|
This page is part of a website based
on the life and achievements of eighteenth-century inventor Henry Cort. Please email site controller Eric
Alexander with any comments or queries. |
Dundas,
Trotter and impeachment
Henry Dundas
is a key figure in the government of the country between
1784 and 1805. He comes from a notable Scottish family, and develops a notable
legal practice in Scotland before being elected for Midlothian in 1774.
For most of the American War he is one of the most
consistent apologists for Government policy, while back in Scotland he builds
up a network of support and patronage.
Changes after the Yorktown defeat bring him into the Government in July
1782, as Treasurer to the Navy under the Earl of Shelburne. He now establishes a close link with the new
Chancellor of the Exchequer, William Pitt.
Dundas’s attention is quickly
drawn to subordinate Alexander Trotter.
|
My
Lord – Understanding by Mr Douglas your intention with regard to improving Establishment
of the Pay Office and your wishes to obtain every information relative to it
and which he seems anxious you should through every possible channel, I have
taken the Liberty to enclose to your Lordship a full account of the present
situation together with the grounds of a plan of reform which will do me
infinite honor if it meets with any share of your approbation. From
letter from Alexander Trotter to Henry Dundas, 5 August 1782. |
One hesitates to describe
Trotter as a mere clerk, although his salary at the time is only £50 per
annum. Like Dundas, he has a notable
Scottish pedigree. Family archives in
Edinburgh reveal how in 1770, at the age of fifteen, he sails to Virginia,
where he spends nearly six years; and how, on his return, he is offered a job
at the Navy Office by the then Treasurer, Sir Gilbert Elliot, who happens to be
related. Another relation is banker
Thomas Coutts: his father and Alexander's were once partners in an Edinburgh
bank.
Dundas leaves office when Shelburne’s administration falls, but
soon afterwards Pitt is summoned to form a new Government. Dundas is recalled as Navy Treasurer: a post
he retains for sixteen years, though he also takes on other responsibilities,
notably in regulating the East India Company.
But it is the naval role that brings him into contact with Henry Cort.
At the end of 1785 the post of
Navy Paymaster becomes vacant. Dundas
appoints Alexander Trotter, who serves under him through the rest of his
term. Trotter also takes on the role of
his agent for some personal transactions.
Their close relationship shows many years later when one of Trotter’s
sons is christened Henry Dundas Trotter.
Trotter soon gets a chance to
put his ideas on “improving Establishment at the Pay Office” into practice. Parliament demands changes following
revelations about scandalous behaviour that may partly account for the Navy’s
disappointing performance in the war, and some practices are proscribed.
One change that may or may not
be Trotter’s initiative is a move of the Navy Office from Crutched
Friars to Somerset Place, bringing it close to Coutts’ bank in The Strand.
|
We finished business at the
Navy Office in Crutched Fryers and removed all the books and papers to that
at Somerset place in the Strand, and took possession thereof this day. From George
Marsh’s diary, 29 August 1786. |
Trotter obtains permission to
use the bank to handle Navy funds, and sets up several accounts there. He uses the sums set aside for naval
expenditure to make transactions for his own benefit: not an unusual practice
at the time, but arguably outside the limits Parliament has set.
In July 1788 Dundas and Trotter
discover how Deputy Paymaster Adam Jellicoe has been
misusing navy funds. A year later they take action to recover them, with traumatic consequences for Henry Cort.
Dundas retires from the Navy
Treasurer's post on 1st June 1800.
He wishes to square off his balance before he leaves, previous Navy
Treasurers having been strongly criticised for leaving with a balance in the
red.
|
His Majesty’s Warrant to the
Commissioners of the Treasury, Chamberlain, and Under Secretary Chamberlain,
and other Offices and Ministries of the Exchequer, now and for the time
being, directing and commanding that the Right Honourable Henry Dundas,
Treasurer of the Navy, his Executor, Administrators and Assigns be exonerated
and discharged from accounting fo the sum of £24,846. 6s. 6d¼ due for the late Adam
Jellicoe to the Public. Writ of Privy Seal quoted in an Appendix
to report of a Select Committee, May 1805. |
This write-off is signed by
Treasury Secretary George Rose. The
date quoted on the document appears to be 21st May 1800, but
elsewhere in the reports of both the Select Committee and the earlier
Commission of Naval Enquiry it is usually said to be 29th May: there
is even one citation of 31st May.
Possibly there is more than one version of the same document.
The exact date may be
significant, because Henry Cort dies on 23rd May. One can conceive that Dundas has been
delaying his retirement while there is still a chance that Cort will be able to
redeem some of the outstanding debt.
Once this prospect disappears, there is no alternative but to seek a
write-off. According to Matheson’s
biography of Dundas, the reason for his retirement has nothing to do with Cort
or Jellicoe’s death: rather the opportunity to take
up a long-coveted post in Scotland.
But a more sinister possibility
has been suggested. Some people in the
Government have something to hide. And
here is their opportunity, now that Cort is out of the way. And later they destroy the evidence!
|
It appears that the Treasurer and his confidential deputy a few
weeks before the sitting of the commission indemnified each other by a
joint release, and agreed to burn their accounts for something approaching to
a million and a half of the public money which had passed through their
hands. In
this general conflagration all the evidence by which Henry Cort's case could
have been established perished, and the culprits refused to answer any
questions which would have criminated themselves. From Times accolade of 1856. |
Plausible, but mistaken.
The above extract cites a Commission
of Naval Enquiry set up by a new administration during a period when Pitt
is out of office (1801-4) to investigate supposed malpractices in the Navy
department. Trotter is one of those
giving evidence to the Commission.
Their conclusions concerning
Henry Dundas’s term as Treasurer of the Navy appear in the Tenth Report,
published early in 1805. By this time,
Pitt is back in office, with Dundas (now ennobled as Viscount Melville) as
First Lord of the Admiralty.
The report contains much useful information
about Adam Jellicoe. More politically
significant, it exposes Trotter’s supposed misdemeanours.
|
He admitted that he had made the bulk of his fortune by
transferring public money from the Bank of England to his own credit at
Coutts', making such payments to annuitants and others as became due, and
investing the unclaimed balances into the Exchequer and Navy Bills and other
Government Securities, and, generally, by lending it at interest.
From E.H. Coleridge, The Life of Thomas Coutts, Banker. |
How far is his boss (now
Viscount Melville) implicated?
A motion of censure is moved by
Samuel Whitbread in the Commons on Tuesday, 9th April 1805, with
strong support from Charles James Fox.
|
What greater aggravation of his delinquency in tolerating the
breach of his own act of parliament can be imagined than allowing his agent
to misapply the public money, for the safe custody of which that act was
intended?
From speech of Charles James Fox in House of Commons, 9th
April 1805. |
Melville is absent, since his
place is in the Lords: but one of his sons is an MP. The debate produces one of the most dramatic scenes ever
witnessed in the House, with implications for the Government because of the close
relationship between Melville and Pitt.
William Wilberforce is reckoned
to be a close supporter of Pitt. But on
this occasion he demurs, endangering the Government’s majority.
|
This house is now appealed to as the constitutional guardian of the
rights of the people, and I should ill discharge my duty to the public, if I
did not give my most cordial and sincere support to the present motion.
From speech of William Wilberforce in House of Commons, 9th
April 1805. |
The debate continues into the
early hours. At five thirty, Wednesday
morning, Speaker Abbot announces an adjournment before taking the vote.
Time for sleep. Time for reflection. Time for persuasion. Time for worry.
Later the same day, 10th
April, the House reassembles. The vote
is taken. The result is announced.
For the motion, 216; against,
216. The Speaker must give a casting
vote.
|
According
to eye-witnesses he sat in his chair for ten minutes, staring straight ahead
as the blood drained from his face. The
House remained silent in anticipation.
Then he roused himself and cast his vote. From
account of Speaker Abbot’s dilemma in Amanda Foreman, Georgiana
Duchess of Devonshire. |
He supports the motion.
As soon as news of the result reaches
the Lords, Melville resigns.
His replacement as First Lord of
the Admiralty is Sir Charles Middleton.
Whitbread, however, is not
letting up. He moves that
"instructions be given to the attorney-general to proceed legally against
Lord Melville and Mr. Trotter"; and that an inquiry should begin into
those parts of the Tenth Report not yet considered by the House. He is backed by petitions from many parts of
the country.
A Select Committee is set up to
look further into the matter. It
examines Trotter, William Pitt and others.
The Lords refuse a request from Melville to let him testify. The Committee reports back to the Commons on
27 May, handing enough ammunition to Whitbread for him to move Melville's
impeachment on 13 June.
This time Melville obtains
permission to present his version of events to the Commons. After a fierce debate, the motion is
amended: members vote for him to face a criminal prosecution, rather than
impeachment. But he is allowed to
choose between the two procedures. He
chooses impeachment before his peers, the House of Lords.
The pace slows as matters become
more technical. A further committee
sits, to draw up articles of impeachment.
They come up with eight (4th July). The Commons are not satisfied: by the time the trial begins, the
number has risen to ten. But that is
nearly ten months later.
Why so long? Whitbread is preparing his case. His most valuable witness is Alexander
Trotter, who has been pleading self-incrimination as grounds for not answering
questions. Well then, give him
indemnity. A bill laid before
Parliament for this purpose attracts condemnation from the Lord Chancellor.
Between August and November,
Parliament is in recess. During this
period comes news of a stupendous victory over the French at Trafalgar. Clearly sixteen years of supposed
malpractice under Melville have not sapped the Navy's fighting capacity.
In January the whole political
scene is thrown into turmoil by the death of Pitt. The Government which takes office is a ministry "of all the
talents", with relics of Pitt's administration teamed up with stars of the
former opposition such as Fox. The case
against Melville, pursued to harass Pitt and his ministers, has lost its sting.
Westminster Hall is the scene
where Lord Melville's trial opens on 29 April 1806. Whitbread heads the prosecution, ostensibly on behalf of the
Commons. Melville has a powerful
defence team, headed by Thomas Plumer.
The House of Lords, some 135 strong, is the jury.
The Prosecution's case takes ten
days to present. The witnesses they
call include clerks at the Navy Office, past Navy Treasurers or their
representatives, and directors of Coutts Bank (including Alexander Trotter's
brother, unimaginatively called Coutts Trotter).
By contrast, the Defence calls
only three witnesses. The main thrust
of their evidence is that Melville has never gained anything improper from his
subordinate's transactions, indeed has waived much of his ministerial salary.
The Lords (have all of them been
present for the full twelve days of the hearing?) hold a separate vote for each
article. Melville is acquitted on all
ten. He has not given evidence: the
only clue the record gives of his presence is mention of a small bow given in
acknowledgment of the verdict.
But his public life is
over. He retires to his Scottish
estates. Not the only one to do so.
|
In April 1805 he quitted the Navy Pay Office for good
and all. During the remainder of his
life, except for the years when he was at Florence studying architecture, he
lived on his estate at Dreghorn. He
was a prominent member of the House of Agriculture and published a valuable
work on farm book-keeping. Among
other pursuits and projects of his later years was a scheme for connecting
the old and new towns of Edinburgh.
He had been appointed Deputy-Lieutenant of Midlothian by Henry, Duke
of Buccleuch, in 1803, and again in 1839 by his successor, Francis, the fifth
Duke. Account of Alexander Trotter's later career in E.H. Coleridge,
The Life of Thomas Coutts, Banker. |
I made no secret of my financial transactions, which were known
to ministers of state, and everybody whom it might concern, and when I was
assailed in the press and denounced by the Managers of the Impeachment I
received from such men as Sir George Rose, Sir Samuel Shepherd, and last but
not least my relative, Thomas Coutts, the assurance of their unabated
confidence and esteem.
From Alexander Trotter's defence of his actions at the Navy Office,
quoted in E.H. Coleridge, The Life of Thomas Coutts, Banker. |
Meanwhile the proceedings against Melville have an
impact on the Henry Cort story. Despite
his acquittal, the aura
of sleaze lingers. Fifty years later, Cort's
sympathisers can point to Melville's supposed guilt, and accuse him and Trotter
of maliciously ruining Cort.
Reliable evidence suggests otherwise.
|
Related pages Refutation of allegations of conspiracies against Cort |
henrycort.net
nf