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

o,rt.
111 count

SIXTH DAY, MONDAY, MAY s.

Mr. Fennel was called upon to Hate the balancer,
in the, three branches. d Navy, Pay, and Viet:oi-
-1 ling ; by all which, oi-st comparifon with the Bank
Check Book, on the ;oda •ot September, 1785, the
'previous Ilatement wa, confirmed. that the Defen-
dant was debtor, as Treafiver of the Navy, on the
old account, ibool. and on the new acclunt, goool.
Or that day the balance in the Bank wai.lioBl. tas.3d.
Mr. Drummond's Clerk was recalled, to thew the
various payments into that huufe, explanatory of the
ci,incidence contended for by the tlon. Managers,
between the receipts from the public account,, and
the payments into the private bankers of the Defen-
dant.

Mr. Archibald Douglas again appeared, to depots
to the balance which he, as ailing Executor to his
Father, paid to the Treafurer (fate Navy, antoullt-
idg to 44:51. 41. sod. and a receipt was produced,
(toed .by the Defendant, for that amount. The
Watnefs laid, no farther claims were made on that
account.

Mr. Whitbread, one of the Manasers for the Cmit-
mons, then faid-1 again offer mylelt as a witnekoi
your Lordthipt, and 1 (wear, that on the a tilt cf.
June, t 805, I heard Litrd Melville decline, wi:h te-
te:cue to another Lunt of IC.OOO. than th3t &nd-
ing itsbich I depofeJ on the other day, that /.e
a Subfetparte time to the time at which he pc:kilcd
hunlelf of the &It I n,•frefs Ii;.,11..11 of ar.•:;:er
fum, neArly to a 1:::•. • ; •:.•: ; .! I 13,:dcifj,c,j,
ii; it.ibitait.e, ;kit ; • civet he would
rot tev..tl the .:14C .411), itWIC
f: 1- CM 4: • motive.
11.1 I ;:r• C

L!.g I N

.~;

r.':cr u•itr.::t

is ;)rc:111:1:t.'

!.111:Iger, upon this
;:;.0 "..y mote ..:.11i I; L, At tha
or iu vistLug vi *hat

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•
Eropriation of that fum, the fame as of the other, 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 skltogaher 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.

pp