of Mr. Trotter's act count at your hook was in part fupplied by public money ?-1 know it was fupplied by drafts of Mr. Trotter upon the bank, drawn on account of the Treafurer of the Navy, and from the magnitude of the rums, I can have no doubt but it was fupplied by public money. Have you ever fern any drafts of Mr. Trotter's on the bank, for fupplying the credit of his account at Meffrs. Coutts ?—I have. Were they drafts upon the bank of England ? They were. Are thole drafts in your pollefflon ?—They are not. Were they delivered to Mr. Trotter i—Thofe drafts the inilant they were paid, would of courfe be left at the bank. Whether Mr. Trotter's credit confined of large permanent balances, or was extremely fluauating is the houfe of Meffrs. Coutts ?—lt was generally al very flutuatiog account. Whether the drafts upon the bank of England went to fupply partly all Mr. Trotter's accounts at your houfe ?—They certainly did not. Which account do you except ?—I mean the pri vate account, and the account in nun for Mr. Adam Jellicne 1 cannot (peak with certainty to the other three, but I think the drafts went ocea (tonally to all the other three. You are underflood to fay, that excepting the pri vate account and the account in null for Mr. Adam Jellicoe, that the cant from the bank of England drawn by Mr. Trotter, went to fupply in parts at lean the funds of the other three accounts do fay fn. Whether any interen was allowed by your honk upon any of the balances in your hands ?—Never. Do you know to which of the other accounts the greater pan of thole drafts were carried ?—To the account in Mr. Trotter's own name, without any other defignation. Mr. Chapman and Mr. Charleton, both clerks of Coutts and Co. were examined as to Mr. Ti otter'. accounts. From the one called his private account was read, June 23, 1792, by balance from the fan ledger, 25,0c01. ; and on the debt fide, December scth, to cam 10,0001.; and 1793• February 8, ditto t 3,c001. Mr. Antrolins again examined. Refer to Mr. Alexander Trotter's private acertuni of 4th Septemser 1792. Do you know to what tranfaaions there entries relative to a rum of 23.0c.0/. relate ?—The credit of 25,0001. relates to a rum that wa• paid into Mr. Mansfield's at Edinburgh on our account by Mr. Trotter. Does that entry refer folely to that account refers folely to that money. Is it independent of all Mr. Alexander Trotter's other accounts?—lt is. And did the houfe of Mars. Coons hold that Turn in twit on account of Mr. Alexander Trotter t—lt was paid in by Mr. Robert Trotter, and held by his . diretlions a:. the difvfxl of Alexander Trotter. Meffrs. Mansfield and Co. I believe, did not know any thing of Mr. Alexander Trotter's name in the tranfaaion. In fait, was it Mr. Alexander Tmttet's' money, or money upon his account ? It was. Does that entry contain any thing except that which relates to that Jingle tranfaaion ? This account doe, not contain any thing cafe. (ttiettinn by Cnunfel.—Are you to be underßood that this fum, which was paid in on account of Mans field and C. that that houfe was not, you believe, cognizant on whofe account that was paid, whether Robert or Alexander Trotter's, or on account of Mr. Court's houfe ? I believe not. They conceived it to be Mr. Robert Trotter's. Qt2ellion by Councel.—Whether at this time, in September, the credit of Mr. Trotter with your houfc was fuch, that independent of that draft upon the • bank by which he had credit for B,cool. fuppofing that not to have ezißed, and that Mr. Trotter had drawn to that amount, wr gild he have had credit for it ? We fhould have paid his draft. Were all the drafts of Mr. Alexander Trotter upon the Bank of England drafts on account of Mr. Dundas as Treafurer of the Navy ? I have never teen any that were otherwife. Confine yourfelf to thofe that you have teen ; was it fo ? All thole that I have leen have been to. A long uninterefling examination of Meffts. Cnutts and Co's partners and clerk now followed refpeaing the items in Mr. Trotter's and Lord Melville's ac counts with the houfe. The objea was to prove that (lock had been bought by them for Lord Melville. on which they had received dividends on his account. Mr. P. Antrobtas proved the buying of India cloak by Mire of Mr. Trotter. J.‘ceph Key, Efq. folicitor for the managers of the pr , fecutinn, prefetited a calculation of psalm leads upon the flock held by Lord Melville, by which he eitiniAted the net profit on India Stnek at aEto,43t On Loyalty torn at 2,7,0 I I On 3 ixr ccnt. reduced at 2.496 S o More bulb Stock 1.7.5 o o Intffett to Forbes and Co. 3493 aer Ditto AlanisSLld and Co. 2,1, 0 o 0. 12, 6a isr Then Mark Sprot, Efq. was ca ll e d in, and, s being (worn, was examined av follows : Whether you accepted of the controul over a cerw— tain ?um of India Rock, amounting to 13 ,5001. from Mr. Alexanier Trotter in the m ora l of May sBOO I think I did, hut I cannot be certain. Did you advance a firm of money upon certain flock, Ealt India and other flock, through the tolici tations of Mr. Nei:ander Trotter at that time ? I did. To what amount ? I think to 51,7001. I have (sea it fince to rtfrefh my memory. On whole aceraint did you make that advance ? To the Hon. Robert Saunders Dritida.. Did you obtain complete power Aver thole Rocks , as your own in confequence of that advance ? firer tautly had complete power to have had it whenev:r I pleated. * To whom did you pay the St,? , cl. that yell have mullioned ? I paid it to Altzandet 1 'tato.