The Sun.
London, England, 1806-06-13 00:00:00

• .
• "Vie'--

4.,/,#..
rl
,1
t 4 tiA Titit\
.. ; .- --!,. ,,
f -..i„;.: , ~,! .
~, .
,t 7 4,7; $1,;,-,-.,i;'
\....,
Q\ 1-1 "'::::,:.".1. ':
./,iitt7 " . ; ..` s:: 4i'v
„,),..- .,---, r ;i'v
'
, ' -''. •iti air 9ii
, I I'' • a

Lpitibh stic-&Tch

. •
tif bribery and'eorruption in the adthinisti-atiOn of
his office of Chancellor of England. There were a
titiniber of minor instances, more recent and more
fatifiliar : and though the greatest and best interests
of mankind; .as well as every principle of pride, ho-
nour, 'dignity, and re&itude; would Hire counselled
a contrary conduct, yet the suggeStiOnt of these bet-
ter interests, and thee exalted principleS, had failed,
and the highest chara&ers, and most elevated sta- '
tions, had'eteeti forfeited for sordid pecuniary advan-
tages, which brotiglit with them unmitigated con-
tempt, and irrecoverable degradation. Unfortunately
the great branches of the publie,Administration, in
a Country 'whose powel-, was so extended; and whose
exertions in the defence of its own-fights and those
of the world were so•diffused, were but too general
and too powerful temptations to 'this , crime; and
enormous abuses were in many instatices'the conse-
quence.--Mr. WHITBREAD
_here paid a warm corn-
„pliment to Lord St.-- Vincent, to whom, he said, it
was originally owing that the offences upon which
their Lordships Were now sitting in judgment were
'brought to light. Earl St. Vincent, long aware of
the abuses that existed in every branch of. the Civil
Department of tlre,Navy, availed himself of the
'.first opportunity the return of Peace affi,)rded to set
on foot an' investigation of the several Departments;
with a view to the necessary reforms. At his re=
commendation the .Codithission of Naval Inquiry
was instituted. The integrity, the assiduity, the
firmness, the penetration and wisdom, with which
that Commission had,discharged its duty, often Ifav
ing difficulties
,of the most ernbarrassing and discon-
raabincr nature thrown in their way,-.were above any
panegyric he could bestow on them. The services
they had rendered toi the Country, -perpetuated• in
the Reports they had drawn up, and in the reforms
adopted in consequen& of these Reports, were con-
secrated by a monument which would claim the
veneration of posterity to the latest times. ,It was
by the investigation of this Committee that the
crimes now charged on the Defendant at their Lord=
ships' Bar were ' discovered. On their Report he
had thought it tis duty to Submit to the Honse of
Commons-certain Resolutions touching the ads re-
ported. The House of Commons had done him the
honour of adopting these Resolutions : a_ train of
proceedings had followed, the result of which Was;
that Lord Melville should be impeached at their
.LOrdships' Bar. The House of Commons had done
him the further honour to pike him at the head of
the Committee appointed, to. manage the Impeach-
ment. He was perfectly sensible how little qualified
he was for a situation' so eminent and so arduous
-but he would at least bring to the discharge of the
important duty imposed on him all the assiduity,
zeal,, and energy, of which he was master, and
all the devotion to the public good which had
induced him, originally to take up this matter.
He had undertaken the task of urging.the Charges
against Lord Melville to this length merely from a
sense of public duty and a regard to the public inter-
est, and not from any motives of hostility to Lord
Melville,,whose meritorious conduct in the public
service he was in. many instances ready to acknow-
ledge. Even in this very department of the public
service he gave the Noble Lord credit for having
.established effeCtual- provisions to prevent the for-
gery of seamen's wills, which entitled him to the
gratitude,of all the seamen of the. Fleet, and of all
connected with them : but meritorious service in
one respe& was not to be made a cover for abuse, in
another; and while 'their Lordships acknowledged
the service, they
.would not allow the abuse to be
screened by it.

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30.—Szcown DAY.
EVIDENCE.

The Managers proceeded with their evidence, and stated, that'
tliey should first go over the introdudory matter. They accord-
ingly desired the Ad of the zoth,Geo. 111. c. S 4, to be read.
The Ad was " for appointing and.enabling Commissioners
to examine, take, and state the PUblic Accounts of the King-
dom." They then produced the Third and' Tenth Reports
of the. Commissioners appointed under that Ad. .
The Managers next produced evidence to prove the increase
of the salary of Mr. Barre, when Treasurer Of the Navy,
from 26001. to aloool. per annum, in full satisfaction of all
wages and fees 'and other profits and emoluinents,theretofore
enjoyed by former Treasurers of the Navy.
The remainder of the day wa-s'occupied in producing docu-
ments to prove Lord Melville's appointment as Treasureeof
the Navy, his appointment of Mr. Douglas as his Paymas-
ter, and the provisions of the Aa by which all•public.money
in the hands of the Treasurer of the Navy was required to
be kept at the Bank. The Bank books were also produced
to prove the signatures of Mr. Dundas and Mr. Douglas.

• THURSDAY., MMY-I.—THIRD DAY.
111 r. Haworth, Mr. Standen, and others, were called, who
proved that the Treasurer of the Navy always received public
money at the Exchequer, throUgh the mediurtY of his Pay-
master.

The following certificates'of receipts of money from the
Exchequer, signed by Mr. Douglas, wete then read :
6th Nov. 1782, 45,0001. Specifying-out of what funds, and.
for what services.
22d Nov. 1782, so,oool. .Specifying same.
tyth Dec. .782, 93,8001. Specifying same.
Mr. John Gimmingham stated, that he was one of the
three Cleiks of the Bank who attended at the Exchequer. Fle '
was shewn a book found •in Mr. Douglas's chest, which he
knew as the Bank book in account between\the Bank arid Lord
Melville, as Treasurer of the Navy. In referring to the above
dates, he stated, that part of the.payments were made in Bank
Notes, viz., on the 6th of Nov. soci.l, was paid in Notes,
No. 9, toool. No. to, wool. No. tt, toool. No. 12, lOWA.
No. r 3, tt:*ol. all dated the 24th of October, 1782.
Note, No. 12, was shewn hiM,which he.said, he had uo doubt
was one paid on that date.

On the 22d of November 30001. was paid in Bank Notes,
viz. Nos. 212, 213, 214, for inool. each. No. 212 was shewn
to the witness, which he said he had no doubt was the one
paid on that day.
Mr. %V. Heald, Clerk in the House of Messrs. Drummond,
was in the Arne situation in 1782.—Referring to an entry
in the Waste Book, dated 29th November, .1782, he found
an entry. in his own hand-writing of 00001. credit to the Hon.
H. Dundas. The money was paid by a flank Note for toools.
No. 212, Letter. K. N. The Aitterence was paid in, Bank
Notes and Cash. The witness could not say from whom lie
received this Bank NOte—but he supposed from some one
who paid it on account of Mr. Dundas. He could not say
from what hand—it might or might not be Mr. Duhdas ; lie
had no recolledion of the transatlion independent of the
Books. The Note was shewn him ; he said the number and
the sum corresponded with the entry, and 'the number and
sum was the whole of the entry. He by referring to
other books it would not appear by whom the money was
paid; all-that would appear was, that it was paid fot Mr.
Dundas's account.

Mr. Thomas Buckley, another Clerk, proved the entry in
-the Bank hook. The entry was-a Ilinrk7note toool. K 7212,
-.A. C. 7th Being shewn 'titc 'Note, he said'it corres-
politLd i,i funnber,-value,'fincklate, blot would not Say it 'was
4he Note !ram which. the .entry .a.as made.
M. Thomas Ripnen was •again- called,.who proved that
,two 'Not es or the same nuniber, date, and sum were never in
iotrculatiOn-at the same
•

• FRI DAT, MAY 2..-.AFOURTH PAY.
• M'r.l'lionras Oliver, a Clerk in the house of Drummond
'and Co. in 1782, _produced the Ledger fur that year, and read
the following E-xtreds from Mr. Dundas's account
" Augusta la, I7Bz, by Cash received of A. Douglas, Esq.
4°ool.
,
Odober-4, 1782, ditto, tool. ca. 2d.
Decembt: 19,•Reeeived of A. Douglas, Esq. tosoi. •
Othereatzies from the Ledger of the subsequent year were
"',March ti, 1733, Cash received of A. Douglas toool.
•" April 7, Received soot."
• hir. W.. Heald was' called again to read the following Ex-
'trazts from the Waste.book ot Drummond's house :
" Zyth Nov. 5784 Received ofthe Might Hon, 1-1. Dundas
noool

" 7th March, i 783, Received of A.-Dough.s, Esq. a Bank-
note of 8,31, and a bank note of fool. fir which I give credit.
•to ii. DundaS in ieool. - •
• '4 7th April, t 783, Receixed of Hon. H. Dundas soot. in a
13ank-note.", -
-The Managers then pia in an Account signed byl,Ord Mel- •
aril le, which was as follows
l)r. !miles Newbigging to the Right Hon. the Lord Maria;
-cam, Creditor. -
Nov. t 6, i782,.T0 ditto, Sir W. Forbes for my bill on Lord
Advocate, tOOOL
Mr George Scott, a Clerk in the house ,of, Moffatt and
;Kensington, stated, froth an entry in their goldsmith's book,
that a Banknote for 10001. No. 12, 24th Oel. came into their
douse in , Nov. 1782, and was received for a bill upon my Lord
Advocate of Scotland. - • -
Mr,. Whitbread then proposed to give evidence of a decla- ,
ration of Lord Melville, which he heard on the ft th of. June,
ass, in which he declaied, `' that during the Paymastership
of Mr. Douglas he tiecaine possessed of public money to the
amount of 10,0°01. ; and he: farther declared that he would
not reveal the application of that money, being impel led so to
•act from motives of public duty, private honour, and personal
convenience.." -On cross-examination, the Hon. Manager
said, that certainly the Mohl'e Lord's speech went tOdeclare
that he had nut applied it to the purposes of private gen.
Ser3eant Praed; one of the Commissioners of Naval Inquiry,
was examined as to the mode in which he examined 'the
persons called before the. Commissioners. He stated that the,
questions were first read over to them, then the questions and
• answers were read, and they had an opportunity of correcting
anything they wished. The witness then produced the ori-
ginal examination of Lord Melvillebeforathe Cofilmissioners,
which was teat!. In this examination his Lordship gives the ,
following answers., .
Q. 1t appearing by-accounts laid befOre us, thdt the sums
standing in your name 'as Treasurer of the Navy, at the
'lank,- at the following periods, were' less than sums with
which you stand charged, exclusive of the money advanced to
your :Sub2accountants, to what cause are such deficiencies to
be attributed ? —A. A I I hough I take it for grantedthe sums are
stated by the question accurately. I could not, on memory,
state that they are So. I desired Mr. Trotter,- so tar as I was
concerned, to give you -every information he could ; and it
was only in-consequence of a conversation with him, imme-
diately'after the receipt of )4ur letter to me of the date 26th
Tune, that I learnt, from the 'manner in which he kept his
private accounts, it was iniposstble for him to give me the
accnratp intormatiou required. The same reasons render it
impossible for me to give you an answer to the question you
prtt ; I am aware that 1 am not hound to answer- it, under
the prnvision of the Ad establishing this Commission ; but
should not have dwelt on. that objection if there had been no-
thing but personal consideiations- to operate against My doing
so ; but, the the reasons I hinted to you in•my letter to you of
the 30th Jime last, as 1 am not bound, so would not' 1
feel inyt:eir warranted to give die explanations which your
question points at. ,
Q. Upon what ground does your. Lordship decline an-
swering that question ? —A.' Upon the ground that •1 have
already stated, under the sth clause of the Ad .13d Geo. I 1 I.'
c. 16.
Q. Was any part of such sums in your hands ? —A. They
certainly, came into my hands, but they did not remain,
there. n
Q. Did Mr. Alexander Trotter, 'while Paymaster of thei
Navy,," lay out or apply, or cause to be laid out or applied,
any of the money issued for carrying on the current service of
the Natty since the ist lan. 1786, tor your benefit or advan-
tag.: ? —A.. Frogs the manner in which Mr., Trotter kep t my
accounts, it is imposslble for me. to answer that question ;
and I objed to answer this question upon the ground 1 have
stated in answer to the first question. . -
Q. Did you direct or authorise him to do so ?-4. To :the
best of my recollection I never did.
Q Did yoki, between ist l:,t-i; 4786, and 31st Mtly, iBOO,
derive any
_profit or advantage-from the use or employmentot
money'isstred for carrying on the current service'of the Navy',
under toe Act 25th Geo. 111 cap. 3t ?—A. The same rea-
sons which induced me to make the answer 1 have to the,
first question, must induce mee, to repeat the saine answer
to this.
Q. Does your Lordship object to answer this question un-
der the provisions of the sth Seca of the, Act 43d Geo.ll I.
cap. 16-? —A. I do : and upon the grounds stated in the an-
Over to my first question.
Q During the time you acted as TreaSurer of the Navy,
between ist lan. t 786, and 31st May,lBoo was of any the mo-
ney applicable toNaval Services advanced by,you, or by your
diredion, for any other public service than that of the Navy ?
A. 1 decline to answer that question. under the ?envisions
of the eth'Sec. of the Act 43d Geo. M. cap. 16.
Mr. Dodd, a Clerk in .MotEnt's house, proved that a bill on
the d,nnl Auvocate of Scutlatut for toool, was paid on the 22d
N0v.1782; and Mr. Scott was called in again to prove from
another entry, that it was paid by the Bank-note K. No. 12,
beeel. 24th Oelober.
Mr. Geo. Fennel produced the Certificate books from the
Navy Pay-office, and Stated that the balance in the 'T'reasu-
rer's hands, on the 3 Dtit April, 1783, Was 42,2011. 7s. led.
under the head of Navy—Pay or Wages 37,8561. and Valuat-
ing 935 iI. 4s. 4d. Total 89,4081: 525. 3d.
Read the following entries train the Banking-book ;
1783,
,April 29, By Ballince to new accOunt,• 66,4081. 12S.
3d.

-' June 2ith, Bank-note roo,l.
Mr. Henry Callendar proved a draft as follows " Messrs.
Smith, rayne; and Smith, pay to the Lord Advocate or bearer
Five Thousand Pounds, For N 11; k E and Co.
JOHN DICKSON.
John Hayne, a Clerk of Smith, Payne, and Smith, paid the
above draft, but the entry of the notes in which it was paid
was not of his hand-writing;, and•could not lie read.
Read the following entry from the Banking-book :
" Oki account, Right lion. H. •Dundas, Bank 178 z. -
1783. July 2. Bank Note-(Clifford), '5OOOl. A witness
proved that the-entry was made by Clitiord,whois since dead.
July 12, 1733.-=Ditto Clifford, t 4 01.
July t, (1. e. Bank Notes), 60001."
Mr. H. Callendar then proved another draft for 60701.
dated 1 ith Julys, drawn by. More and Atkinson on Smith.
Payne., and Smith, in favour of the,l-ton. EI. Oundas ; and
Mr. Daniel Dyke Edgar, a Clerk in the house, proved, that
he paid it i;.; Bank Notes, four of which, for wool. each, he
could speak to, viz. 13. z6t ; B. 26z; ,B. 263 ; B. 264.
There was no 265 ; and B. 267, by mistake was entered
B. 276. - •
Mr. H. Callendar %Ill§ then called again, and- proved ano-
ther draft, dated 31St July, 1783, drawn On Smith, Payne,
and Smith, by Dixon, for More and Co. in favour of "r.
Dundas for zoool.
Mr. John George Payne, a Clerk of Smith and Co. stated,
that looking,at the wastebook-of the house, it appeared, that
this draft tor zoool. was on only of a sum of 40001. He
then stated the;Bank•Notes whieh he paid for-both drafts ;
but he could not say which Notes were for each specific draft.
Being shewri some Notes, lie said, thq corresponded in
number and sum with the entry of the Notes paid on that day
for the aggregate 40001. He had no recollection of the trans-
_a6tion but front the books.

SATUOAY, MAY PAY.
Edgar,
.a Clerk of Smith, Payne, and Smith, proved, that
60001. in Bank Notes, No. z 6:, 2,3, 4,6, 7, for roost. each,
was paid to More and Cer. •
A variety of draft,; upon the House of More and Atkinson
were then put in and read. The rest of the day was occupied
in the examination of a variety of bopks, to prove the balances
in the Treasurerqbands at different periods while he was in
office. •

MC:NDAY, MAY S.—STXTH DAY.
Continued Evidence.upon the State of the Balances.
Mr Whitbread then declared, he again begged leave toile..
-pdse upon oath, that he lie.ird.Lord Melville say, with legard
to =other sum of ;00)001. he-would not reveal the applica-
tina if it, being restrained by motivp of puhlic/Outy, prtv4tr
honour, vad per6onal c6nveuietke.
, -

On cross-examination by Lord I‘l2.l.ville's Counsel, -he
stated the same as on Saturday.
A Pdwer of Attorney from Lord Melville to Mr. Alexander
Trotter, was put inquid read.
The mutual release between Lord Melville and Mr. Trot-
ter,• in Nvilich was a clause for destroyitig all vouchers, was
put iti-and read, dated 18th and 23d Feb. tBo3.
'.L\lll,. TROTTER'S EVIDECE.—Mt. Alexander Trot-.
ter was then called in.—He stated, that he entered-
the Navy Pay Office iu the year 177.6, Tas a.Clerk,
upon a salary of 501. a year, and continued a Clerk
until the year 1784. He 'wag appointed nirmaster
by Lord Melville, at a salary originally of 5001. per
anuutn, .subje& 'to deduelions. He then recei‘edf
the Books ; and the balances, he was told, were at
the Bank, and in the hands -of Sub-accountants,
except 10,0001,. due from Lord Melville, which sum
his Lordship said he §hould account fig. He did not
say how it was employed; but he stated fur the Pub
lie, and on which probably;some los'S ,might
The Money was in the Bank of- England until' he'
persuaded .Lord. Melville to let him remove part of -
the balances to a private Banker (Cou'tts and Co.).
He drew all his drafts, as he believed, according to
the form"ofthe Ad of Parliatnent. •

Q. I-lad you at the same time money so drawn in
the hands of other persOns besides Messrs.Coutts?—
.A. I had,:

Q. Had you any with Mr. Sprott ?—A. I had.
Q. With Mr. Montague Lind ?—A. Mr. Lind, as
a friend, used to assist tue in negociating bitiness:
Q. Had you any in the hands Of any House of
'credit and repute in Edinburgh I had.
Q. Had you ever Governitnent Security ; such as
Vietualling, 'Navy, and,Tramport Bills, purchased
with such money I—A. I had.
Q. And Exchequer BiliS I—Ai Yes, I had.
Q. Did you ever discount the. Bills of private in-
dividuals with such money 1-•-7-A. I do not recolle&
having transaaled such business myself,hut my friend
Liud, and other's whom I have'employed, hare.
He added, that he had. also employed Agents to
discount the Bills-of individuals with the Public Mo-
ney; and Mr. Thomas Wilson, of the Pay Office,
had his instructions to employ the Public Money in
the same manner when he was absent.

Q: Did you a&ually make profit of 'the Public.
Money ,so placed in varions, hands in the manner
you have now stated F—A. I did ; I never meant to
conceal •

Mr. Trotter went on to state, that though not for-
mally appointed as private Agent to Lord Melville,
yet he at :led as such, and received his pay as Trea-
surer of the Navy, the rents of his estates in Scot-
land, and other sums. He kept an account between
himself and Lord Melville in a small book, of which
Lord Melville was frequently furnished with a copy.
The first item of debit In that account, according to
the best of his recolleaion, was a sum of 40001. fur-.
niched his Lordship in the year 1782. For that sum
be took 'A bond, 'but not interest. The fund which
furnished this 40001. was the..public tnoney in the
witness's hands which he knew was not likely to be
soon called for. The title of the account where this
was entered was, g‘ Account current.- In this ac-
count he also gave Lord. Melville credit for all the
sums he received on his,account. In the year 1792
dire&ed a purchase of 20001. India Stock to be
made for Lord Melville. He' paid for this Stock with
money which he had in Coutts's hands, iind which
he had previously drawn from the Bank. The divi-
dends of this Stock, he believed, were carried to the
credit of Lord Melville.

About the 1797, 10,0001. Lhyalty Loan was sub-
scribed for in the name of, Lord Melvilie—the pay-.
meats were made by Coutts's house, and he repaid
Coutts from his mixed fund of public and private
money. • The dividends of that Loan were carried to
the. credit of Lord• Melville's account. 'fie' algo di-
retied 70001. 3 per cents to be purchased
.for Lord
Melville, and the dividends were carried to the cre-
dit of his account. He never 'charged interest, nor
did he give it to Lord Melville when the balance was
in his favour. He had frequently paid sums to in-,
dividuals for Lord Melville ; and papers being put
into Jhis hand to refresh his Memory, he gave the
following instances : July 18, 1787, fOOOl. to the
account of Mr. Wm. Forbps, and Co. Edinburgh
37741. to Mansfield, Ramsay, and Co.—The general
account current was brought to a settlement in. May,
1800:

Besides the Aiccount current the .Witness said he
kept another account with Lord Melville, called the
" Chest account ;" the first- item of which account
was the 10,0001. which Lord• Melville said he would
account for; at the witness's first coming into office.
The 10,0001. Loyalty Loan was 'afterwards trans-
ferred to this Chest account; Th 9 account was de-.
livered- to Lord 'Melville I.oith a charge. upon the
Chest account; but he never said any thing about it
fa& he did not know that his , Lordship ever
looked into it. This Chest account, as Well as the
other, was settled when Lord Melville left office,
and all the balances dtie, both to him individually
and to the Public, were paid off.

Q. Did you give direCtions in or about the year
1789 or 1790 tbr the purchaSe of another sum of
East India Stock for the benefit of Lord Melville ?
—A. I will state the transaction as far as my -meal-.
leClion enables ine-: It. was in eotisequence Of. it
conversation I had with his Lordship, in which he
stated the probable, rise of EaSt India Stock, and I
observed to his Lordship that if be was impressed
with so good an opinion of that Stock, I thought,
in consideration -of his own interest, he ought to
invest a sum of Money'. in it. His Lordship's ob-
servation seemed to throw it aside, by saying be had
no Money to invest-in Stock. I had mentioned to
his Lordship that there were considerable "balanceS
lying at all times in my hands that were not called
for, and I advised his Lordship to give me leave to
lay out so much as would purchase 13,0001. or
14,0001. Eactindia Stock ; but his Lordship refused
in the most positive manner, insomuch that I feared
I had incurred his Lordship's displeasure in propos-
ing it. Bui it occurred to me, at the same' time,
that it. won't be possible to borrow a sum of money
upon" the seiurity of that Stock, and I proposed to
his Lordshipthff I should endeavour to do so, and
lay out that noney in the purchase of East India
Stock ;' to Yhich his Lordship readily assented ; I
mentioned tilt .1 then lived with a relation of my
own, who ws a man of considerable importance in
the City, and that he would he enabled to raise this
stun for me. In short I made it an,easy matter t 9
his Lordship But when I applied to Mr. Lind,
the Gentlema to whom I alluded; I. found that r
Was deceived' and that it was not an easy matter to
raise money- 'ion, that security. But I was unwil-
' ling to dir.ppiot his Lordship in *hat I had told;

him I i;ould effea, and I never. acquainted hi-s Lord-
ship with, the difliculty that had arisen; bUt I asSist-
-ed'Mr, Lind ,by advances. from the public Money
whiCh I had the management of. • I never had oc-
casion afterwards to mention the circumstance to
'Lord Mel Ville until April last year, and he was per-
fedly unacquainted with my having, made use o f
the public money in that transaaion, and I chargd
his Lordship
,a regular interest fbr the whole Of the
money which I advanced, from the first day it was
_advanced until the final settlement of our 'accounts,
The sum thus advanced the witness stated to be
about 23,0001. which was reduced by a payment Of
30001. and at their final settlement 20,0001. was to
pay off the remainder of the purchase money, and
80001. 'increased value went in diminution of his
Account current with the Defendant. The witness
added, that he was under no -restriaion in
.the'
amount of his drawing from the Bank, but that the
:whole of the public money was in his management.
He continued in. office two years after Lord Melville
retired. Mr. Bathurst, who, shortly after succeeded,
put an end-tO the keeping the money at a private
Banker.. The book in which he kept the Chest ac-
count and the Account current,,he stated to be de-
stroyed, lA4OI all other books and vouchers relatiVe to
the transactions between the witness and Lord-Mel-
,ville. Judging from the books of Coutts and CO:
he apprehended that it was throUgh their medium
that the 2 0 ,00 01 . India Stock was purchased, as
well, as the 70001.3 per cent. BeduCed, and he be - •
lieved that Mr. Philip Antrobns, was the broker Con
cemed for that house.
Caoss'-EN.ANnNED-Q.. Whether Lord Melvipe
,did not in the cohversafion abOut the 10,000.1. which
he was debtor, say that it was not applied to any use
or emolument of his own, but for a public purpose;.
on which there might be a loSs•?.----.A.. I do not, re
collea it so much as to say he'direetly stated it was ,
for publicipurposes ; but it isu very distant period,
and it is not impossible he did.
Q. Have you' the least recolleaion that Lord Mel-
ville acknowledged he applied 'it to any purposes of
private benefit-to himself ?—A, None. The witness
•again stated, that the whole management of the Pay- •
master's Office was always left to the PaYrnaster, and
the whole management of the Public Money was •
left to the witness while he was. Paymaster. '
A. You stated that permission was given by Lord
Melville to draw money from the Bank of Englaind
to Contt'S Bank, wlp-Sther the only reason repre-,
sented -by Val to Lord Melville for that measure was
not to facilitate official convenience ?—A. Entirely
so ; ',always stated so.,—the convenience that would
arise, and the greater security of the money. The
witness then stated the-greater security and conveni-
ence—the Navy Office was about that time removed
from Broad;street to Somerset House, and, they
were obliged to send common Messengers to bring
large sums of money froth. /the -Bank. No other
reason Was ever mentioned to Lord Melville. With
respect to Lord Melville's private accounts, although
he gave .him copies yet he was Siire Lord Melville
never looked into them, for he could never draw
him to a consideration of his Own private accounts.
That, he never took any voucher or document when
he paid iYione(y, nor required tiny when he was told
that money had been paid upon his :iccounf. , But
with respea to public accounts, he always attended,
to any representation upon that subjea. With re-
sped to the bond for 40001. he 'had lie recolleakin
whether on the face Of it it purported to be:without
interest.

Q..l2he first purchase you , Speak to. was 40001,
. East India Stoc)k whether, after the documents you
have seen, you have now any memory or recollec-
tion upon the subjed ?-=--A. 1, recoiled tienerally.
that Lord Melville
n 4144, cited to be possessed of a fur-
ther qUalification cit ;',East India Stock,/ and begged
-me to procure it for' hien 1 but whether he told me
he would immediately repay rue the money I do not
immediately recoiled; ,
Q. Whether
,upon that oceasiop, or any other,
Lord Melville ever direded You`to lay out any part
of the PUblie Money for the use and benefit of Lord
Melville He never did, under' the specitic.
name of PUblic Money, or. any money bearing that,
description. ,
,Q. Is there any instance in which, prior to the
purchase of'any Stock, it was mentioned- to Lord.
Melville, by you, that it was intended to be purchased
out of the Public ,Money, except in the instance'-of.
the purchase of East India'Stvek,?—A. Never,: to.
the best of my recoll4dion.
Q. Are you to be understood.to state, that in the
only instance when the proposal was mad 6, it was
indignantly rejected ?---A. I mean so to be under-
stood, with respea to the instalments. upon the Loy-
alty Loan, that he satisfied them without consulting
Lord Melville, and that he had securities of Lord
Melville sufficientto cover the advances, With re-,
sped to the purchase of -the 70001. 3 per cent;
reduced, the witness stated that he made it in the
general management of Lord Melville's atThirs. He
believed a sum of money had come to his hand at
',that time for his Lordship, and he thought it vas,
proper to invest it in some manner to prodUce inte-
rest to his Lordship. No precise coamikinication
Was ever Made his—Lordship, but the witness
probably mentioned It when he presented the ac-
count,to him. As to whether in the transaaionof
the purchase of the Lastt-India Stuck, he mentioned
his relation's name? He said be mentioned Mr. Mon-
tague Lind, and. Lord Melville never kneW that any
other person had advanced the Money. For some
years Lord Melville was a loser, as the interest of
the'pnrehase money exceeded the dividends. Lord
Melville bad no reason Whatever to know that it was
purchased with the Public Money. The witness
could only speak to the advances to Forbes and Co.
and Mansfield and Co. frOrn the entries in his Banker's
'book, and not from any recolleCtion,
Q. You have said as to the use of the Public Mo-
ney removed from the Bank-to Messrs. Coutts, that
-it was for your own benefit Certainly, I made
use- of that part which I found was not likely to be
, claimed !Or my own ptofits.
Q, In what mode was -that made -Te of
Generally by lending it at interest ;'at other times by.
investing i,t in Navy and Exchequer Bills, or other.
Government Securities.

Q. Were the whole profit and emolument derived
from that nodc.., of laying out money which you have
described.eptirely your own ?—.IL Entirely.
• Q. Was anyintimation or knoWledge ever corn,
municated to Lord Melville of the Public Money
lidving.been-so used ?--A. I never mi-fde any such
communication to Lord Melville. 'The witness, in
subevett answers~, stated, tia4t, dutin,. the hub

, Lord Meh i4e, was-, in Ofice,, r2O pnsed
turough his hands, :while these -transailions were
going on, and that the Public Service never. suffered
the least loss, `disadvantage, -or interruption,' in On..
sequence of these tt'ansaetiorts ; and that nothing
occurred which. might lead ihe, attention of Lord
11/./eiville to these natters. The release, he stated,
was prepared and executed by him in Loni.lon, The
clause-for destroying vouchers was suggested by him-
self, and not by Lord Mel Ville. That the mode of
Mixing ptiblic an4rivate money in- his accounts
was without the knowledge of Lord Melville, as was
also all his dealings with Mr: Mark Sprott. The
amount .of the balances-'did not depend either tipod
Lord Melville or himself, as the money was issued
At the ENchequer in consequence of memorials from
the Board,_.which balance in the Prisoner's hands
was stated every fortnight in an aaount transmitted
to-the .Board. ,