reply was communicated to the commons, and by them referred to the managers.

The next proceeding in this business was a report of the managers, presented to the house of commons, on the 4th of March, containing further matters of a criminal nature against lord Melville, which was ordered to be printed and taken into consideration on a future day. Upon the facts disclosed in this report an additional article of im-peachment was moved on the 7th of March, and, after some conversation, agreed to without opposition. When this additional article was communicated to the lords, it was referred to a committee, to search for precedents of the proceedings of the house in such cases, and the report of the committee being favourable to the admission of the additional article, it was ordered to be communicated to lord Mel. ville, that he might put in his answer to it within a limited time.

In the mean time Trotter, one of the principal witnesses in this cause, having refused to answer the questions put to him by the managers, on the ground that his auswer might subject him to a civil suit, was or dered by the house of commons to be taken into the custody of the serjeant at arms; but, having next day (March 6,) presented a humble petition to the house, expressive of his contrition, for having offended them, and having given the managers satisfaction as to the questions which he had refused to answer, he was set at liberty, after a preper admonition from the speaker.

Lord Melville's answer to the additional article, which was a general plea of not guilty, like his answer to the preceding ones, having been

presented to the house of lords on the 24th of March, and the replication of the commons having been presented next day at the bar of the house, their lordships were pleased, on the motion of earl Fitzwilliam, to fix the 29th of April for the trial of lord Melville, and to send a message to the commons, to acquaint them therewith, and to require them to appoint a committee to manage the impeachment.

On the following day Mr. Whitbread moved, in the house of commons, "that the house should be present at the trial of lord viscount Melville, as a committee of the whole house."

It was objected to this motion by the friends of lord Melville, that the adoption of it would necessarily lead to the trial being carried on in Westminster Hall, which would be the cause of great delay, and of much additional expence to the defendant ; and it was contended, that justice would be more speedily and more cheaply, and not less effectually obtained, by a trial at the bar of the house of lords; in proof of which, the trial of lord Macclesfield at the bar of that house, which lasted only twenty one days, was contrasted with the trial of Mr. Hastings in Westminster Hall, which lasted during eight sessions of parliament.

It was answered, that it ill became the friends of lord Melville, who had prevailed in having a trial by impeachment preferred to the tria! by indictment, on which the commons had originally determined, to object to the impeachment being conducted according to the old and established usage of parliament; that all their former arguments for preferring trial by impeachment to trial by indictment, derived from the

rank

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 tral were not conducted with the greatest publicity; that the great object of impeachment was to serve as an example to men in public situations, 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 mauagement 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 procedure adopted by the house of lords. These reasons being deemed satisfactory by the house, Mr. Whitbread'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 recom. mended, 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 lordships qu disputed points of evidence, 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 incans of proceeding in the trial without delay. This motion 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 presame 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

concur

concur perfectly with the duke of Norfolk. We cannot forget, that the effect of this prohibition was not to prevent what passed in Westminster Hall from being the subject 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 circu, Jated, 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 discus. sions 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 actual. ly did defeat the salutary ends pro posed by impeachment. The country ceased to be interested in the progress of a trial, the proceedings of which were not communicated to it, like o'her daily occurrences, 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 bosummed 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. Flumer 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 February 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 22.000/. out of the public money, and that the accounts relative thereto have been burned and destroved for the above mentioned purpose;

8th. That

among other advances 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 10.000 to 20.000. 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 one. 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 aggrava tion of other charges. These defects in the articles of impeachment were in their operation favourable to the defendant, by les. sening 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 construction 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