plete work on the Antiquities of Greece, similar in design to the Roman Antiquities of Dr Adams. Besides introducing every thing valuable in the works of Archbishop Potter and others, who wrote on Grecian antiquities at a distant period, Mr Robinson has availed himself of the Travels of Anacharsis, of the works of Stuart, Choiseul, Gauffier, Sonnini, Winkleman, and other recent writers and travellers, to enrich his work, and render it useful and desireable to students and admirers of Greek literature.

Mr Boyd's translation of the Triumph of Petrarch is in considerable forwardness.

A new novel from the pen of Mr Lewis is expected this month.

The Rev. Mr Rogers has finished the third and fourth volumes of his Lectures on the Liturgy.

A new edition of Clarendon's History of the Rebellion, in octavo, is just issuing from the University press. Another edition in quarto will follow it.

..

VERSES

Grotius de Veritate Christianæ Religionis, with numerous corrections of the text, will be sent to press before the winter. The copy, we understand, is just completed.

A new room, adjoining to the Bodleian library, (formerly the Law-school,) has been lately completed, and partly filled with ancient MSS., leaving spaces in the upper library for printed books. The principal manuscripts are those of Mr Carte and Bishop Tanner.

Accounts have been received from the Baptist missionaries in Bengal, bearing date November 15, 1805, by which it appears that the converts had increased since the commencement of the year from 34 to 70. Three of the natives are preaching the gospel. The missionaries are proceeding in the translation and printing of the Old and New Testament in four or five eastern languages, and they hope to accomplish the translation into all the languages of the East.

On the Death of
ADMIRAL LORD NELSON,
By Dr Robert Couper.
HUNG be the heav'ns with black!" ye
Spirits come-

Ye dim-grey children of the mould'ring tomb

Ye who lean'd o'er great Alfred's ebbing breath,

And clos'd the Bruce's flaming eyes in death;

Who sadly sat on London's bloody hill, Till Wallace' heart quench'd ruthless Edward's will;

Who o'er the heroes of heroic times, Unting'd with vices, and unstain'd with crimes,

Tent the last moments of their glorious day,

And pour'd your incense on their quiv'ring clay

Come, Spirits, come-behold War's bloody

spoils,

The child of nature, and the man of toils, Virtue's strong breast, and Freedom's well

knit arms,

At rest for ever from his lov'd alarmsHere Nelson lies-the fated ball it sped, And pale he lies upon the hero's bed.

The TRIAL of LORD VISCOUNT

MELVILLE.

(Continued from p. 544.),

money on the security of stock? Yes.-Will you state the particulars of that transaction, as well as you can recollect? I objected to different stocks that were proposed; a good deal of conversation arose, and

net, re-examined.

E gave orders to Mess. Mansfield,

H Ramsay, and Co. to draw on Mess.

Courts for two sums of 10,000l. each, and also for 50001 It was on account of monies at Mess. Coutts's, on his brother Mr Alexander Trotter's account. He said, all his private letters and papers were delivered to the Managers from 1786 to 1800.

Mr Mark Sprott, stock broker, was sworn and interrogated by Mr Whitbread.

Did you accept the controul over the sum of 13,500l. India Stock from Alexander Trotter in May 1800, and under orders from him? I did.- Did you, in consequence of the intervention of Mr Trotter, advance money for the India Stock, and other funds? I did. To what amount? The sum was about fifty-one thousand seven hundred and odd pounds. On whose account did you make the advance? It was for Mr R. S. Dundas.-Had you complete power over these funds in consequence of such advance? Yes, I had.-To whom did you pay the said money? To Mr Alexander Trotter. Did you receive a draft from Lord Melville to make the account even : The amount was 14271. 11s. 7d., I never did receive any draft from Lord Melville. Did you receive a sum of money of about this amount, in any form from Lord Melville? I did not. Did you receive such a sum of money from any one, to make the balance of the account even? I certainly did from Mr Alexander Trotter. Did you transact money business largely with Mr Alexander Trotter? I have borrowed money of him, and lent him money in large sums. Did you ever purchase navy and victualling bills, and other government securities for Alexander Trotter? I have purchased navy bills.-Were the bills so purchased for Mr Alexander Trotter ever at a discount? I do not immediately recollect that they were.-Do you remember if Mr Alexander Trotter borrowed any sum of money of you, in order to avoid selling his navy bills? I remember his borrowing money of me, but for what purpose I do not

know.

cents. It was upon account of the transactions, resulting from this conversation, that you received the balance mentioned 14271. IIS. 7d.? Yes, it was. Had you any interview with Lord Melville during these transactions? None whatever. Is the stock so alienated to you, disposed of or not? I cannot answer that question exactly, but I know it was VERY LONG WINDED.

(The learned Counsel for the defendant directed a paper to be delivered to the witness, and then proceeded.)

Is that your hand writing? Yes, it is. Was that paper written by you at the time of the transaction? Yes, it was. Examine the paper, and see if it refreshes your me mory with regard to the negociation.

(The witness slowly perused the contents of the paper.)

Q. Were not these transactions exclusives ly on account of Mr Alexander Trotter? They were on his account. Have you any knowledge or belief that any other person was concerned in them? None whatever. You have no suspicion that he was agent for any other person? None. Had you any knowledge, at the time of the transac tion, that the money advanced by Mr Trotter was public money? Certainly not. Have you any acquaintance with the connections of Mr Trotter, and do you know that many of them are persons of respectability and opulence?

The witness made some observations on the respectability of Mr Trotter's family, and of his connection with Mess. Coutts, He was then re examined by Mr Whit bread.

Q. Do you recollect, or net, if you were ever told, that the money so advanced was for Lord Melville?

Mr Plomer objected to this interrogatory. The witness may speak to what devolves within his own knowledge, but he must not in this way give evidence, as to what he conjectures, from the information of others.

The Hon. Manager contended, that this mode of examination necessarily arose out of the cross examination of the Learned Counsel; and to shew this, he recited that part of the examination by Mr Adam, which applied to the question. He then repeated his own interrogatory, which was somewhat varied when proposed by the Lord Chancellor.

Q. Do

Q. Do you know, of your own knowledge, if the money were advanced for Lord Melville, or not? A. I do not. Were you not desired to advance this money on Lord Melville's security? I was not.

Ninth Day, May 9.

The Right Hon. Charles Bragge Ba thurst and George Tierney, Esq. testified to the mode in which the business of the office of Treasurer was conducted during the time they held that situation.

Mr Wilson deposed as to various transactions in the Navy Office during the absence of Mr Trotter in Scotland.

Mr James Gibson, Writer to the Signet, was called to prove, that the clause for the destruction of vouchers in the release was an unusual clause in such instruments in Scotland.

Mr Mark Sprott was again called, and examined by Mr Whitbread.

Q. Look at this book, Sir, and inform the Court, if, by refreshing your memory, you can tell us if you received the sum of 14271. IIS. 7d. by a draft? A. I received it in bank notes and edd cash, which I put into my pocket.

(A paper was handed to the witness.) Q. Is the signature to this document your hand-writing? A. Yes it is.

(This paper, when read, appeared to be a receipt of Mr Mark Sprott for 20,2221. 4s. 5d. as security for the advance of 20,000l.)

Q. Did the stock transferred into your name constitute a part of the security for the money furnished by you? A. I presume it was, but I have no recollection of it.--Have you read that receipt? Yes I have, but I have no more recollection of it than a child unborn.

Cross examined by Mr Plomer.

Q. Had you any interview with Lord Melville in Scotland: A. No. I never saw his shadow there. Did you see either of his sons there? No. I never saw any of them, or had any communion with them.

After some other witnesses were examine ed as to a few particulars less material,

Mr Whitbread said, "The Commons, my Lords, close their evidence for the impeachment of Lord Melville, with this reservation, that if any matters of importance shall come to their knowledge, they may have the liberty of producing further testimony."

Tenth Day, May 10.

After some additional evidence was first produced with respect to the appointments held by Lord Melville, from which it appeared that Lord Melville had been Keeper of the Signet in Scotland; he had ceased to

possess that Office, which was held by his son, Mr Robert Dundas. Similar evidence was adduced on the emoluments which his Lordship derived from the Offices of Keeper of the Privy Seal in Scotland, President of the Board of Controul, Treasurer of the Navy, &c. The Managers also put in the Report of the Commissioners of Naval Inquiry, the Articles of Impeachment by the Commons of Great Britain and Ireland, Mr Whitbread's Message to the Lords, on presenting the charges, and such other documents as were thought necessary in point of form. After which

The Lord Chancellor called upon the Solicitor-General to proceed.

Sir Samuel Romilly then addressed the Court. He began by stating to their Lordships what had been the grounds of the proceedings, and upon what circumstances the charges were established. This was a duty which he consideredas due to the Commons of England and Ireland, and even to the accused himself; for the character of the Commons was above the suspicion of their entertaining any personal hostility to the Noble Defendant: so far were they from it, that they could not, without painful feelings, contrast the situation of the Noble Viscount, when possessed of power, authority, and the favour and con fidence of his Sovereign, with that in which he was placed at their Lordship's bar, as a delinquent, stripped of all those advantages, and obliged to justify himself against charges of high crimes and misdemeanours. But the Managers were, at the same time, awfully impressed with a due sense of the serious duties imposed upon them, and the responsibility of their situation, when they had, at the same time, to sustain the dignity and character of those who sent them there, and to deal with justice towards the individual accused. In the first place then, he would state what were the crimes of which the Noble Viscount was accused; afterwards, the nature of the evidence, as it applied to the proof of them; and, finally, how far he considered the charges to have been proved. The crime was that of a wilful violation of the law, in the breach of an act of Parliament, and the appropriation of the public money to his own purposes, both of which were, in fact, resolved into one and the same crime. It could be no hardship to be accused, if the Managers went upon stubborn substantial facts. They charged him with the misapplication of 10,000l.-the manner of employing which, he had left them no possible means of tracing. The accused had no possible excuse for his conduct. When the law ordained that he should not

apply

apply the public moncy, but for public purposes, he received an additional salary, in compensation for not doing so. This was the condition on which he held his office, and obtained an additional salary, and yet it was proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction, that he received the additional salary, and, at the same time, violated the condition upon which he obtained it. To wind up the climax of his criminality, it would be sufficient for him to mention, that this law, which he violated, was of his own production, as had been proved by the Managers, who, this day, put in an abstract from the Journals of the House of Commons, from which it appeared, "that the Right Hon. Henry Dundas was one of the persons appointed to prepare and bring in the bill."The Managers, he observed, laboured under a peculiar difficulty in conducting this prosecution, as they had no other evidence to resort to, but the undestroyed accounts and letters of Lord Melville himself; and the strang. est thing of all was, that even this evidence was objected to by his Counsel, who, instead of endeavouring to afford any explanation, entered, on his part, a solemın protestation against it. Their Lordships, no doubt, would know how to appreciate this species of defence; for, in his opinion, the objections of Viscount Melville's Counsel to allow the production of his own accounts, and of his own hand-writing, afforded the most complete evidence and conviction of his guilt. The rules of law were not so much at variance with those of common sense, as to reject this proof; for surely, the same documents, which, if favourable, would have justified the accused, must, when unfavourable, be allowed to operate against him. The Learned Manager then went into a long and circumstantial statement of all the various accounts referred to in the course of the comparing the official, with the bank accounts, from day to day, &c. The last that he dwelt upon, was, the declaration made by Viscount Melville, in the House of Commons, that of all the suns of public money coming through his hands, as Treasurer of the Navy, none was applied to other than naval purposes, except the sum of 10,000l. and in what manner he employed that, his sense of public duty would prevent him from ever disclosing to that House, or to any human being. Such a declaration, made in the face of the nation, within the walls of the House of Commons, and in the teeth of an act of Parliament, must, if submitted to, have the preposterous and monstrous effect of putting a public accountant above the law, and superior to all responsibility. How was this mystery to be unravelled? Was

The

he authorised to do so by his Majesty, or by any, other authority superior to his own? That he did not deign to tell. In this country, there was no man possessed of public money for which he was not accountable. He, however, openly declared, that he would not account for it. Learned Gentleman then contended, from the evidence of Lord Melville before the Commiflioners, that he knew of the application of the public money to private uses by Mr Trotter. He then called the attention of their Lordships to the proposition made to Lord Melville, to apply part of the money lodged in the Bank to purchase India stock, but that his Lordship had indignantly rejected this proposal. But how, he asked, was this indignation followed up? In a very short time, Lord Melville agreed that Mr Trotter should obtain a loan of money, for the purpose of enabling his Lordship to purchase the stock. The stock was to be obtained, without any other security than the stock itself. Now, was it in the slightest degree probable that a person possessing such a knowledge of the world as Lord Melville, with the advantage, too, of a legal education, should for a moment suppose that money could be raised upon such security? or that any person would be such a fool as to lend money for a small premium to another, when that person was capable of applying it to the same advantage as the borrower? The Learned Gentleman then commented upon the execution of the release, and the destruction of the vouchers, for which no reason could possibly be given. In a Court case, their Lordships well knew, that if a party destroyed evidence, he was charged to the full extent that such evidence, if before the Court, would have gone against him. This point he pressed to the consideration of their Lordships, and concluded his speech, by again calling to the attention of their Lordships, the ruin in which the country might have been involyed by the conduct of a man, to whom millions of the public money were entrusted.

The Lord Chancellor then inquired whether any of the Managers wished to be further heard, and was answered by Mr Whitbread in the negative..

Eleventh Day, May 13.

THE DEFENCE.

As soon as the Court was opened, with the usual formalities, the Lord Chancellor called on the Counsel for the Defendant to proceed.

Mr Plomer then rose. Standing, he said, in such a situation as he then did, he stood in need of all the candour and indulgence that the House could possibly shew him