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

FIFTE ENTII DAY, SATURDAY, MAY 17.

Mr. WHITEREAD resumed his, Speech. commented
at length-on the co; fession of the Noble Lord respecting the
application of to,ooal. to purposes which he avowed he
would not-disclose.• He then adverted to the demeanour of
Mr. Trotter in giving his evidence, and insisted that from his
manner as much was to be inferred as from the plainest tes-
timony. He argued from the 4th and sth clauses of the Act
of 1716, and contended that they were notoriously violated
byahe Noble Defendant.. With respect to the want of care
in the Noble.Deieodant in exarnintng his accounts, it did
not appear that•such was ,4is character by his subsequent
conduct. He had had .the caution to insert an unusual clause
in a release for:tne destruction of all vouchers, and he had
not neglected to perform- that agreement. What would the
Noble Lord have said when in office to any of his inferior
agents, if he liad_come to him with such excuses as the Noble
Lord now offered to the Court un behalf of himself? With
regard to the re,t,oval of the money from • the Bank to
Coutts's, it 'was argued that the Noble Defendant had dOne
it for reasons- of official convenience, when the Pay-office
was removed from Broad-street to Somerset-house. But in,
fact, it was in 1784 that theunoney was removed to Coufts's,
and the Office was not removed until the year 1787 the
fal-
sity of that pretence was therefore most evident. The Hon.
Manager next adverted to the refuge taken by the Noble Lard
under the sth clause, in refusing to answer the Commis-
sionerSof Inquiry. He considered this as strongly indicative
of what were the Noble. Lord's feelings. He fled td the sth
Clause, anftxclanned in the words of the Scotch Song,
" Throw yont auld cloak over me." If a conduct such
as the Noble Defendant's could be overlooked and escape
punishment, it would have the most baneful: -public influ-
ence. It was little matter comparatively how this case ended;
but the example was most terrific. No Public Accountant
hereafter heed dread any responsibility should the Defendant
stand acquitted ' He- then entered into a detail of the trans-
actions of tSao with mocli spirit, and observed, had not that
Loan been rtegotiated,'the Noble Lord would not probably
have been enabled to pay his balances, and the Public must
haVe suffered a loss. In adverting to the conversation stated
to have passed between Lord Melville and Trotter, he ob-
served, that though the latter would not recolelict any of the
conversation with precision, it was not to' be doubted but
that they-understood each other : there were many modes of
communicating ideas besides, by words. When our immOrtal
Bard represents King lohn as wishing--the death of his
Ne-
phew, Arthur, without daring to speak his wishes direct to
Hubert, he thus addresSes him—
" If that thou could'st see without eyes,
" Hear without thine ears, and make reply
" Without a tongue, using conceit alone—
• 1‘ Without eyes tears, and harnttul sound of words,
• " Then in despite of blooded watchful day,
" I would into thy bosom pour my thoughts."
Similar, most likely was Lord Melville's directions to
'Trotter respecting India Stock ;..but if any dipubt remained
as to this point, surely there could be none to those sums,
which the Noble Lord admitted he had applied, contrary to
the purposes of the Act. In conclusion, the Hon. Manager
adverted to the manner in which the Counsel had attempted
to defend their Client. Instead of attempting to rescue his
impeached honour, and
,rt.store his Character, they had only
;attempted to save him front punishinent. Oh ! miserable
'man, to be so defended, said the Hon., Manager. Every one
of the Charges which, the Managers have presented against
you have been completely substantiated. By your own
confession, you • have shesyn that vou have illegally
applied a large sum -of the Public Money, and for
that alone we are justified in seeking a verdict of con.'
demotion against you. You expressed your readiness
to swear that you did hot derive any profits atom
the public money, during the Paymastership of Douglas
and we have proved that you did. You have also declared
that you derived no ptofits during the Paymastership of Trot-
ter, and we have proved that you did. And what has been de-
posed by our evidence not'a single witness has been called on
your part to controvert. No; your Counsel have not ventured
to repel it. _Their strength has been to secure a retreat. We
attacked them in theiriortresses..-" We pursued them in-their
flight tor refuge—first to the bastion, and next to the citadel;
where, being unable to -make a stand, they endeavoured to
carry otr the body of their. Client—but in this too, it' will
be seen that they have failed.' They have not -fought but
fled. We, however, have overtaken and conquered, and we
• claim from your Lordships the just reward of our success—a
Yerdietagaihst the Noble Defendant.
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked the Learned Counsel for
the Defendant, if they wished to say any thing upon- the
cases quoted by the A ttorney-G eneral —M r, P tom Ea. mere-
ly observed, that he thought the case of Brembridge and
•Poarl,l did not apply.---The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated,
that' he quoted the case. for the principle it established,
which, he insisted, was analogous to the present case.
The Court then adjourned to the Chamber of Parliament.