rive some lustre from the effulgence of the glory of that Court. Fifteenth Day-May 17. Mr Whitbread resumed his speech. He commented at length on the confession of the Noble Lord respecting the application of 10,000l. to purposes which he avowed he would not disclose. He then adverted to the demeanour of Mr Trotter in giving his evidence, and insisted that, from his manner, as much was to be inferred as from the plainest testimony. He argued from the 4th and 5th clauses of the act of 1786, and contended, that they were notoriously violated by the Noble Defendant. With respect to the want of care in the Noble Defendant in examining his accounts, it did not appear that such was his character by his subsequent conduct. He had had the caution to insert an unusual clause in a release for the destruction of all vouchers, and he had not neglected to perform that agreement. What would the Noble Lord have said, when in office, to any of his inferior agents, if he had come to him with such excuses as the Noble Lord now offered to the Court on behalf of himself. With regard to the removal of the money from the Bank to Coutts's, it was argued that the Noble Defendant had done it for reasons of official convenience when the Pay Office was removed from Broad-Street to Somerset House. But in fact, it was in 1786 that the money was removed to Coutts's, and the office was not removed until the year 1787-the falsity of that pretence was there most evident. No The Hon. Manager next adverted to the refuge taken by the Noble Lord under the 5th clause, and refusing to answer the Commissioners of Inquiry. He considered this as strongly indicative of what were the Noble Lord's feelings-He fled to the 5th clause, and exclaimed in the words of the Scotch song, "Throw your auld cloak a bout me." If a conduct such as the Noble Defendant's could be overlooked and escape punishment, it would have the most baneful public influence. It was little matter comparatively how this case ended; but the example was most terrific. public accountant hereafter need dread any responsibility, should the Noble Lord stand acquitted. He then entered into a detail of the transaction of 1800 with much spirit, and observed, had not that loan been negotiated, the Noble Lord would not probably have been enabled to pay his balances, and the public must have suffered a loss. In adverting to the conversation stated to have passed between Lord Melville and Trotter, he observed, that though the latter could not recollect any of the conversations with precision, it was not to be doubted but that they understood each other; there were many modes of communicating ideas be sides by words. When our immortal bard represents King John as wishing the death of his nephew Arthur, without daring to speak his wishes direct to Hubert, he thus addresses him "If thou couldst see without eyes, "Hear without thine ears, and make reply "Without a tongue, using conceit alone"Without eyes tears, and harmful sound of words, "Then in despite of blooded watchful day, "I would into thy bosom pour my thoughts." Similar, most likely, was Lord Melville's directions to Trotter, respecting India Stock; but if any doubt remained as to this point, surely there could be none to those sums which the Noble Lord admitted he had applied contrary to the purposes of the act. In conclusion, the Hon. Manager adverted to the manner in which the Counsel had attempted to defend their client, Instead of attempting to rescue his impeached honour, and restore his character, they had only attempted to save him from punishment. "Oh! miserable man, to be so defended, said the Honourable Manager, Every one of the charges which the Ma nagers have presented against you have been completely substantiated. By your own confession, you have shown that you have illegally applied a large sum of the public money, and for that alone we are justified in seeking a verdict of condemna tion against you. You expressed your readiness to swear that you did not derive any profits from the public money, during the paymastership of Douglas, and we have proved that you did. You have also declared that you derived no profits during the paymastership of Mr Trotter, and we have proved that you did. And what has been deposed by our evidence, not a single witness has been called on your part to controvert. We therefore claim from your Lordships the just reward of our success a verdict against the Noble Defendant." The Lord Chancellor asked the learned Counsel for the Defendant if they wished to say any thing upon the cases quoted by theAttorney General.-Mr Plomer merely observed, that he thought the case of Brembridge and Powell did not apply-The Attorney General stated that he quoted the case for the principle it established, which he insisted was analogous to the present case. The Court then adjourned to the Chamber of Parliament. The Lords spent several days in discussing the evidence. In the course of their deliberations, three questions on the point of law were agreed to be put to the Judges; to which the following answers (which com. comprehend the whole questions) were unanimously returned: 1. Answer-That monies issued from the Exchequer to the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, on account of the Treasurer of his Majesty's Navy, pursuant to the Act of 25th Geo. III. c. 31. may be lawfully drawn from the said Bank by the person duly authorized by the Treasurer to draw upon the Bank according to the said Act, the drafts of such person being made for the purpose of discharging bills actually assigned upon the Treasurer before the dates of such drafts, but not actually presented for payment before such drawing, and that such monies so drawn for such purpose may be lawfully lodged and deposited in the hands of a banker, other than the Governor and Company of the Bank, until the payment of such assigned bills, and for the purpose of making payment thereof when the payment thereof shall be demanded, and that such act in so drawing such monies, and lodging and depositing the same as aforesaid, is not in the law a crime or offence. II. Answer.-If, by the expression" for the purpose of being deposited in the hands of a private banker, or other private depository," is to be understood that such was the object or reason of drawing the money out of the Bank of England, the Judges answer, that monies may not lawfully be drawn out of the Bank of England by the Treasurer of the Navy for such purpose, although the money be intended to be, and may in fact be, ultimately applied to naval services: But if, by that expression, it is to be understood that such interme. diate deposit in the hands of a private banker or depository, is to be made bona fide as the means, or supposed means, of more conveniently applying the money to navy services, in that case the Judges answer, that monies issued from the Exchequer to the Bank of England, on account of the Treasurer of the Navy, pursuant to the act of the 25th George III. c. 31. may be lawfully drawn therefrom by drafts drawn in the name and on behalf of the Treasurer, in the form prescribed by the said act, for the purpose of such monies being ultimately applied to navy services, although, in the mean time, and until the same shall be required to be so applied, the money may be deposited in the hands of a private banker, or other private depository of such monies, in the name and under the immediate sole controul and disposition of some other person or persons than the Treasurer himself. III. Answer-To this Question the Judges replied-That it was not unlawful for the Treasurer of the Navy, before the act 25th Geo. III. although after the warrant stated in the question, to apply any sum of money imprested to him for navy services, to other uses, public or private, without express authority for so doing, so as to constitute a misdemeanour, punishable by information or indictment. On the 11th of June, at the last private deliberation of their Lordships, a roll of the Peers names who had attended the trial was made up by the Clerks of Court, and an order made that this roll be called over next day on giving their final judge. ment, and no Peer whose name was not contained in this roll should have a right to vote. A motion was made, that Lord Melville should not be present while the Peers were delivering their votes, but this motion was over-ruled. Sixteenth day-June 12. The anxiety to hear the final determi nation of this most important case attracted crowds beyond what had been present on any former day, and many hundreds who had procured tickets were obliged to go away without being able to effect an entrance. The Peeresses attended in such numbers that there was scarcely accommodation for them. About a quarter before eleven, the Managers, followed by the other Members of the House of Commons and after them by the Speaker, entered. The Lords were closely shut up until twelve o'clock, during which time the several articles of impeachment were read; and the final arrangements made for pas sing judgment in the High Court of Parlia ment. Their Lordships then proceeded in the accustomed procession to the Hall. Silence being proclaimed, the Lord Chancellor addressed their Lordships in the following words: "Your Lordships having fully considered and deliberated upon the several articles of impeachment exhibited against Henry Viscount Melville, and the evidence adduced in support thereof, are now to proceed to pronounce judgement on the several questions, and the first question is this." His Lordship then stated the charge contained in this article. His Lordship then put the question to the youngest Baron on the first article, and in succession to every other Peer, up to his Royal Highness the Duke of York, the Prince of Wales not being present. The manner of putting the question was this "John Lord Crewe, is Henry Viscount Melville guilty of the high crimes and misdemeanours charged in this article or not! Answer, Not Guilty, upon my honour." The Peer in giving his vote stood up, and inclining forward placed his right hand on his heart. The Lord Chancellor ha ving collected the other votes on each charge, gave his own in this form : "I Thomas Lord Erskine having fully considered and deliberated upon the matter in the first article, am of opinion, that Henry Viscount Melville is not guilty upon that article, upon my honour.' All the votes being taken upon the first article, silence was again proclaimed, and the question put in the same manner on the remaining charges, till the whole was gone through. About ten minutes before four, the numbers being all cast up by the clerks, assisted by the agents of the parties, the Lord Chancellor spoke as follows: THE JUDGEMENT. "The Majority of the Lords have ACQUITTED Henry Viscount Melville, on the impeachment preferred against him by the House of Commons, and of ALL THINGS contained therein; and, Henry Viscount Melville, I am to acquaint you, that you are Acquitted of the Impeachment preferred against you by the House of Commons, and of all things contained therein ” The following is an abstract of the charges, with the votes upon each, taken from the Journals of the House of Lords. I. On the First Article, charging Lord Melville with applying 10,000l of the public money to his own use, previous to January 1786. Not Guilty Guilty 120 15-105 Majority. II. Charging him with permitting Alexander Trotter to apply sums of the public money to his own use, and conniving at such fraudulent application: Not Guilty Guilty 82 53-29 III. Charging him with permitting Alexander Trotter to draw the public money from the Bank, and place it in the hands of his bankers, Messrs Coutts and Co. in his own name, and at his own disposal: Not Guilty Guilty 83 52-31 IV. Charging him with a similar connivance, in respect of public money placed by the said Alexander Trotter, in the hands of Mark Sprot, for the purpose of private emolument : Not guilty, unanimously. V. Charging him the same as in the First Article, only laying the act subsequent to January 1786 :-Not Guilty Guilty 134 3-129 The following is a list of the Names of the Peers voting, and of the manner in which they voted; Guilty on the following charges. Dukes-Clarence, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10. Sussex, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10. Gloucester, 1, 3, 6, 7, 9. Lord President, E. Fitzwilliam,1,2,3,6,7,10 Lord Privy Seal, V. Sidmouth, 2, 3,6,7,8, Dukes-Norfolk, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8. Somerset, 2, 3, St. Albans, 2, 3, 6, 7. Marquis Winchester, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 Earls.-Derby, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9. Oxford, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10. Stan Donoughmore, 2, 3, 6, 7. St John, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10. Holland, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10. Bulkeley, 6, 7. 8. Somers, 2, 3, 6, 7, Dundas, 2, 3, 6, 7. Yarborough, 2, 3, 6, 7. Earls.. Aylesford (Lord Steward)..Dartmouth (Lord Chamberlain)... Bridgewater ...Westmoreland...Essex...Doncaster (Buccleugh)...Bristol...Macclesfield... Graham (Montrose)... Hardwicke...Chatham... Ba. thurst... Uxbridge ... Camden ... Strange (Athol)...Mount Edgecumbe ... Digby... Onslow...Chichester... Fortescue...Rowis... Strathmore...Kelly...Aboyne...Glasgow... ...Rolle...Carrington...Bayning... Bolton.... Northwick...Eldon...St. Helen's...Thomond ...Arden...Sheffield...Barham. Three protests were delivered into the House of Lords upon the result of Lord MELVILLE's trial, but the length to which they extend prevents us from inserting them. The first of these protests, which is signed Auckland Vassal Holland Lauderdale Oxford & Mortimer Carysfort, Dundas Suffolk & Berkshire was delivered in the day before the verdict was given in Westminister Hall; it consists merely of an objection to the form of proceeding, the Noble Dissentients contending that "it was the invariable practice of the House, in cases of high Crimes and Misdemeanours, to come to some vote within the Chamber of Parliament on the merits of the charges presented by the Commons." The second protest, which was delivered after the verdict was given in Westminster Hall, is founded upon the answer to the second charge; it is signed, Dawnay De Dunstanville Augustus Frederick Rosslyn Clifton Vassall Holland Suffolk and Berkshire St John This protest relates to the permission alledged to have been given by Lord MEIVILLE to Mr TROTTER, his Paymaster, to draw from the Bank of England, for other purposes than for application to naval services, contrary to "an act for the better regulating the office of Treasurer of his Majesty's Navy." The third protest is signedRosslyn Augustus Frederick Clifton St John De Dunstanville Vassal Holland Suffolk and Berkshire called the Chest Account, in which he debiWestmeath...Longford...Lucan...Limerick td Lord MELVILLE with 10,000l. being ...Caledon. 704 Proceedings of Parliament. The following are the rates of augmentation: Lieutenant-Colonels to be raised from 15s. 1d. to 175. per diem.-Majors, from 14s. 1d. to 16s.-Captains, from 9s. 5d. to 1os. 6d.; two shillings more to be allowed to Captains having the Brevet of Major, or any superior rank. -Lieutenants, from 5s. 8d. to 6s. 6d. and one shilling more to be allowed to Lieutenants of above seven years standing-Ensigns, from 4s. 8d. to 5s. 3d. Adjutants from 8s. to 8s. 6d.-Quarter masters, from 5s. 8d. to 6s. 6d.-Serjeant-Majors and Quartermaster-Ser. jeants from. old. to 2s. 6d. Serjeants from is. 64d. to is. 1od.-Corporals, after 14 years service, is. 6d.; ditto, from seven to fourteen, Is. 5d.; ditto, below seven, Is. 4d.;-Privates after fourteen years service Is. 2d.; ditto from seven to fourteen, is. Id.; ditto below seven Is. In addition to these rates, the officer commanding a battalion is to receive a further allowance of 35. a day, and Field Officers of Infantry Regiments at home are to be allowed forage for one horse.-Officers holding double appointments, whether Staff or Regimental, are not to have the increase of pay. The Lieutenants of Militia are not to get any additional allowance beyond 6s. 6d. a-day, after seven years. The increase of Pensious to Officers' Widows are as follows:-Lieut. Colonel from sol. to 6ol.-Major from 401. to 50l. Captain and Paymaster, from 30l. to 4cl.-Lieut. and Surgeon, from 261. to 301. Second Lieutenant, Cornet and Ensign, Quartermaster, Adjutant, Assistant Surgeon, and Veterinary Surgeon, from 20l. to 26.-Chaplain, Deputy Purveyor, and Hospital Mate, from 161.to 20l.-Physician and Purveyor, from 30l. to 401.-Commissaries at 20s. per day, from 30l. to 4al.--Ditto, at 15s. per day, from 261. to 30l.-Ditto at 10s. per day, from 20l. to 261. The augmentation to the Foot Guards is as follows: Serjeant-Major and Quarter Master Serjeant, per day 2s. 8d.; serjeant 25. corporal after 14 years service is. 7d.; from 7 to 14, Is. 6d. below, Is. 5d.; privates after 14 years service, 1s. 3d.; from 7 to 14, 1s. 2d.; below 7, no ad 'vance. The Militia Officers Bill passed thro' a committee after a good deal of opposition from Sir W. Elford, Mr Yorke, Col. Bastard, and others, who contended that the measure was degrading to the Militia, and a breach of faith with them, as by their original engagement they were entitled to the same pay as the regulars, and that it was in fact subversive of the Militia Laws. The bill was passed (July 16) after strong opposition, on a division, 35 to 24. Tuesday, July 15. In a committee on Earl Nelson's estate bill, Col, Wood thought that 5000l. per annum was a sufficient reward, as the money was voted to a collateral branch of the family. Mr Rose and Lord Henry Petty supported the bill, which passed thro' the committee with some new clauses added to regulate the purchase of the estate, &c. In the course of his speech Mr Rose stated, that Lord Nelson, on his leaving England to take the command off Cadiz, informed him (Mr Rose) that all the property he had in the world was not worth above 15,000l, and that his debts were nearly as much. |
