[PRICE 10D.

1]

MR. PITT'S CASE." (Continued from Vol. VII. p. 971.)

remem

In the page, here referred to, I was compelled to break off, at the point where I was led to ask: "Will the reader believe, that the general statement of Lord Melville to Mr. Pitt, relative to the matter reported upon by Mr. Raikes, ought to have satisfied, or did satisfy, Mr. Pitt? Will he believe, that Mr. Pitt was so easily to be deceived, upon such a point, by Lord Melville, or by any body else, especially after what he himself had been privy to? For, let it he bered, that the information of Mr. Raikes came after, and only about six months after, Mr. Pitt knew that Lord Melville had drawn out of the bank 40,0001. at once for the purpose of its being lent to Boyd and Benfield. This act, too, this violation of the law, he knew (if what he has positively declared before the Select Committee be true) was first proposed by Lord Melville. Was not this a circumstance, then, to make him regard some inquiry as necessary, upon receiving the inforination of Mr. Raikes? Indeel, can any one pretend, that, all the circumstances considered, he must not have suspected at least, that which was known not only to Mr. Raikes but to every great banker or money dealer in London? Mr. Fitt says, that, from what passed between him and Lord Melville upon the subject, he "was led to suppose,

that the Treasurer of the Navy did not Fe"lieve, that any larger sums were drawn "from the bank, than such as were neces

46

sary for carrying on the detail of the ser"vice in payments to individuals."

66

So,

then, he was satisfied," it seems, not with any assurance of the Treasurer of the Navy, but with his mere belief, in opposition to the information of the governor of the Bank? This it was, that "so far satisfied him, that "he made no further inquiry!" He relied; but on what did he rely? Not on the word, not on the declaration, as appears to have been understood, but on the opinion, given

him by the Treasurer of the Navy!" What ground is there, therefore, for pretending, that he was deceived by Lord Melville? And, indeed, notwithstanding all that

A

[2 has been said and insinuated by those who are so anxious to make a distinction between the case of Lord Melville and that of Mr. Pitt, where is the ground upon which they rest the assertion, that the latter was, in any one in-, stance, deceived by the former? Where are, I will not say the proofs, to support such an assertion, but where are the circumstances that render the truth of that assertion proba-, ble? As to Mr. Pitt's idea of the magni-, tude of the sums drawn from the bank and lodged at Mr. Coutts's, he says, that he understood, from the general statement of Lord Melville, that they were only "such as

were necessary for carrying on the details "of the service in payment to individuals;" a very loose and indeterminate expression; but, if it has any meaning that can operate as an excuse to Mr. Pitt, it must be confined to those small sums, of the difficulty of discharging which through the means of dratis directly upon the Bank, so much was said by Lord Melville and Mr. Trotter, and, sidcę, by Mr. Canning. But, as was before stated, it seems to be impossitie, that Mr. Pitt, whatever he might have heard from Lord Melville, and though Lord Melville had made a positive declaration to him instead of giving him a mere opinion; it seems quite impossible, that, after the information received from Mr. Rakes, Mr. Pitt coull have believed, that the naval money withdrawn, from the Bank and lodged at Mr. Coutts's was confined to small sums; because, as appears from the evidence, Mr. Raikes informed him, not merely that the Treasurer, of the Navy drew suras of val money from the Bank and lodged it at 'Mr. Coutts's, but, that "the Treasurer of the Navy now kept his cash at Mesars. Coutts and Company'sINSTEAD of the Bank, and that NAVY "BILLS were now paid ly drefts upon "Messrs. Coults and Company, instead of "drafts upon the Bank." This Mr. Raikes positively asserts was the purport of the formation, communicated by him to Mr. Pitt. With what decency, ther store, let the reader determine, is it pretended. that Mr.. Fitt was, upon the opinion of Lord Melville. "satisfied, that only mall sums to answer

VOL. VIII.

vantage or emolument was therefrom de"rived by any person whatever." Upon this point, however, Lord Melville tells the Commissioners of Naval Inquiry, in his evidence (Register, Vol. VII. p. 483), that he had no hesitation in saying, that he believed and understood, that the Paymaster (Mr. Trotter) did derive advantage or emolument from withdrawing the naval money from the Bank and lodging it with his private banker,

and," adds he, most significantly, "I beljeve, it was so understood by OTHERS, at different times, when the establishment "of the Navy Pay-Office was under consi"deration." Now, my lord, who were those "others ?" Not the Commissioners of Accounts; not the Commissioners of Enquiry; for, in all the reports by them respectively laid before parliament, relative to the offices of the Treasurer and Paymaster of the Navy, never have they let drop any expression, that can possibly be tortured to incan, that they "understood," that the naval money, or any part of it, was to be, or ought to be, employed, in any way whatever, for the private advantage or emolument of the l'aymaster of the Navy, or any other person or persons. Nay, is it not, on the contrary, well known, that these commissioners have uniformly set their face against every such practice; and that the Commissioners of Inquiry clearly" understood,"" from Mr. Trotter's deposition (See Register, Vol. VII. p. 466 and 467) that he derived, and was to derive, NO advantage or emolument from the use of the money issued for naval services? Who, therefore, my Lord, were those "" others," that understood the matter in so very different a sense? We have no positive proof, that Mr. Pitt was alluded to by his Lordship, amongst those "others;" and, it is possible, that Mr. Pitt

had no such understanding upon the subject; but, leaving the partisans of that gentleman and Lord Melville to discover, without including Mr. Pitt, the persons to whom it is possible his lordship might allude, we shall, I am of opinion, find reason quite sufficient to convince us, that it is improbable in the extreme, not to say impossible, that Mr. Pitt should not, when he received the information of Mr. Raikes, have suspected, and, indeed, that he should not have known, that private advantage and emolument was derived from the withdrawing of the naval money from the Bank and lodging it at a private banker's. We now know, that, from the passing of the act, in 1785, to Lord Melville's quitting the Navy Treasurership, in 1800, there were more than a hundred millions sterling of the naval money transferred from the Bank to Mr. Coutts's; we have seen, from the books of those bankers, that, during the whole of the same period, Mr. Trotter, the Paymaster of the Navy, was one of the greatest dealers in the public funds and securities, and one of the greatest discounters of private paper, in London; we have seen him giving his draft for fifty thousand, a hundred, two hundred, three hundred, or four or five hundred thousand pounds sterling, as familiarly as we common mortals talk of shillings or of Mr. Pitt's paper representatives of shillings; and, will any one believe, that, under a system of fiscal eves-dropping, absolutely without a parallel in any age or country, all this was unknown to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Will any one believe, that Mr. Pitt was unacquainted with the intimacy that existed. between Mr. Trotter and Lord Melville, an intimacy so unusual between persons so situated as to relative rank and power? Will any one believe, that Mr. Pitt, who knew from several official reports upon the subject of the Navy Pay Office, that the salary of Mr. Trotter was no more than 500 pounds a year, did not well know that Mr. Trotter was, at the time of Mr. Raikes's information, and long before had been, living in a style that could not possibly be supported under several thousands a year? Will any one believe, that Mr. Pitt was unacquainted with the purchases of Mr. Trotter; and that he did not frequently come athwart him in the money market? It was in, or about, the month of April, 1797, that Mr. Raikes gave his information, and, I ask the reader, if he believes, that Mr. Coutts Trotter could have funded Navy, Victualling and Transport bills, in the year 1796, to the amount of 2,137,5151. sterling, without * See papers laid before the House of Commons, June 11, 1805.

Mr. Pitt's knowing of it? And, if he did know of it, need it be asked, whether he must not have known of the circumstances that enabled Mr. Coutts Trotter to exceed, as a bill-holder, far to exceed, any other man, or any other company, the Governor and Company of the Bank of England not excepted? But, this is sporting with the patience of the reader: he must perceive; from the bare enumeration of the circumstances he must perceive, that it was next to impossible for Mr. Pitt not to have possessed a knowledge of the source of this immense, this almost incredible mass of commercial means.———At last, indeed, Mr. Pitt did begin to suspect, after he was out of office, and upon a suggestion of Lord Harrowby, that profits might have been made by withdrawing the naval money from the Bank and keeping it at a private banker's! At last! And upon the suggestion of Lord Harrowby too! This keen, this sharp-sighted, this penetrating, this ever watchful person, stood, in this one instance, in need of a flapper! Being asked by the Select Committee, whether, at any time previous to the late inquiry by the Naval Commissioners, he had any knowledge of, or reason to suspect, that private profits had been made by Mr. Trotter, or any other person, of naval monies, or that the business of the office was so conducted as to admit of private profit being made of such monies by any officer of that department, he answers: "I had no know"ledge, at any time, previous to the inquiry "of the Naval Commissioners, of any such profits having been made by any person; nor had I any suspicion of the business being so conducted as to admit of it, till "after the communication I have before "adverted to with Lord Harrowby, which conversation, to the best of my recollec ́tion, took place when I was out of office." He adds, in the two succeeding answers, that Lord Harrowby " did not tell him, that he

(Lord Harrowby) knew that private profit "had been made, but that he appeared to "suppose that it might have been." Upon this point Lord Harrowby says, in his evidence (the whole of which see in Register, Vol. VII. p. 879 and the following two), "I had a conversation with Mr. Pitt, in the "autumn of 1802, when we were both out

66

66

"the naval money passing, in part, through "the house of Mr. Coutts, to which I found "he belonged, might have led to his intro"duction into that house, or, that the cir"cumstance of his being a partner in it, "might have led to the selection of that "house for that purpose; meaning this with a reference to advantage derived to the general concerns of a banking house," (say shop: do call it shop, my lord!) "necessarily arising from the nature of their business, and not from having any reason "to believe, that the naval money was used "for the benefit of Mr. Alexander Trotter." Oh, dear, no! how should such a thought enter his Lordship's mind; especially when he knew, that Mr. Alexander's salary "had now been augmented to S001. a year," a sum, doubtless, regarded by his Lordship as quite sufficient to support the style, in which Mr. Alexander Trotter lived; and, besides, it was, as his Lordship must have perceived, so very natural for the uncle voluntarily to give up, without fee or reward, all the advantage to the nephew, and be himself perfectly content with a salary of 8001. a year, together with some little income from real and funded property, of which, though his Lordship might not, perhaps, be very well able to account for the acquisition, he must, one would think, know that Mr. Alexander had acquired.—And here, since we have been beguiled into a digression upon the opinions of Lord Harrowby, we may as well make the observations that occur to us upon his conduct, relative to the main subject before us, namely, the conniving at the withdrawing of naval money from the Bank, and depositing it at a private shop, in gross violation of the law. Lord Harrowby, then Mr. Dudley Ryder, succeeded Lord Melville as Treasurer of the Navy, which office he held, at a salary of 4,0001. a year clear of all deductions, from the 2d of June, 1800, to the 20th of November, 1801. He tells the Commissioners of Naval Inquiry, in his evidence, which will be found in the Parlia mentary Debates, Vol. III. p. 1202, that, though the practice of withdrawing naval money from the Bank to deposit with a private banker was not authorised by the spirit of the act, and though he had recently quit ted an office of a similar nature, (the army pay office), in which the regulations of Mr. Burke's bill had been strictly complied with, without any complaint of inconvenience; these circunstances existed, it was (strange to tell!) some time before his attention was drawn to Mr. Trotter's practice of transferring. When it was drawn, however, to work he went; but, about what, think you? Not putting a stop to the practice, but about

66

making an inquiry into the expediency of the practice; and, though one would have thought, that there only required five minutes to open and read the statute-book, his Lordship went to the Bank, and, in process of time" had nearly completed "the inquiry,' when he was prevented by a severe illness "from attending further to the business of the office ;" and so, heleft the matter just where he found it. Precisely what length of time elapsed, before his lordship's attention was drawn to the "subject," or how long it was between the drawing of his attention and his falling ill, we are not informed: all that we know is, that he filled the office, or, at least, that he received the salary, for the space of a year and a half; that the public paid him six thousand pounds sterling for his superintendance and responsibility; and that the practice which he found to exist, and the conniving at which practice has, in the case of his predecessor, been declared by the House of Commons to be a gross violation of the law and a high breach of duty, was continued during the whole of his Treasurership, and left by him to be pursued exactly as it was when he entered the office. But, though we possess not the advantage of knowing the date or duration of his lordship's illness, we have the pleasure to know, that it had a termination, and that, too, as will be well remembered as long as the Spanish war shall last, without producing a disqualification for office, and, as we must, of course, conclude, without totally destroying his powers of recollection. Yet, without supposing the severity of his illness to have greatly impaired his memory, we shall not, I think, find it very easy to account for his not having communicated to his successor the result of his long and painful inquiries, which, from the evidence of Mr. Bragge, he does not appear to have done; and, upon this score, our regret is the greater, when we reflect, that those inquiries were nearly completed, and, that, it was, perhaps, from the want of such communication, that the violation of the law was continued, almost a year longer, when Mr. Bragge finally put a stop to it, "in" (to use his own words) "the course of the summer of 1802.". Upon being asked by the Commissioners of Naval enquiry, "what reasons induced "him to direct the practice to be discon"tinued." Mr. Bragge answered: "conceived the practice to be inconsistent "with the spirit of the act for the regulaDionis Se utice of the Treasurer of the the conveniencies which o result from it, in facilitions of business, were not

I

"of weight sufficient to justify the con"tinuance of such an irregularity." This is, unquestionably, a reason quite sufficient for petting a stop to the practice; but, we cannot help regretting, that, as Mr. Bragge is a lawyer, and a gentleman of tolerably sharp faculties, he did not refer, at a more early period, to "the act for regulating "the office," which he was appointed to fill, and for the filling of which he received from the public 4,000 pounds a year. “ In "the course of the summer!" These gentlemen all appear to have a fondness for indeterminate expressions. Lord Harrow by talked with Mr. Pitt about it" in the autumn of 1802." Where the action, or event, is connected with circumstances of cold and heat, wet and dry, of cloud and sunshine, then it is natural, and may be quite sufficient, to point out the season when it has taken place; but, in speaking of the time of putting a stop to the violation of an act of parliament, we look for months and days. Lord Harrowby's autumn may have begun with the harvest of 1802, that is to say, in the middle of July; and Mr. Bragge's summer may have ended with the middle of August ; and thus, though using different denominations, both may have been speaking of exactly the same period." I am in the

66

hearing of the public" (as Mr. Pitt sometimes humourously says with regard to the House of Commons), and, I think, that the public will remember something of the popular contest that agitated the nation, and more particularly the metropolis and its county, in the months of July and August, 1802; and, that, amongst the persons implicated in the angry discussion that arose out of that contest, was Mr. Coutts, the banker. The public will, I am pretty sure, recollect, that the ministerial newspapers and the Anti-Jacobin Review, from motives that I am not disposed to censure, made strong representations upon the conduct of Mr. Coutts in supporting the cause of Sir Francis Burdett, and some of them did not refrain from remark

ing upon what was termed his " ingratitude "to the government," hinting, at the same time, that he no longer ought to be the keeper of the money for the public offices. The readers of the Register will recollect, that at the time here referred to, I published (see vol. II. p. 164) an article, containing a declaration, on the part of Mr. Coutts, that he had not, in anywise, interfered in the Middlesex Election, and that he had never aided the interest of Sir Francis Burdett, either with his personal influence or with his purse, a declaration which I thought it my duty to publish, it having been com

municated to me by a gentleman of high situation in life and of most scrupulous integrity. Now, it is not my wish to strain these facts; and I have reminded the public of them for no other purpose than that of bringing his mind back to a fair and full view of the situation of things, at the time when the withdrawing of the naval money from the bank and lodging it at Mr. Coutt's was actually, and for the first time, put a stop to, and when, as it would appear from the evidence of Mr. Pitt, he received the first intimation of private emolument being derived from the practice; and, in now returning to the case of Mr. Pitt, we must. confess, I think, that there is a singular coincidence in all the circumstances; for, every one must be struck with the statement, that Lord Harrowby, who discovered the existence of Mr. Trotter's practice, and who set on foot an inquiry respecting it, should never have spoken to Mr. Pitt, till after that gentleman was out of office, though he continued in office for nine months after Lord Harrowby became Treasurer of the Navy. After Mr. Pitt was out of office, his lordship did, it seems, mention it to him; and, again when they were both out of office, in the autumn of 1802, his lordship appears to have discovered, and to have suggested to Mr. Pitt, that private emolument, to the banking shop, at least, must “ ne

cessarily be derived from the transferring practice. Now, too, for the first time, they talked about Mr. Coutts Trotter, and appear to have found out, that the advantage derived from the temporary possession of the naval money might have led to that gentleman's connexion with the shop of Mr. Coutts. Mr. Pitt was asked by the Select Committee, whether upon these suggestions of Lord Harrowby, he took any steps to ascertain the facts; to which he answered in the negative. The reason of this appears to be, that he was then out of office! A want of official authority, and a scrupulous attachment to forms, seem to have every where presented themselves as an insuperable bar to investigation, on the part of Mr. Pitt, with respect to the detection of this gross violation of the law; and this appears the more extraordinary, when we recollect with what "fortitude" he set forms, and even laws, at defiance, when the object was to afford relief to Boyd and Benfield, though it is hardly possible to conceive, that, in the latter case, allowing all the alleged reasons to be good, the bond of public duty could have been thought stronger than in the former. He was out of the office, it is true; But, the office was still in existence, and was filled by a person, with whom he was,

we

as yet (in the autumn of 1802) upon the most friendly and confidential footing, and in whose management of public affairs, he was, moreover, well known not to have abstained from interference; a circumstance of which Lord Harrowby could not, must suppose, be unacquainted, and hence some persons may conclude, that Lord Harrowby might be induced to omit communicating his suspicions to Mr. Addington, an cmission not otherwise to be easily accounted for, from any of those honourable motives, by which we must suppose a person like his lordship always to be actuated. Yet, whatever the cause may have been, we know that the effect has been to prolong the duration of the gross violation of the law: we have seen, that Mr. Raikes give information respecting it in, or about, April 1797, that Lord Harrowby discovered its existence, mentioned it to Mr. Pitt, and was taking steps to put a stop to it in 1800, or 1801; that Mr. Bragge, after nearly a year's treasurership, did finally put a stop to it in the course of the summer of 1802, that Lord Harrowby suggested to Mr. Pitt in the autumn of 1802, that private emolument was necessarily derived to the private banking shop from the transfer of the naval. money: all this we know, and we know besides, that, after all this, Mr. Pitt chose Lord Melville as is prime associate in a new ministry, that he placed him in that high and most important office, the head of the Admiralty, where he would necessarily become a great distributor of honours, trusts, and emoluments, and where he would as necessarily have the best opportunity of exerting his powerful influence as to all matters, past as well as future, connected with the office of Treasurer of the Navy; and, accordingly we have seen, that coeval with this his appointment was the reappointment of Mr. Trotter to the paymastership of the navy, a re-appointment of which Mr. Pitt could not be ignorant, and which proceeded immediately from a person,, well known to be, openly and avowedly declared to be, absolutely devoted to Mr. Pitt. It was, too, we must remember, after all these transactions; after Mr. Pat's nequlring all the lights afforded by Mr. Raikes and Lord Harrowby; after his miad must have received more than enough to sati-fy 12 as to the conduct of Lord Melville in what has now, by the House of Commons, been declared to be " a gross violation of the law "and a high breach of duty;" after all this. it was, that he advised his Majesty to grapt to, the " right trusty and well-beloved council"lor Henry Lord Viscount Melville," the sum of 1,500 1. a year for life, in addition to