451] POLITICAL REGISTER.-Lord Melville. pretext and after-thought) could support all Trotter's extravagance. Lord Melville must have conceived that all was produced by a miracle, if he now speaks truth.--To a person of the disposition, and in the circumnstances I have mentioned, the office of -Treasurer of the Navy, as formerly administered, was most desirable and convenient, as it gave the command of money; which, I - believe, he made little other use of, at first, than supplying his temporary necessities-a systematical traffic in money is foreign to his temper and habits. The reform in the conduct of the public offices introduced by Mr. Burke, could not be resisted, and Mr. Dundas assumed the merit of extending it to the Navy Office, consoled for the loss and inconveniency he was thereby to sustain for a time, by the increase of his salary. Mr. Trotter was appointed Paymaster, and a plan to counteract the intentions of the legislature was adopted, which I firmly believe was suggested by him, and as firmly that, in the outline at least, it was approved of by his patron. It has been solemnly asserted by Trotter and his friends, that there was no partnership between Lord Melville and him, no sharing of the profits made; and, I am in clined to give them credit that his lordship neither stipulated for, nor received a specific share. That he did not examine strictly into the detail of the business, or the amount of the profits, I can readily believe, but I have not the least doubt, that he saw an advantage to himself from the plan, and meant to share, in his own way, and actually did. Mr. Trotter became his bank of resource, and began the joint trade by relieving his principal from a pressing embarrassment. Perhaps Lord Melville, at first, only intended to take that temporary accommodation which he had been accustomed to before the act passed; but Trotter soon came to be able to afford large sums out of his profits, and they were given and taken without scruple. All this was perfectly in character.The act of parliament against using the public money, in any shape, for private emolument, could be mistaken by none. have been bad in any one to transgress it, It would but for the man who made the law, and took merit from making it, to transgress it instantly, and go on for a course of years in systematical transgression, whether for his vn emolument, or for that of his deputy, was dishonourable and inexcusable. Nor A does the blame consist merely in transgressing the act. Lord Melville stood by and saw Trotter's salary subsequently augmented from five to eight hundred a year, upon the express condition that the augmentation was L [452 to be in lieu of all profits and emoluments whatsoever; and yet, at the moment, be was confessedly suffering Trotter to make profits, and the permission was continued. city every thing is credible.I have stated Of a person capable of such an act of dupli my belief, that Lord Melville not only took large sums from Trotter, but that he kept them. There is not from the beginning to the end of the evidence such an assertion, either by him or Trotter, as that the mo ney was repaid. An equivocal sentence which has been so interpreted by the charitable and the inattentive, no doubt occurs. "To be sure," says Trotter "the money was repaid, because it was part of the public mobrought to a balance and cleared." True, ney, and my account with the public was Lord Melville, enabled him to keep the acbut the profits and not the repayment by count square. The great difficulty when fabricating a story, and accounting for vamen are endeavouring to conceal the truth, rious circumstances, is to preserve consis tency. Lord Melville seems to me to have rained his cause by what he said in the certain sums received from Trotter, as well House of Commons, of his having applied las's time, to public purposes not known to as the 10,000l. he confesses taking in Dougany of the ministers at the time; and which, cousequently, cannot have been replaced out happiest propriety, Mr. Wilberforce termed of any more appropriate fund: with the this declaration, the very infatuation of guilt. It is possible to believe that money paid, but it is impossible to believe that he taken for his own use might have been rerepaid what he had expended for any landable public purpose, and if the purpose was not laudable, what is to be said for him. There was no such, thing as this in Lard Melville's mind, when he wrote his last letter to the Commissioners; the strain of which is altogether inconsistent with the after-prewould blab the story of the first 10,000l.— He had no idea, then, that Trotter Trotter, however, let out the fact without consideration, and as it had come out it was necessary that something should be said. The tale stands thus: Lord Melville expended considerable sums of the public. money, placed those suns cut of his own pocket. for public purposes, and he afterwards eCan any man believe this? And, yet it must be taken literally, or it is not true that the loans made by Trotter were bond fidere paid by his lordship, as some people say, though neither he himself nor Trotter have ever said purposes for which the 10,000l. was hippiled -You are persuaded, you say, that the tence. SO. were proper and justifiable. If so, it is most wonderful that he should refuse to disclose them. I confess myself unable to figure any use to which a minister (allowing Mr. Dundas to have been at the time a minister, which he was not) is ar liberty to apply money voted by rliament, for a particular purpose, except for that purpose singly. Say it was expended in charity; to improve the agriculture and commerce of the country; to repel foreign invasion; or to help a wor thy friend to a seat in the House of Commons, I fancy, if the story has any foundation, the last comes nearest the truth; but take any of the cases you will, and still I deny it was justifiable. If it was, I may pick your pocket and plead the same sort of excuse.- -But it seems to me, that when the first 10,0001. is spoke of as a detached sum, the real circumstances are lost sight of. During the time that Douglas held the office of Paymaster, the whole money was in the power of Mr. Dundas as Treasurer, and actually and legally used by him. Supposing that he did expend 10,0001. in the way you imagine, it was his own money at the momeut, and he had a right to spend it as he pleased, provided he was sure of being able to replace it when wanted. That time came upon him when he was not prepared; and, the truth seems to me evident, that when he came to make up his account, and aught according to the act to have paid the whole balance to the Bank, he found himself 10,0001. deficient; and not being able to conmand that sum, he threw it on Trotter, as the price of his place; and what was a man who entered on an office of barely 5001. a year, advancing 10,0001. at the outset to do, but just what Trotter did, to bring up his lee-way. I have heard, that at one stage of the business, Trotter's friends acknowledged that they advanced this deficit, or engaged to make it good. If this is denied, then Lord Melville should explain when and how he paid the deficiency. It is clear that it must have been replaced immediately after the act took effect through the mediuni of Trotter, while his lordship seems to confess, if I can pretend to understand him, that he retained it, or remained the debtor for a considerable time at least. Indeed, I do not find him any where asserting or insinuating, that he ever replaced it, for it is reimarkable, that while he acknowledges the receipt of different large sums, not characterised as loans, there is a total blank even in assertion, as to the time and mode of repay ment. All that is said is, they must have been repaid; and, I have already alluded to the equivoque of this expression-Thus Thus through the whole of the business there are, on the one hand, facts warranting the strongest suspicion, and on the other, nothing but mere assertion attended by the highest improbability.Independently of what precedes, the conduct of Lord Melville as well as of Mr. Trotter, since the investigation commenced, to me ailords evidence the most satisfactory of his lordship's guilt. There cannot, I think, be a surer or fairer test than the conduct of the person accused. Innocence courts inquiry, and is ever bod and open. Guilt seldom fails to betray itself by slrunning the trial, by concealment and prevarication. A guilty person, however artful, should if possible avoid speaking, and must not act in a way in which an innocent one never would have acted, otherwise the conclusion is unavoidable. I am not speaking of evidence'suficient, per se, for conviction on a legal trial, but of what must be convincing to private judg ment.If the facts were as Lord Melville now, after full time for preparation states, and there were no other in the case, why did he refuse explanation to the commissioners ? He confessed that lie had to a certain degree. violated the law, because that was in proof otherwise. He confessed that he had permitted Mr. Trotter to make some use of the public money, and to derive some profit by it; because, if he had denied the fact absolutely, he was sure of being confuted by Trotter, who could not be willing to expose himself to exemplary punishment, by stating that he acted without the knowledge of his principal, while the books of Coutts and Sprott proved his use of the public money. But to the question, whether an advamage, was derived to himself from the traffic of Trotter, Lord Melville refused to answer, sheltering himself under the clause of the act of parliament establishing the commission. He tacked to this a reason than which nothing could be more flimsy. Having received pecuniary accommodation from Trotter, and finding that in the fund, from whence it came, the public money and Trotter's private money had been blended, he pretended that he could not say whether the advantage he derived from the accommodation, was owing to Trotter's being possessed of the public money. But why did he not state this delicate scruple, this almost uniueligible wiredrawn distinction to the commissioners as his only reason. I say with confidence, that if what he says had been the truth, he would have answered the question explicitly thus: I made no advantage, unless my accepting accommodation from a man, who it now appears may bave keen, enabled to give it by being possessed of the public money, can be called an advantage, though I was not aware a: the time, that the accommodation came from that fund. Instead of this he chose to answer in a way which made the cominissioners, and every one else suspect him of participation withTrotter. Again, why did he come out with his de rily follows, that he discovered, he had been ace piccemeal, just as facts were extorted from Trotter, or blabbed by him? An honest, though mistaken man, would at once have made a clean breast. So much I did, but no more. By the time his lordship wrote bis last letter to the commissioners, he had discovered that the reason he formerly assigned for not answering that question, did not apply to a particular period. He then asserted, and offered to swear, that he had made no advantage, in any sense, previously to Trotter's appointment. The story of the first 10,0001. then came out unexpectedly, and he was driven to the statement concerning it, which he made in the House of Com mons,- -Above all, if Lord Melville had participated with Trotter no farther than he acknowledges, and had not been sensible that he was at Trotter's inercy, would he have acted towards that man as he did? Would he have continued him in office after the discovery of his peculation? (Shall I be told, it was not Lord Melville who continued hith?) Would he have lived in habits of daily intercourse with him, down to the day of the vote in the House of Commons, which compelled his dismissal? Will any man who has a regard for truth, or who paid the least attention to the circumstances, say he does not believe that if the vote had been other than what it was, Mr. Trotter would have con-pated himmelt His silence and refusal to tinued Paymaster, and the agent and bosom friend of Lord Melville to the present hour? Will it be pretended that his lordship did not attend to the proceedings of the Commissioners which touched himself so nearly? When it was discovered that Trotter had used the pubire money to a vast amount in the purchase of stock, the discount of bills, &c. &c. what would have been Lord Melville's conduct, if he had till then been ignorant of these operations, or had never authorised them as he now asserts; or, if he had imagined till then, as he alleges, that Trotter only made use or derived some profit from the money appropriated for paying trifling derdands, for which drafts on the Bank could not be given with propriety or conveniency.* If his present assertion be true, it necessa * Lord Melville's pretence for going gains. the statute, and his only excuse for a owing money to be lodged at Coutte's is answer, and Trotter's, are evidence (out of court) as satisfactory as the most explicit acknowledgment, that Lord Melville did participate in the illegal profits.-I have heard it said, that Mr. Trotter has sworn that Lord Melville did not participate directly or indi equally flimsy and false. If the pretended inconvenience had really been felt, (which the practice shews it was. not) the proper course, undoubtedly, was to have got the law amended. But, in fact, no small drafts were made on Mr. Coutts any more than on the Bank, nor would any banker or mer chant of character have submitted to be the paymaster of such drafts. The act could not be so rigidly interpreted, as to prevent the drawing for small demands of the same description in the aggregate. There necessa rily must be cash kept in the office to pay trifles, and there was as much while the traffic was going on at Coutts's as before. ་་ ed. As to the rest let him have a fair trial, and if acquitted from want of legal evidence or otherwise, let him enjoy that acquittal, But no acquittal can efface the suspicion, that his guilt goes far beyond his confession. He can never regain the confidence of the pablic, or of any man of virtue and sound judgment. He has himself destroyed the only evidence which could possibly remove the s picion; namely, the accounts with Trotter; and he must be charitable indeed, who thinks that those would have been destroyed, if they had borne testimony to Lord Melville's innocence.--You scem, to think that the suspicion which would attach to such circumstances, or the conclusion we would draw from them in most cases, flies off when it is considered that Lord Melville has always been remarked by those who knew him and his affairs best, for carelessness, inattention, and inaccuracy; but, you must further prove that he was utterly regardless of his character, and of his place in the country, dependant in a great measure on character, before I can believe that he would have acted as he has done, if he had been conscious of innocence. I say again, it is not possible to account for his refusal to answer, and his countenancing Trotter after the nature and extent of the peculation were, discovered, but on the supposition of his guilt, unless he be an absolute fool; which no man ever esteemed him.It has been said that Trotter continuing on the scene, is a proof of Lord Melville's being convinced that the charge could not be substantiated by his evidence; but they were both perfectly condent to the last that the inquiry would be stifled.--But, supposing that his lordship's guilt in the matter of the Treasurership were doubtful, I ask in the name of all that is honourable and manly, what excuse can be offered for his asking and taking the Chamberlainship of Fife from the person and in the way he did; from Mr. Addington whom he was at the moment deriding, abusing, and undermining. He deceived the man he solicited as to the extent of the gift, for the sake of sweeping into his pocket 3,0001. of the public money, lying in the hands of the collector, ready to be paid into the Exchequer, under the colour of its being rents in arrear. There is not a doubt, that a gift from a private person, acquired in the same way might have been set aside as obtained by fraud. I may be told, that this has no connexion with the question, whether he participated in Trotter's gains, but when an argument against the truth or probability of that charge, is attempted to be deduced from Lord Melville's alleged disregard of money, rectly in those profits. I am ignorant whether the fact be so, but supposing it true, it would have no weight with me. I would deem it equivocal; for, though his lordship may not have taken money eo nomine, or as a share of profits, he took it knowing those alone enabled Trotter to give it; and, se condly, I know, and Mr. Trotter knows likewise, the difference between a judicial and an extra judicial affidavit. I will not believe what a man swears extra judicially, who refuses to speak when under a judicial examination.-The same person has certainly sworn extra judicially, that his income from every source does not exceed 1,150l. a year. And, supposing that to be true, what is the inference? Extravagant as his style of living was, that alone cannot account for his having so little left. But who will believe, that he has reserved no more? I am informed, that he has been heard to regret the having made that affidavit, and to allow it was not perfectly correct.- I shall not dwell on the burning of the papers, and the terms of the mutual release, farther than to say, that those circumstances certainly afford grounds of suspicion. I doubt extremely, if, from the beginning of the world, two men ever sat down deliberately to destroy (not vouchers, but) all papers, memorandums, accounts, and books relative to large and complicated money transactions, unless they were conscious that their preservation might injure them. I do not believe, that any conveyancer ever inserted such a covenant as appears in this release, without instructions or a hint from his employer; and, it can scarcely be doubted from whom the instructions or hint in this case came. The coincidence of the destroying the evidence and the commencement of the investigation, is also entitled to weight in the scale. If Lord Melville is innocent, (by which I always mean if he is not more guilty than he has yet 2cknowledged himself to be,) he is a most unfortunate man, and has acted with more imprudence than ever man probably did. Every step he or his friends have taken; every circunstance speaks against him.-On these grounds I believe him to have been guilty of gross corruption and malversation in office. He connived at Trotter's making profit by the use of the public money, against honour and against a clear law; and the presumption that he participated indirectly in those profits is extremely strong. But, I do not mean to say, there is yet legal evidence of any thing except what he has himself confessed. What he has confessed seems to me fully to warrant the punishment (as it is called) which he has already suffer and freedom from avarice, am not 1 enti- 34 Discounts 4 y and the dan on ger of gratifying barbarous propensities, In the shew of wild beasts exhibited by |