Page:A biographical dictionary of eminent Scotsmen, vol 3.djvu/170

198 the navy.—2. That, in violation of the act of parliament already mentioned, he permitted Mr Trotter to draw large sums from the money issued to the treasurer for the use of the navy, and to place it in the banking house of Messrs Coutts and Co. in his (Mr Trotter's) own name.—3. That while he held the office of treasurer of the navy, and after the passing of the foresaid act, he permitted Mr Trotter to draw large sums of money from the treasurer's public account, kept with the bank of England, under the said statute, and to place those sums in Mr Trotter's individual account with Coutts and Co., for purposes of private emolument.—4. That after the 10th of January, 1786, and while treasurer of the navy, he fraudulently, and illegally, and for his own private advantage, or emolument, took from the public money, set apart for the use of the navy, £10,000; and that he and Mr Trotter, by mutual agreement, destroyed the vouchers of an account current kept between them, in order to conceal the advances of money made by Mr Trotter to him, and the account or considerations on which such advances were made.—5. That whilst Mr Trotter was thus illegally using the public money, he made, in part therefrom, several large advances to lord Melville, and destroyed the vouchers, as aforesaid, in order to conceal the fact—6. That in particular, he received an advance of £22,000, without interest, partly from the public money, illegally in Mr Trotter's hands, and partly from Mr Trotter's own money in the hands of Messrs Coutts, and destroyed the vouchers as aforesaid.—7. That he received an advance of £22,000 from Mr Trotter, for which, as alleged by himself, he was to pay interest; for concealing which transaction the vouchers were' destroyed as aforesaid.—8. That during all, or the greater part of the time that he was treasurer, and Mr Trotter paymaster of the navy, Mr Trotter gratuitously transacted his (lord Melville's) private business, as his agent, and from time to time advanced him from £10,000, to £20,000, taken partly from the public money, and partly from Mr Trotter's own money, lying mixed together indiscriminately in Messrs Coutts' hands; whereby lord Melville derived profit from Mr Trotter's illegal acts.—9. That Mr Trotter so acted gratuitously as lord Melville's agent, in consideration of his connivance at the foresaid illegal appropriations of the public money; nor could Mr Trotter, as lord Melville knew, have made such advances otherwise than from the public money at his disposal by his lordship's connivance, and with his permission.—10. That lord Melville, while treasurer of the navy, at divers times between the years 1782, and 1786, took from the moneys paid to him as treasurer of the navy, £27,000, or thereabouts, which sum he illegally applied to his own use, or to some purpose other than the service of the navy; and continued this fraudulent and illegal conversion of the public money, after the passing of the act for regulating the office of treasurer of the navy.

The charges, of which the above is an abstract, having been read, Mr Whitbread, as leading manager for the house of commons, opened the case in an elaborate speech, in which he detailed, and commented on, the evidence which the managers proposed to adduce. This was followed by the examination of witnesses in support of the several charges; the chief witness being Mr Trotter himself, in whose favour an act of indemnity had been passed, in order to qualify him to give his testimony with safety. The examination of the witnesses in support of the charges occupied nearly nine days. On the tenth day of the trial, Sir Samuel Romilly, one of the managers, gave a summary of what, as he maintained, had been proved. He was followed by Mr Plomer, the leading counsel for lord Melville, who opened the defence in a speech of distinguished ability, the delivery of which occupied two days. The substance of the defence was, that lord Melville, so far from being accessory to, or conniving at, Mr Trotter's appropriation of the public money, was entirely ignorant of these irre-