rank of the defendant, applied equally to a trial in Westminster Hall, in preference to a trial at the bar of the house of lords, as the more solemn and dignified course of procedure; that the expectation of the country would be disappointed, and its suspicions excited, if the trial were not conducted with the greatest publicity; that the great object of impeachment was to serve as an example to men in public situ ations, and that the impression would be most profound and most salutary, when the impeachment was conducted with the greatest form and solemnity; that whatever might be the issue of the trial, it was necessary to convince the country, that there had been no collusion or underhand dealing in the management of it, by giving to all the proceedings relating to it the utmost publicity; that, with respect to the delay in the trial of Mr. Has tings, it arose, not from the place where the trial was carried on, but from the numbers, variety and complicated nature of the charges, and from the dilatory course of proce. dure adopted by the house of lords. These reasons being deemed satis. factory by the house, Mr. White bread's motion was carried without a division.

When this resolution was next day communicated to the house of lords, lord Grenville moved an address to his majesty, praying that directions might be given to prepare a place in Westminster Hall for the trial of lord Melville, and at the same time the noble lord suggested to the house several measures to prevent unnecessary delay in the conduct of the trial. He recommended, that the trial, when commenced, should be proceeded in

from day to day till it was finished ; that the hour fixed for assembling each day should be rigidly adhered to: and that some understanding should take place, with respect to collecting the opinions of their lord ships on disputed points of evi dence, without retiring on every such occasion to the chamber of parliament; and he announced his intention of moving, to refer to the committee already appointed to search for precedents, to consider of the best means of proceeding in the trial without delay. This mo tion was accordingly made and agreed to on the 14th of April, and the whole of these suggestions were approved of by the committee and adopted by the house.

On the 28th of April a motion of great importance was made in the house of lords, by lord Auckland, viz strictly to forbid the publication of any part of the proceedings upon the ensuing trial of lord Melville, during the same." This motion which was highly praised by lord Eldon and lord Hawkesbury, passed after some pertinent remarks from the duke of Norfolk pointing out the impracti cability of preventing, by any regulation whatever, that, which should come out in the course of the trial, from going forth to the public and yet after the evidence was closed on both sides, the prohibition was renewed and confirmed by an order of the house, of the 17th of May, "that no person presume to print any of the proceedings of this house, touching the impeachment of viscount Melville, till after the house shall have given final judgment upon the said impeachment." We confess, that on the subject of these regulations, we

conour

concur perfectly with the duke of Norfolk. We cannot forget, that the effect of this prohib.tion was not to prevent what passed in Westminster Hall from being the sub ject of discussion out of doors, during the continuance of the trial and even in the presence of the judges, but to cause imperfect and defective accounts of the evidence and other proceedings to be circulated, instead of the full and accurate reports, which the newspapers, if permitted, would have given. That all knowledge of what was disclosed in Westminster Hall could be withheld from those who were not present at the trial, or that those who assisted at the proceedings, would abstain from making comments on what they had seen and heard, was not to be expected; nor was it probable, that, in so numerous a body as the judges of lord Melville, unaccustomed as the greater part of them were to discussions of the import of testimony or other evidence, many would not be swayed by the remarks and opinions, which they heard out of doors. But, if no precautions could prevent the judges upon this trial from being influenced by public opinion, it was surely desirable, that the public should have better materials for judging of the case, than the partial and imperfect recollections of the by-standers and spectators in the galleries of the hall. If it be true, that the advantages of the expensive, and in many respects, objectionable form of trial by impeachment, consist chiefly in the greater impression it makes and greater sensation it excites in the country, then will we venture to maintain, that a regula. tion like this tends to defeat, and upon the occasion of lord Melville's

trial we are confident, that it actually did defeat the salutary ends proposed by impeachment. The country ceased to be interested in the progress of a trial, the proceedings of which were not communicated to it, like other daily occurences, by the press; and after the decision had been given few were disposed to open the ponderous volume, in which the evidence and arguments of the case lie buried; and few there are even at present, in this enlightened country and inquisitive age, who have formed any opinion of lord Melville's guilt or innocence, from their own examination of the evidence against him. One part of the public think his character spotless and his conduct free from stain, because a majority of his judges found him guilty of no legal offence; while we fear another part impute his acquittal to collusion, and divide the blame of it between his judges and his accusers.

The trial commenced on Monday the 29th of April. Ten days were employed by the managers, in bringing forward and examining their evidence, and in the speeches of Mr. Whitbread, who opened the case and of the solicitor general, w hosummed up the evidence. Three days were afterwards employed by the counsel for the defendant in their reply ; two by Mr. Plumer, and after examining a few witnesses, the third by Mr. Adams. The 14th and 15th days of the trial were taken up by the managers in their reply on the part of the commons, the legal argument being conducted by the attorney general, and the observations on the evidence left to Mr. Whitbread. Mr. Plumer was also indulged with permission to make some remarks in answer to the attorney general.

1803, when by mutual agreement dated the 18th and 23rd of Febru ary of that year, it was destroyed with all the vouchers and other me. morandums relative thereto, for the purpose of fraudulently concealing these transactions;

7th. That, in particular, lord Melville received from Trotter the sum of 22,000l. out of the public money, and that the accounts relative thereto have been burned and destroyed for the above mentioned purpose;

8th. That

ad

among other vances of money as aforesaid, lord Melville received from Trotter the sum of 22,000l. for which he paid interest;

9th. That Trotter acted as agent to lord Melville without any pecuniary compensation, and in that capacity was generally in advance for him to the amount of from 10,000l. to 20,000l. out of the public money in his hands; that lord Melville was aware, that Trotter had no means of making him such advances, except from the public money of which he had ille. gally so possessed himself; and that Trotter was induced, to act gratuitously as lord Melville's agent, and to make these advances, in consideration of lord Melville's connivance of his free use and uncontrolled application of the public money to his own private profit and emolument;

10th. That lord Melville between August 19th, 1782, and January 1st, 1806, did take and receive from the monies issued to him out of his majesty's exchequer, as treasurer of the navy, divers large sums of money, amounting to 27,000l. or thereabouts, and fraudulently and

illegally convert, the same to his own use or to some other corrupt and illegal purposes.

The articles of impeachment were far from being well drawn up. The same charge was frequently repeated in different articles, and the same article often contained more charges than onc. It was sometimes difficult to discover under what article a particular fact was charged, nor was it always easy to distinguish between a substantive charge, and what was meant as a mere aggravation of other charges. These defects in the articles of impeachment were in their operation favourable to the defendant, by lessening the apparent number of persons, who on the last day of the trial, pronounced him guilty. For, there were some of his judges, who, though they agreed in the facts of which they thought him guilty, yet differed so widely in their construc tion of the articles of impeachment, that meaning to find him guilty of the same fact, they voted him guilty on different articles. Accordingly, though 59 out of 136 lords, who voted on lord Melville's impeachment, found him guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, there were not more than 53, who agreed in finding him guilty of any one article as charged by the commons.

But the charges against lord Melville, though multiplied by the' managers of the impeachment, were in substance only three in number. The first was, that before the 10th of January 1786, he had, contrary to the obligation imposed on him by the warrant appointing him to the office of treasurer of the navy, applied to his private use and pro

fit, divers sums of public money entrusted to him in that capacity. The second was, that after the passing of the act of parliament in 1785, for the better regulating the office of treasurer of the navy, he had in breach and violation of that act, permitted Trotter, his paymaster, illegally to take from the bank of England, for other than immediate application to navy purposes, large sums of money, from the monies issued to the bank on account of the treasurer of the navy, and place the same in the hands of his private banker, in his own name, and subject to his sole control and disposition. The third was, that he had fraudulently and corruptly permitted Trotter to apply the money, so abstracted illegally. from the bank of England, to purposes of private use and emolument, and had himself fraudulently and corruptly derived profit therefrom. We shall briefly state the evidence substantiated on each of these charges by the commons.

On the first of these charges comprehending the first and tenth articles of impeachment, it was proved in evidence by the com.

mons;

That on the 19th of June 1782, the house of commons resolved, "that it is the opinion of this house, that from henceforward the paymaster of his majesty's forces, and the treasurer of the navy, for the time being, shall not apply any sum or sums of money entrusted to them, for any purpose of advantage or interest to themselves, either directly or indirectly;"

That the warrant appointing lord Melville to the office of treasurer of the navy in August 1782, granted to him an additional salary of

en

2,3247. 68. 6d. in full satisfaction of all wages, fees, and other profits and emoluments, heretofore joyed by former treasurers of the navy; and that lord Melville himself declared before the naval com.* missioners, that he considered the said additional salary to be in full satisfaction of all other profit and emolument;

That soon after lord Melville's acceptance of the office of treasurer of the navy, viz. in August 1782, there was a considerable difference between the balance of public money charged to the treasurer, and the actual balance to the credit of the treasurer at the bank; and though it did not appear in evidence, that the whole of this difference was occasioned by the application of public money to the private use and profit of lord Melville, yet it was satisfactorily shewn, that certain payments were made to his private use out of the public money entrusted to him as treasurer of the navy, soon after his acceptance of that office. Thus it was shewn, that a particular bank note of 100Ol. issued from the exchequer on the 6th of November 1782 for navy services, was paid by Mr. Douglas, paymaster of the navy under lord Melville, to the house of Messrs. Moffat and Kensington, on the 22d November 1782, in discharge of a bill to that amount, drawn by a person of the name of Newbigging, on the right honourable Henry Dundas, under the designation of lord advocate for Scotland. Another bank note of 1000/. issued from the exchequer, on the 22d of November 1782, for public navy services, was traced to the house of Messrs. Drummond, one of the private bankers of lord