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

TWELFTH DA -MAYI4...

Mr. .litom E a resu efed. —lt was eharged;lie'saki, that Lord
Melville had appointed Trotter his Paymaster
.ilit7zto, with
a view taa system of corruptiour.wincli.eolitinuen for four..
teen /years. The principal, tralisanztion..4 oil which -these
charges rested mere, the purchase ut i4,0a0l India Stuck for
' Lord Melville, a' subsequent purchase of India Smelt to a
smaller amount, a subscriptuin ut ten thousand Juhounds to the
Loyalty Loan, and a purchase ,of sevch`thousand -pouuds
in the three per Cents. all of which were;.saitt to be curator*
done.' che tact was, that Mr. Tr.arter was recontinetided td
. Lord Melville's notice. by his good conduct in a subordinate
office, and the-I/serial regulations had suggested. The
• Hon. Manager who !fad opened the c4se tor the pro.iceattion,
admitted Mr. Trutteei former good cohdatt, •and recant,
- mended him as worthy of the full and perfect confidence of
their Lordships. The_ Manager had hati great :niter.
course. with Trotter, in die course of the investigaiiott
committed to him by tree House-of Commons, preparatory
to this Trial was, theretore, twit the satisfaction Mr.
-Trotter had givali hiht on this perfect knowledge, that the •
Hon.. Manager reconimended Inn! to credit. The evident:cot* •
.Mr. Trotter WAS of sitchamportanee in the eyes 'of the l'ro.
•secutors, that ail Act of Indemnity Was passed inistrediately
tot him, and he had, giVen rise to the agitation of an.:
other. 1 t was stated, that the pi iocipat tiansaelions robe
adduced in evident, of Lord ' Mel vilte's guilt .were kniawn,
only to Lord Melville and Mr. Trotter. Mr. Trotter was
brought forwardte convict Ltd Melville,' wan vie boot! of •
itateinnity• held out to MM. Every motive of interest Opera-
,ed, therefore, to incline the weight ut his evidence against
Lord Melville rather than in his favOur, He, hasltis own
indemnity to establish, which was not mu u, grained less he
gave a.. full, fair, stud s.tir.faCtory evicleoce ; and every *One
knew how these wordS wouiit • be,. interprettd by the pro-
secutors I He had a powerful 'Manager, -whose he had
to &can, unless he shotrid give evideiice tuiry sati;l4ctory td
him. He had on the min r side nothing to expect by t4vOur.:
in;; the Noble De:ertan," !inhibit-A and reduced. ~s lie litlO
- was, and. he could earn his indemnity only by ato I i sliscicsore
of all he knew respecting: the points laid to his charge, What
was the ellee.t of Mr. Trotter's...evidence unde'r these circuit],
stances it went not only to exonerate Lord ,Melville, but to
take the w holecriminality uponliimsel I W hats
lation of crime did he here take upon bus own [lead; ai d could
he haVe given such au evidence under such circumstances,
inChliced by such interests anti compellel by such terrors, nil-
less the obligation of truth, the first c.bligatichrof the law amid
the satest defence of the winless, had renueren it inch:pen.: •
sible t. Nir..Trotter distinctly avowed that tne whole ..jsieut -
and the whole profits were exclosivek his own; ttizir Lord
Melville; shared none of the profits; tliat lie knew nothing or
the system. Mr. I:totters evidence confined Lord Mil:
- ville's denial, not only by declaring that Lord Melvilie was
Wholly inraocent, but that 'he In/itself was the sole
criuunsl—
Me, rne;:atisuiti qui feel in Incconvertita furuin
Nitta late nec auses nec ootuit
In 1783 'Lord Melville held'the office of Lori of the Boafd of •
Controul, in conjunction with the olfice:of Treasurer of the
Navy, but without a salary, as- he received a salary: liar the
latter appointment. .In 1791, when theuxertioit of a vigor- _
ous mind was required to resist the bahettil influence of the
French Revolution, His Majesty appointed'. Lord
Secretary of State 4-n. the Home Departin nt. In 1794 ice
was appointed, munch against his iirclination, Secretary rOr
the War Department. All these offices he had filled without
any salary but
.witat he received as Treasurer at the Navy.—
It had. been proved that, during 14 years, the total piuiits
he' could by any pdssibility have derived. from the use of
the public-money could not have exceeded 22;000l. ; yet
this same corrupt, man had voluntarily relinquished in the
salaries. of the- offices he had thus gratuitoosly filled, ac-
cording to the Report of the Committee of Public Accounts,
719331. as Secretary of State for the Home. DepartMent, And :n
the other Departments, to the amount ot ; makiog
- a total of 34,2.661, &c. &c.." 1. his was nut evidence of a con u pt
money-catching mind, grasping all within its reach,•without
any regard to honoitr or character. It 'was inconriprehelism_
bit: that 'a -person voluntarily relinquishing .eitioluments
which he might have enjoyed- with nit.btamc, should, at the
risk of disgrace on a discovery, which was almost inevitable,
knowingly antli:r the public money to be abused, for the corl-
sideratiortot.a casual and comparatively trifling benefit from
that abuse. That would have been certainly the most

extra Ordinary union of, generosity and ot,' avarice. that
ever had' occurred In.-the history of human oat
From the immense suins'ot the public money' that had,
pd'ssed througu Lord Melville's hands, while in the office.
of. rreasbrer of the' Navy, amounting to no les, than co
millions, there could be no question, but that he could tile,:
appropriated to himself a proportion tar bqoud the sum;
.mentioned in the:charge, without.thit possibility of detect:,,,,,
if he .had been disposed so to do.' Mt. Trotter had rick la e,1,•
that even he himself had no idea of emolument trout placing
the momy at Coutts's, when he first had taken that step
witha viewto the convenience of the service. It foitOWed,
of course, that either -Tratter must be disbelieVed, atter
the -high panegyric passed. upon -him by thg Flonothable
Manaser who 'opened . the 'proceedings, or Lord Melville
•ntust be &elated innocent of this, charge.
,No pattiai
distinction could be tnide, believing Tro'fter in some ponds,
acid disbeiicving hun in' others, according:, as -it may 'Suit
the views of ptoseentors. tie must oe altogether be-
liev'ed or' altOgether disbelieved. If he • Was.. aito,gether
behev:td, Lord Melvilre's- inimence was established on
the matin ptitats charge,tapinSt. hiM; if he altogether
di3beikeideo, the main,pill'ar cf his accusation was tar.ea away,-
and the :superstructure Mutt necessarily fail to the ground.—.
.TrUiter having acted, under a general power, and drawn
the Money from the Bauk,atld plced it in the hands of Messrs.
Coutts, was Lord Melville to be condemned for the aet The

poWer given to I‘lr. Trotter was the regular power of the
office, and was. .'ocd Melville to be blamed for T'rotter's
;if?u:e of it ? Lord ,Alelville conceived, the ,money placed in
the hand.; of Coatis, never went beyond what was necessA,r)t,
for,snial,l payments; and that was °filo greater amount than
the assignments made out. lie :onceived that no profit was
male of it, unless perh4s.a Small percentage, such as was al-
towed for money lodge ll in the Hank ofScot land; With respeCl
to the purchase of•lneffa Stock, Mr. Trotter declatedi'that he
imsel suggested the tdca to Lord Mei vi I le, on the apparently
veey prosperous state iirintr alt:tirs in India at the tune ; that
Lord Mel villedechned, as not having money; that hejrotter,
then stated that it tnimtit be done with tne' Naval money, a
suiiicient amount ireing Always"in his pawls ; and that 'Lora
Mel Ville positively, and with strong indications clisplea-

sure, refused to allow that. Ttotter then said- he would find
the money to make the purchase, which could be re-paid by
money borrowed on the credit of the stock. But the Hon.
and Learned Manager, who summed up, the evidence for this
Prosecattion,, contended, that Trotter's account of the trans-
adion was not AO be credited. Which or the two Ma-
nagers-. was. to be believed, the one who opened the Pro-
secution, by whom Trotter was represented as worthy of
the fullest credit, or .the Hon. and 'Learned Manager who
summed up, by whom-he was represented as, worthy of no
credit whatsoever. The Hon. Manager who summed up,
contended, that the account given of the stock porchased,
and the money subsequently raised upon it, was a -perfeet
_farce ; that no. man beyond the degree of an idiot could
think of 'lending money_ upon stock-so circumstanced.—
Yet that man, - that ideot, was found ; and who was the
man who was such an extreme driveller ? Why, it was that
foal Mark SPrott , The release and the dest ru Won of the papers
had been construed as evidence of- corrupt pradices, and
a design to destroy the evidence of the existence .of these
pradiees, This argument might pOssibly have some weight,
if the papers destroyed were of a public nature ; but it did-
not appear that they were. On the contrary, they were of a
nature merely private; and was it to be argued, that because
two individuals held situations of public trust, -they were
never to settle their private accounts; nor-to adopt th:ose mea-
sures of mutual acquittance and security against future
claims which were usual in all accounts ? It had been,
beSides, proved, that Lord_ Melville had been in the -habit
of "destroying his -private papers when he had settled
the affairs to which they related. As to the release, it
had been prepared by a most respeaable Solicitor, with-
out the knowledge of Lord Melville, and because it con-
tained a clause of obligation to give up and destroy all prior
papers of account and dealing, it was arped that it was in-
tended to conceal transadions of a crtininal nature. But
every one must' be aware, that Artafead of conceuling, this
would have been the most efiedaial Mode of discovering tranS-
adions of such a nature, if any,stich there- were.' It would
not be necessary to trouble their. Lordships with any details
of evidence for the defence, because the evidence adduced for•
the Prosecution made entirely tor the defence. 1 t had been
said by the Honourable and' Learned Manager (Sir S. Ro-
milly), that while Lord- Melville's private affairs pros-
pered und-r his negktd, the. public aftiirs were ruined
by his. care. But very few. of their Lordships would, he
was sure. be of that opinion. On the contrary, it would
be almost universally acknowledged,, that thelaublic:service
had benefited most materially by, the exertion of Lord Mel-
ville's talents. The Hon. Manager who opened the'prose-:
cution, had justly complimented Lord Melville on the
services he hadrelidered when Treasurer of the .N avy:- The
Honourable Manager had acknowledged that the regulations
established by Lord tblclville, with respect to seamen's wills,
aNere 'most essential to the preservation of their property
to their widows and orphans, and justly entitled the Noble
Lord to the eternal gratitude ,ot that class of men on
whom the_ glory and the safety of the totintry so much
depended ; and yet this was' the man in whose hands
the °their Hon. Manager,. in summing up, stated, that the
public affairs had withered and gone to ruin. He trusted,
that on the consideration of the whole of the evidence for the
prosecution, which made chiefly, it not wholly, in favour of
L'ordANlvil le, their Lordships would see no proof of crimi-
nal of-Corrupt inttattioil in the Noble Lord ; and that what-
ever negligence-may be chargeable upop him, would appear
to their Lr,nishiaas abundantly punished, without any further
aggravation of his- sufferings, if indeed it would be competent
to their Lordships to inflict any. You are now, my Lords, said
Mr. P tomer, charged with a duty of the highest and most awful
nature. You stand in the situation of the highestitribunal the
world contains, the highest of which' the human mind can
form an idea, except that one higher and .more awful one, be-
fore which you will yourselves be judged for the judgment
you will give in, this case. You sit in judgment on a person
of exalted rank, whose chari&&er, at the close of a long life
spent in the service of his country, depends wholly ou your
judgment. I have nothing further to add, than that this
Court is the tribunal to which he has resorted for that pure,
impartial jui,tiee, which he could "nit obtain elsewhere, and
for which lie relies with confidence on your Lordships' ho-
nour.

THIRTEENTH DA Y -.THURSDAY, MAY 75.

A short examination of Witnesses took place to prove the
relinquishment of his salary 'by -the Noble Defendant whilst
Secretaorof State for the Home Department, and atrerwards
whilst Secretary of, State for the War and Colonial Depart-
ment, as stared by the Learn,...tl Counsel.
Mr. Ao A M then addrested the Court at considerable length
in behalf of Lord Melville. The condu4of that Noble Lord,
from the earliest period of life, had, he said, completely
evinced that he was tree froiu the slightest taint of avarice,
and rendered any use of public money on his pat 4, for the
purposes of private gain, in the highest.degree improbable. The
Learned Counsel went over the same grounds as those taken by.
Mr. P coat e e, contending for a similar construction on the At
ofParliament,and maintaining that the charges tvere complete_
ly disproved by the evidencebrought to support them. The si-
lence of Lorl 'Melville, and' the silence of NI r. Trotter, had, he
said, been the cause of this prosecution; but now that the trans-
actions in which the former was supposed to be concerned
were explained, he trusted that the innocence of the former
would be considered by their Lordships as fully established,
and his acquittal be the result of their Lordships' deliber-
ations,
After Mr. ADAM had concluded, the Court adjourtted to
the next day, Friday. •

FOURTEENTH DAY—FRIDAY, MAY 15.
The ATTORNEY-G ENER t.L begged. their Lordships' at-
tention to two points, to which the observations of the
Learned Counsel on the other side had been principally di-
rected. Those points were, with regard to the construc-
tion of the Statute and Common Law, as applying to the
Charges against the Noble Defendant; without referring to the
Reports of the Commissners or xam4ig Public Ac-
counts, or the 14esolutionio s off thee House of Commons
grounded upon those Reports, or to the professed object of
the Statute of 25 Geo. 111. he might appeal to all those
who bait been Treasurers of the Navy since its enactment,
with the eeception of the Noble Defendant, and indeed to
corninon sense itself, against the construction of the Learned
Counsel on the other side. What, -could it be contended,
that the object of the Act WAS accomplished the moment
the money• was put into
_the Bank, and that it might be
drawn frost theme the moment afterwards, and applied to
' private purposes ? " Ott unwise, improvident Legislature,was
this the only security devised for the Public Money !" But
that such was not the object of the Law was evident frOm
the interpretation- which it received from the Treasurers,
who did not conceive it sufficient to draw money from the
Exchequer, place it in the Bank,-and draw it out again im-
mediately. The purpose of the Statute was, that the Pub-
lic Money should not remain in the hands of Sub-Ac-
countants. And if such delinquency as that with which the
Defendant stood charged had occurred prior to the Statute,
there was no doubt that the Attorney-General might have
tiled an information against the delinquent., Lord Kenyon,
when Attorney-General, did file an information against a
Paymaster of the Navy ; and the conduct of that Paymaster
in using the -Public Balances was tolerated only on the
ground tiler Ms salary was inadequate to the duties. Lords
North, and other Public Accountants, saw the mis-
chiefs resulting from such a practice, and forwarded those
measures which led so bringing in the Bill in 170. The
Learned Counsel on the other side had stated, that the- Re-
solutions of the House of Commons were to be considered
as nothing; but His Majesty gave effect to these Resolu-
tions by new Modelling the Navy Office; and it could not
be doubted that Ilk Majesty had power to prescribe the
duty of his office, and that it was criminal fur them to vio-
late the prescrioed line. The Noble Defendant, by accepting
the office,of Treasuier of the Navy, with an increased salary
in lieu of all fees and perquisities, bound himself to follow
the rules prescribed; and it was preposterous to say that he
was not guilty of a misdemeanor it he violated them. It had
been hinted that no criminal information could at Common
Law be tiled against a Public Accountant ; but it had been
only hinted, for it was too„absurd seriously to argue. It
waS not true that a public defaulter stood in the same situa-
tion as a private defaulter. A public defaulter was liable to
criminal prosecution for breach of duty, as well as to. pro-
cess from the Exchequer for his default. And it was clear
Law, that when no express punishment was provided' by
Statute tot violation of public duty, it was punishable at
Common Law as a misdemeanor, particularly when the of-
fence related to the Public ReVenue ; if the doctrine of the
Learned Counsel on the other side could hold, a Public Ac-
countant would scarce be under. any restraint. But, in
truth, theme did exiA an Act of Parliament, which, what-
ever construction might be put upon it, certainly meant to
protect the public: interest, and guard the public Money I I
so, can any rational man for a moment believe, that that Act
was satisfied by carrying the money from the Exchequer to
the sank, and letting it remain there but tnr a moineot ? In
short, the 4th and ith clauses of the Act evinced the absur-
dity of this argument; thr by them it was expressly stated,
that the money should not be drawn out but fur public ser-

LON DON : Printed try RICHARD RRS, of No. 4, Martlett-court, Bow-street; I,..ibbsbed b} WILLIAM AR MIGIR Sca'ir st, of South Molton-street, Grosvenor-square
At the SUN-.ATICE. No. 1 Strand where Advirtisiments Orders for the Paper, Letters f6r the .Ediior, &c. (tort-paid), must be addregged.