said he had no doubt but that was one of the notes so issued. He then turned to the second entry of 50,000l. and proved that a part of that issue was paid in three 10001. bank notes, Nos. 212,213, and 214, dated 7th November in the same year. The issue of any specific note on the 3d entry could not be proved.

Mr. William Heald, a clerk at Messrs. Drummonds', proved, that on the 29th of November, 1782, a note of 1000l. No. 212, was paid into their house in discharge of a sum credited to lord Melville of 6001. and that 400l. was given in change. This was paid on lord Melville's private account," said the managers," and was one of the notes drawn from the public service in the second entry."

It was then shewn, that divers sums were, from time to time, paid into Messrs. Drummonds' by Mr. Douglas, upon lord Melville's private account, but nothing specific was proved.

The managers then produced an admission, in lord Melville's handwriting, that he was indebted to the lord advocate of Scotland, on the 16th of November, 1802, in the sum of 10001. and it was subsequently proved, that the bank note, No. 12, for 1000l. part of the first issue of public money, as above entered, was paid to the account of the lord advocate at Messrs. Moffatt and Kensington's, in discharge of such debt, in the same month of November, 1802.

Mr. Whitbread now tendered himself as a witness. He stated that he heard lord Melville declare in the house of commons, the 11th of June, 1804, that he felt himself bound in honour to conceal the ap

plication of one sum of 10,0001. of the public money, and that he was determined not to reveal it. On his cross-examination he admitted, that the tendency of his lordship's speech, on the occasion allud. ed to, went to affirm that the money was not applied to his own private purposes.

The fact of his lordship having declined to answer questions put to him by the commissioners of naval inquiry, was then given in evidence.

Another entry in the treasurer's banking-book of the 11th of July, 1803, for 6,000l. and a corresponding issue of 6 1000l. bank notes, Nos. 261 to 267 (omitting 265) was then proved but as the managers could trace none of these notes to his lordship's private account, they contented themselves with shewing, that the money was paid to the defendant, and that no corresponding entries were made to prove that the same was applied to naval services.

Mr. Whitbread was again examined as a witness, to prove that lord Melville had confessed to his having applied a second sum of 10,000l. to purposes not naval, in Scotland. On his cross-examination, however, he admitted, that his lordship denied that the money was applied to his own private purposes.

The release signed by lord Melville and Mr. Trotter, on the 13th and 23d of February, 1803, was then put in, and read as evidence. By this, the parties mutually agreed to cancel and destroy all vouchers, documents, writings, &c. that had heretofore existed between them, and to exonerate each other, their heirs, &c. from all further claim or demand: and after that

Rr 2

Mr.

Mr. Alexander Trotter was called into the witnesses' box.-He be-, gan by stating, that he entered a junior clerk in the navy pay office, in the year 1776, at a salary of 501. a year. He was appointed paymaster to the noble defendant soon after, at a salary of 500l. per annum. When he came into office, he receiv. ed all the balances from the preceding paymaster, with the exception of 10,000l. which lord Melville said he should account for. He accordingly made his lordship debtor to that amount. Subsequently he applied to his lordship to let him draw a portion of the public money from the bank, and place it at his private banker's, intimating that it would be for the convenience of the public service. He confessed, that part of such drafts he had employed in buying up government securities, exchequer bills, &c. and also in discounting bills for private individuals of repute; all for his own private emolument and advantage. At one period he went into Scotland, leaving Mr. Wilson to act for him. He received lord Melville's pay as treasurer of the navy, and also his rents from Scotland, but not for his other offices. He kept "an account current" between himself and his lordship, but charged no interest for advances; that account was destroyed.-In the year 1786, he advanced 4000l. to his lordship, for which he took his bond without interest, and he believed that formed the first item in the account current. That advance was made from a mixed fund at Coutts's, composed of part of the public money, and part of his own proper monies. In 1792, he bought 20001. India stock for his lordship, which

came from the same mixed fund. In 1797, 10,000l. loyalty loan was subscribed on account of his lordship, the instalments of which he paid, for the noble defendant, as they became due, without informing his lordship of the fact, which he admitted were paid from the public money. He also purchased 70001. stock (in the 3 per cent. reduced) for his lordship; and these and all such advances were entered in the "account current," between him and his lordship: he charged no interest upon them. He had also paid 20001. to sir William Forbes and co. and 33741. to Messrs. Mansfeld, Ramsay, and co., bankers at Edinburgh, on account of lord Melville; but he could recollect no collateral circumstances attending such payments. Mr. Trotter went on to state, that besides the "account current," he kept another account-book, which he called "the chest account." This last he considered as lord Melville's account with the public: the first item in it was the 10,000l. lord Melville owed the public when he (the witness) came in to office; and the next was the 10,0001. loyalty loan. The general balances, he said, were against his lordship when he quitted the office. They amounted to a sum little short of 50,0001., which were paid up by his lordship. About the year 1789 or 90, he intimated to lord Melville the propriety of his increasing his India stock; when his lordship replied, " that he had no money."-The witness said he had considerable balances lying at Coutts's, of the public money, and asked if he should lay out 13 or 14,000l. for him?-His lordship refused in the most decided manner, and witness thought he had lost his lordship's

lordship's confidence, for the sug gestion he had made. Witness, how ever, was desirous the stock should be purchased, and told the defendant he would endeavour to borrow the money; but finding some difficulty in that, he advanced 23,000l. from the public money, and the stock was purchased for his lordship. He charged lord Melville interest for the money so advanced. His lordship never afterwards made inquiry who advanced him the loan, nor did he ever know it was advanced from the public money till their final settlement took place. He added, that his lordship ultimately derived a benefit of 8000l. upon the stock so purchased; and concluding his evidence by admitting, that the sub-accountants in the navy pay-office also made a little advantage of the public money in their hands.

Cross-examined by Mr. Piomer. -The witness stated, upon his cross-examination, that he had represented to lord Melville the propriety of having a part of the public money at Coutts's; adding, that it would be safer, inasmuch as it would prevent the risk in continually bringing large sums from the bank through the streets of the metropolis, and would be more convenient for satisfying claims. He did not say any thing about deriving profit from the use of the public money. He said, his lordship always investigated the public accounts, but was the most careless man alive with respect to his private accounts. He left all to the honour of the person he employed, and he believed that he never looked at a private account tendered to him. He had never stated to his lordship that the advances he supplied him with were taken

from the public stock; but he could not tell what his lordship's concep tions were upon that point. The only time a draft from the public money was mentioned to him, for private uses, he rejected it with indignation. He never stated to his lordship what fund he drew the loyalty loan from ; and he paid the several instalments as they became With due, without instructions. respect to the 7000l. stock in the 3 per cents. a sum belonging to his lordship came into his possession, and he thought it was best that it should not lie idle. The profit and advantage made of the public money was entirely his own.-The amount was consider. able; but the public never suffered loss or inconvenience by the use he made of it. The release, he said, was a matter of his own suggestion; and when he executed it, and burnt the books, vouchers, &c. the interest of lord Melville was not within his contemplation; he burnt and destroyed them merely as all the accounts between them were closed.

Re-examined by Mr. Whitbread. His lordship, he said, never told him in what account to debit the advances. When his lordship asked for an advance, and said he expected to receive money shortly, he con. cluded that was for his own private concerns, and he entered it in the account current; but when he made a peremptory demand of an advance, he concluded that was for the public service, and he entered it in the chest account, i. e. the account between his lordship and the public. The witness admitted, that he was forced himself to borrow sums of money to make good official pay. ments, rather than part with those securities at a discount, which he had Rr 3

bought

bought up with the public money. The way he paid his lordship's balances on his quitting his office, was by selling 20,000l. stock of his lordship's; also 30,000l. India stock, besides 13,000l. that he re. ceived from another source. He never explained to his lordship the precise amount of those balances as applied to the two accounts, but estimated them generally. Lord Melville never enquired of him if he was trenching upon the public balances, nor could he (the witness) swear that his lordship had an idea that he was receiving advances from the public stock. He admitted that he was himself worth 65,000l. of which he had derived between 5 and 6000 from inheritance, and 3000 by marriage, and that he had built a house near Edinburgh. In answer to a question put by the bishop of St. Asaph, he said, he became a lender of money immediately on his being put into possession of the public money.

Mr. Robert Trotter was next examined, who, in addition to a sum of 20007. and another of 3,3741. sent to the house of Forbes and co. and the house of Ramsay and co, at Edinburgh, on lord Melville's account, proved that two other sums of 10,000l. and 5000l. were also paid by Coutts to Ramsay and co. on his lordship's account. These sums were paid by order of his brother; but out of what funds, or for what purpose, he could not tell.

Mr. E. Antrobus, a partner in Coutts's house, was examined as to lord Melville's account with the firm, and proved by the respective entries that the house paid the instalments upon lord Melville's subscription to the loyalty loan, and

that they were repaid by Mr. Trotter.

Mr. Chapman, a clerk in Coutts's house, and who kept Mr. Trotter's accounts, was called to prove the specific balances in the hands of the paymaster at different periods. Among many others it appeared, that in the month of February 1795, there was a balance of 47,412/. and in April of the same year it increased to 107,9717. 12s. 3d. In 1797, the balance in hand was 45,700l.; in 1798, 31,000l.; in 1799, 88,000l.; and at other periods the house was in advance to Mr. Trotter.

Mr. Coutts Trotter proved, that Messrs. Coutts and co. advanced to lord Melville, in the year 1800, a sum amounting to 13,000l., and, as a security, took in exchange the assignment of his lordship's salary as keeper of the privy seal, and as keeper of the signet. Also the assigument of 2000l. India stock, and the collateral security of Mr. Robert Dundas's son.

Mr. Charleton, a clerk in the bank, produced thirty-five cancelled bank notes, thirty-two of which were for 1000l. each, which notes had originally been issued to lord Melville for the public service, on the act of parliament new account in 1800. These notes were subsequently paid in to Messrs. Coutts's, in satisfaction of two drafts made by lord Melville upon Mr. Trotter, one for 13,000l. and the other for 19,000l.

Mr. P. Antrobus, the stock broker, proved the purchase of two portions of East-India stock for lord Melville, each portion amounting to 6000l. the money for which was advanced by Mr. Trotter.

Mr.

Mr. Joseph Kaye, a solicitor, proved that the profits and interest arising from the stock purchased at different periods for lord Melville, by order of Mr. Trotter, amounted to 22,062. 15s. 9d.

Mr. Mark Sprott was next examined, touching the innumerable speculations and Change-alley transactions that he had been employed in for Mr. Trotter; during the whole of which he said he never heard lord Melville's name mentioned as connected with such transactions. He added, that he had frequently advanced Mr. Trotter money to prevent his carrying his navy bills into the market when they were "long winded;" but he never knew that Mr. Trotter was making use of the public money; though from the magnitude of the sums laid out at times, had he given it a thought, he might have imagined that to be the case.

Charles Bragge Bathurst, esq.was called to prove, that during the period he was treasurer of the navy, he never made use of the publie money for purposes of private advantage or convenience, and that he always kept it at the bank.

Mr. Thomas Wilson stated, that he had long held a situation in the navy pay office, and that he acted for Mr. Trotter while that gentleman was in Scotland. He had blank drafts left him by Mr. Trotter; and he had also his sanction and authority for using the public money for purposes of private advantage during his absence. He could not, however, say that lord Melville knew of such use and advantage. In the year 1796, the time he was acting for Mr. Trotter, lord Melville came to him, and asked him, if any, and what sum of money, could be spared from

the public stock? The witness said, 40,000l. could be spared, and that sum was paid his lordship in the presence of the late Mr. Pitt, Mr. Charles Long, and others.-[Ñ. B. This was 40,000l. advanced to Boyd, Benfield, and co.]-The witness added, that he took no receipt for the money so advanced.

George Tierney, esq. was examined as to the way in which he kept his account with the bank when he was treasurer of the navy. In order to prevent the transit of large sums from the bank, he paid a certain sum to his own credit at the bank, and satisfied the claims upon the public service, by giving drafts upon the bank, which were carried to his credit account; so that the public money ran no risk.

Thomas Beverly West, esq. proved that lord Melville carried the bill to the lords for regulating the office of treasurer of his majesty's navy, and that he was the principal instrument in framing and bringing in such bill.

The evidence on the part of the prosecution was closed by reading a general monthly statement of all balances in the hands of the paymaster, during the time lord Melville executed the office of treasurer of the navy.

Sir Samuel Romilly now proceeded to sum up the several heads of evidence, and apply them to the charges exhibited against the noble defendant. His speech occupied the whole of one day, and was listened to with great attention. He animadverted with much severity on the suspicious fact of burning the vouchers, and of his lordship's refusal to account for one sum of 10,000!. which he confessed to have misapplied. He also dwelt with Rr 4

much