lic duty is cast upon a man, he is responsible by the common law proceedings in respect of his duty. In proof of these positions, the learned gentleman appealed to the authority of lord Mansfield, who, in the case of the king against Bembridge, expressed himself to the following effect:-"If a man accepts an office of trust and confidence, concerning the public, especially when it is at tended with profit, he is amenable to the king for the faithful discharge of it, and the king can call upon him by way of indictment:" And afterwards, "where there is breach of trust, a fraud, or imposition, which, as between subject and subject, would only be liable to an action, it is indictable in the case of the crown."

a

In answer to the second charge and article of impeachment, Mr. Plumer and Mr. Adam contended, that it was no violation of the act of the 25th of George III. for the treasurer of the navy to draw from the bank of England, money intrusted to him for navy services, and to place the same in the hands of his private banker, or in any other place of deposit, which he thought safe and eligible, till it should be wanted for the purposes for which it was drawn, provided always it was drawn from the bank by drafts, specifying the heads of service to which it was to be applied, as prescribed by the act. In the course of this argument the learned counsel entered into a minute examination of the act, from which, after making a distinction between, the original and pri. mary place of deposit, and the sole, ultimate and continuing deposit," they concluded, that the act regulated in what manner the money

wanted for navy services should be issued from the exchequer, and paid into the bank, and prescribed the form to be used by the treasurer of the navy in drawing it from the bank; but, that with respect to its subsequent custody, the act was totally silent, and contained no re. striction whatever, which could prevent the treasurer from placing it, till wanted, wherever he pleased. They also contended, that from the number and minuteness of the pay. ments made at the navy pay office, the business of that department could not go on, unless there was some other place of deposit for the public money intrusted to the treasurer of the navy, besides the bank of England.

This construction of the act of parliament was treated with ridicule by the attorney-general. The act was a remedial law, intended to take from the treasurer of the navy the custody of the public money, and to deprive him of the opportunity of having that custody, except only where it was inevitable. But, admitting the exposition given of the act by the learned counsel, so absurdly was it contrived, that though it employed the utmost care and precaution in providing for the safe conveyance of the public money from the exchequer to the bank, the moment the money arrived at the bank, it was as much at the disposal of the treasurer, as if the act had never existed. He might draw it out without restraint or limitation, provided only he put it into the form of his draft, for navy services." The attorney-ge neral contended on the other hand, that the act was violated, unless the money drawn from the bank was bona fide, drawn for immediate ap

plication

plication to navy services, and that the treasurer was not justified for defeating the principal and main object of the act, by his adherence in his drafts to the literal form of words which it prescribed. The learned gentleman proceeded to shew, that the clauses of the act were consistent with the exposition of it contended for by the commons, while many of these clauses were repugnant to the construction attempted to be put upon it by the defendant. He particularly insist ed on the following proviso in the body of the act, "that nothing shall be construed to prevent him (the treasurer of the navy) from drawing for such limited sums, as may be thought necessary by the navy board for paying ships, and carrying on recalls." Seeing in a law such a proviso as this, could he construe it in the way in which the learned counsel for the noble lord, called upon their lordship's to construe it? He did not deny on the part of the commons, that the treasurer might draw small sums from the bank, to supply the daily wants of his sub-accomptants, and carry on the daily business of the navy pay office, but he was not to withdraw large sums on that pretence, in order to lodge them in a place of custody different from that provided by the wisdom of the legislature,

In answer to the third charge comprehending the remaining artieles of impeachment, the counsel for the defendant began by stating that the charge against lord Melville was not a charge for neglect of duty, for omitting to keep a vigilant and superintending eye over the conduct of his paymaster, whereby the latter was enabled to

commit the offences proved in evidence; but that he wilfully, know. ingly, illegally, and fraudulently connived at, and permitted, and authorised all that was done. This charge the learned counsel contended, was directly, positively, clearly and satisfactorily disproved by the evidence brought in support of it. Trotter, though he had every possible motive to extenuate his own offences, by dividing the guilt of them with his patron, had declared upon oath, that all the acts charged against lord Melville, were his own unauthorised acts, and committed without the knowledge or suspicion of that noble lord. But if the evi. dence of Trotter was rejected as unworthy of credit, the whole evidence for the prosecution fell to the ground; for, it could not scarcely be argued, that his evidence was to be believed when it made against lord Melville, and disregarded when it inade in his favour. The learned counsel then entered into an examination of the evidence affecting the defendant, in which we shall not attempt to follow them, having already stated the substance of the evidence as it appears to us, accor ding to the impression which it has made upon our minds.

After the managers had closed their reply, and the lords adjourned to the chamber of parliament, some conversation took place in the house, upon the day to be fixed for discussing the charges, and as the evidence was not all printed, and was very voluminous, it was agreed to defer going into the business for ten days, and accordingly the trial was put off till Wednesday the 28th of May, when the lords were ordered to be summoned.

In the commons a motion was made

made on the 23d of May by general Fitzpatrick, to thank the managers of the impeachment "for their faithful management in their discharge of the trust reposed in them." This motion was seconded by Sir John Newport, and agreed to with only one dissentient voice. The speaker then calling on the managers, who stood up in their several places, addressed them as follows:

"Gentlemen,

“This house upon the result of grave and important inquiries, into the administration of the public expenditure, came to the resolution of entering upon the most solemn of all its functions; and of resort ing to that transcendent power, by which it can bring to judgment all misdeeds done by the highest servants of the crown, and most effectually avenge all inroads made, or attempted to be made, upon the liberties of the people.

"The conduct and management of that power it delegated to you; to prepare and arrange the proofs of complex and intricate facts; and to make good the charge of high crimes and misdemeanors against a noble person, whose elevated and splendid situations in the state, rendered his actions of signal example, for good or for evil, to all persons entrusted with the public treasure. "Throughout the progress of the trial so undertaken, we have seen with peculiar satisfaction, its proceedings conducted with an cxemplary diligence and dispatch, which have rescued impeachments from the disgrace into which they had nearly fallen, and have restored them to their ancient strength and honour. Upon your part we have also witnessed that unwearied in.

dustry, and singular sagacity, with which you have pursued and established the proofs;-that boldness so properly belonging to the commons, with which you have maintained the charge, and that powerful display of argument and learned eloquence which have spread the light of day over dark, secret, and criminal transactions.

"The issue of the whole is now with the lords; and whether that be of condemnation or acquittal, it rests with a tribunal, which, so far as depends upon human institutions, promises the fairest hopes of ultimate justice.

"But, be that issue what it may, your part is accomplished. In the discharge of your duty, you have satisfied the expectation of the commons; you have obtained the high reward of their approbation and thanks, and, in obedience to their commands, I am now to acquaint you with their resolution :

"That the thanks of this house "be given to the members who

were appointed the managers of "the impeachment against Henry "lord viscount Melville, for their faithful management in their discharge of the trust reposed in "them."

General Fitzpatrick then moved, "that Mr. Speaker be desired to print the speech which he made to the managers of the impeach. ment of lord Melville, in conse quence of the resolution of this house:" which was agreed to unanimously.

The house of lords resumed the consideration of the impeachment, on the 28th of May; but, as strangers were excluded from the house, and no report has been published of their debates, we are com

pelled

pelled to give a very short and mperfect account of the subsequent proceedings of that assembly. We understand, however, that the whole of the first day was consumed in discussions of order. The lord chancellor, in moving that the house should go into a committee on the impeachment, took occasion to express, in very strong language, his disapprobation of the ancient and established practice in such cases, of the house coming to a previous decision in the chamber of parliament, and exacted a sort of pledge, that no vote should be taken on the question, whether the commons had made good any of their charges, until the house went down to Westminster-hall. He announced at the same time, his intention of moving in the committee, that some of the articles should be divided, and discoursed at some length on the defective form in which they had been prepared by the commons. Whereupon some of the lords entered into a vindication of the ancient practice of the house in cases of impeachment, and argued, that the house could not, consistently with its forms, discuss the articles of impeachment, unless there was a question before it, and that, whether the house should divide on that question, must depend not on any general resolution of the whole house, but on the individual members present, any one of whom might insist on taking the sense of the house on the question which it had entertained. A long and warm conversation followed, in which the chief speakers on the one side were the lord chancellor, lord Ellenborough, and lord Radnor, and on the other side lord Lauderdale and lord Holland. At length the house went into a

committee to take into consideration the first article of impeachment, and being afterwards resumed, adjourned till the 30th.

On that day the former subject of discussion was revived by lord Auckland, who rising before the chairman had taken the chair, made a speech of some length enforcing the propriety of a previous discussión and vote, and ended by moving, "That the proceedings on Mr. Hastings's trial, the report of the committee, and questions put to the lords

in Westminster-hall should be printed." Lord Ellenborough and lord Erskine replied to lord Auckland-but after some debate his motion was agreed to. The house then resolved itself into a committee, in which, after a long debate on the most expedient mode of framing a question, which would bring to a fair issue the propriety of dividing the first article of impeachment, as proposed by the lord Chancellor and lord Ellenborough-and after a full discussion of the question itself, an amendment proposing a division of the article, was negatived by a majority of 72 to 53. The chief speakers for the amendment were lord Erskine and lord Ellenborough; against it, lord Eldon and lord Stanhope. It was then resolved, that it is the opinion of this committee, that the first question put to the lords in Westminster-hall shall be, "Is Henry viscount Melville guilty of the high crimes and misdemeanours charged upon him in the first article of the impeachment, or not guilty?"-Then the like motions were made on the other nine articles, and severally agreed to.

The house being again, on the