same charge, which lord Melville did in like manner settle and sign. It was further proved, that notwi hstanding lord Melville must bare known from this transaction, that the money advanced to him by Trotter, by means of which he was enabled to hold the loyalty loan, was public money, he permitted the dividen is accruing on that stock to be carried to his credit in his account current with Trotter till May 1800, when by a paper signed with his own hand, he authorized Mark Sprott to dispose of the same, which was accordingly done, and the produce carried to the credit of lord Melville in his account with Messrs. Thomas Coutts and Co. his bankers. It was also shewn in evidence, that there was an account between lord Melville a d Trotter, called their account current, which was opened within less than three months after the appointment of Trotter to the office of paymaster in January 1786, and was not finally closed till May 1800, when lord Melville left the navy pay. office that during that interval it had been frequently balanced and signed by both parties, and dupli. cates exchanged: that no interest was ever charged or either side in this account, though the balance upon it against lord Melville was generally from 10,000l. to 20,000l.; and that large sums of money were advanced by Trotter and placed to this account, derived from the public money illegally drawn by him from the bank, on the pretence of navy services, and placed by permi sion of lord Melville in the hards of his private banker.

It was further proved, that when Trotter was made paymaster of the Davy in 1786, he was unable to

make advances of money to lord Melville from his private fortune, which did not exceed at that time the sum of 1.000l. or 2,6061. ; and that nevertheless within three months after his nomination to the office of paymaster, he advanced 4,000l. to lord Melville, without interest, his pecuniary circumstances being perfectly known to lord Melville, when he accepted of that loan.

It was also shewn, that while lord Melville was thus receiving ad. vances of money, without interest, from Trotter, his attention must have been forcibly drawn to the transactions of that personage in regard to public money, by a very singular conversation, which took place between himself and Trotter in 1789, wherein Trotter had the audacity to propose to him, lord Melville, treasurer of his majesty's navy, holding his place by authori. ty of a warrant, which strictly prohibited him from deriving any emolument from the public money in his possession, to lay out the public money for his lord Melville's private interest and advantage; but though this proposal was re jected by the noble lord, it appeared not, that then, or at any subse quent period, he made any inquiry into th amount of the public mo ney in the hands of Trotter, nor into the uses to which it was applied, or risks to which it was expos ed; instead of which, he continued to accept advances of money from Trotter, without paying interest for them, or even inquiring from what source the money was derived.

With respect to the account current between lord Melville and Trotter, it further appeared, that the first item of that account, conI 4

sisting

sisting of a loan of 4,000l. advanced by Trotter to lord Melville, was supplied from the fund entrusted to Trotter for the payment of exchequer fees, and that in the bond given by lord Melville for that sum, there was no engagement to pay interest for the same. It was also proved, that on September 4th, 1792, the sum of 8,000l. was drawn by Trotter from the bank, on pretence of navy services; out of which the sum of 4,057. 10s. was employed the same day in the purchase of 2,000/. East India stock for the use and benefit of lord Melville, according to his express desire and request: and that no interest was charged to lord Melville for the purchase money of the said East India stock, though the divi. dends were carried to his credit, and the stock itself ultimately disposed of for his benefit in May 1800.

Lastly, it was proved, that in May 1800, when lord Melville quitted the navy pay-office, he was under the necessity of raising the sum of 50 000l. or thereabouts, to make good that part of the deficiency in his act of parliament account at the bank, which arose from public money applied to his own profit and advantage and it further appeared in evidence, that the sum total of public money advanced by Trotter to lord Melville, and enjoyed without interest by lord Melville, amounted on the 31st December,

In answer to the first of these charges, comprehending the first and tenth articles of impeachment, it was contended by Mr. Plumer, counsel for the defendant, that independant of the act of 25 Geo. 3, which was posterior to the commission of the supposed offences charged in these articles, and independant of the warrant, the treasurer of the navy was not restrained, either by common or statute law, or by the nature of his official duty or trust, from making a temporary use of the public money intrusted to him, before it was wanted for the public service; provided it was at all times ready, when called for, to answer the purposes for which it was destined. With respect to the warıant, the learned council admitted, that it precluded the treasurer of the na vy from making profit of the public money in his hands; but he argued, that the breach of this engagement, had it been committed by lord Melville, (which he denied), did not amount to a public crime or offence, and though it might subject him to civil consequences, could not be the foundation of a criminal charge against him.

This doctrine was impugned, in a very able reply on the part of the managers, by the attorney-general, who contended that a breach of duty, which, between individuals, created nothing but a civil remedy, was in a public accountant an indictable offence. The duty of every officer appointed by the king, was a public duty, which the law would vindicate by criminal proceedings. The warrant prescribed a course of public duty to the defendant, which if he infringed, he was liable to have an indictment or information filed against him by the law officers of the crown. The moment a pubLic

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 a 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."

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 in trasted 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, Bitigate 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 restriction 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 payments 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 par. liament was treated with ridicule by the attorney-general. The act was a remedial law, intendedto 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 mo ney 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 li. mitation, provided only he put it into the form of his draft, "for navy services." The attorney-general 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 insisted 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 articles 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, knowingly, 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 evidence 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 made in his favour. The learned counsel then entered into an exami. nation 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 t' trial was put off till Wednesday 28th of May, when the lords were or< dered to be summoned.

In the commons a motion was made