70 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1805. 



In several cases, ■where large sums of 

 money were to be paid to numerous 

 claimants, in the course of a few 

 days, and tlie majority of these 

 claims under twenty pounds, and 

 many as low as a few shillings, it 

 was not to be expected <liat each in- 

 dividual should hii paid by a draft 

 upon the bank of England. If the 

 doctrine laid down, in the report of 

 the comnnttee of 1782, was correct, 

 the whole of the money in the hands 

 of the treasurer was not that for 

 which he was responsible to the 

 public, but to the individuals to 

 whom these sums belonged. Upon 

 the whole, he did not think that this 

 amounted to any thing more than a 

 case of suspicion, and concluded a 

 long and able speech by an explanati- 

 on of his own conduct at the time that 

 he was before the commissioners. 



Mr. (George Ponsonby thought 

 that the delay of even ten years of 

 enquiry would not enable the house 

 to say that lord IMelville did not 

 connive at his pajmiaster's taking the 

 money out of (he bank, and apply- 

 ing it to purposes of private emolu- 

 ment. Il this charge was only sup- 

 ported by exparte evidence, it must 

 be remembered that it was the 

 evidence of the party accused, stating 

 every thing he thought proper in 

 his own defence. Lord Melville 

 distinctly admitted, that he knew 

 of Mr. 'j'rotter's taking money from 

 the bank, and placing it at his pri- 

 vate banker's, Mr. Trotter wias his 

 genera] agent. As he allowed him to 

 continue in the practice, it must 

 be supposed there was some fellow- 

 feeling between them. It was mon- 

 strous language to say that lord 

 Melville was excusable, because no 

 ioss had accrued to the public. To 

 forge any of those bills was felony, 

 aHil if an expert forger was detected 



who had not been his colleagua 



in having counterfeited one of them, 

 it would be no defence for him, in a 

 court of justice, to say, or even to 

 prove, that he had the money to re- 

 place it when it became due. Similar 

 to that was the case of Mr. Trotter, 

 who, as an expert calculator, must 

 know to what extent he could use 

 the public money, before the de- 

 mands fur it could come round upon 

 him. This might be a proof of his 

 skill, but not of his innocence. He 

 trusted that the house would adopt 

 the original proposition, as he was 

 sure it must be their general senti- 

 ment that lord Melville could not 

 be defended ; and he observed, that 

 no gentleman spoke for him that 

 day, 

 in office. 



The Master of the Rolls was for 

 an enquiry upon the principles of 

 jurisprudence, which required the 

 whole of the case to be gone inta 

 before any man could be pronounced 

 guilty. The object of the naval com- 

 missioners was not to try criminals, 

 or to convict men upon their own 

 confession, but to enquire into 

 abuses, and the house could not 

 therefore, upon their mere report, 

 convict a man without hearing evi- 

 dence at their bar. It did not 

 appear to him that any thing like 

 personal corruption was proved 

 against the noble lord. 



Mr. Fox contended that nothing 

 could be more corrupt than to per- 

 mit a man's own agent to convert 

 the money of others to his own pri- 

 vate purposes. This appeared from 

 the noble lord's own confession, 

 and, though further examination 

 might shew him to be more guilty, 

 it could not shew him less so than he 

 acknowledged himself to be. If it 

 was true that no loss accrued to the 

 public from this malversation, it did 



not 



