ed in a celebrated book, read in infaucy for amusement, and at maturity for the sake of its moral instruction-he meant The Arabian Nights Entertainments. In that work it was stated, that a great and valuable prize was placed on the summit of an exceedingly high hill, and that those who went in search of it were directed to look neither to the right nor the left, nor to regard the terrifying noises they would be assailed with, but to keep a steady and unaltered course; concluding, that if they turned to look behind them, they would be transformed into stones. Many attempted to ascend, but failed; one adventurer, however, strictly abiding by his instructions, and despising the dan gers which surrounded him, reached the summit, and gained the prize. He therefore should endeavour to imitate that individual-the learned counsel might hiss and might howl; but he should proceed in the course marked out for him, without deviating to the right or the left. His object was, to obtain justice against a great public delinquent, and he would do it in spite of every obstacle placed in his way. Had lord Melville made his own defence, he said, he would have been ashamed of vindicating his conduct by the means which his counsel had employed, who had made a speech of eight hours to mislead and misre. present. He had asserted, that the defendant was not bound by the act of his own framing-that he (Mr. W.) would most positively deny; but admitting it to be the fact, he was guilty of a breach of the act antecedent to that statute, by doing that which he had received a compensation for not doing. In that breach he was guilty of an offence 2 indictable at common law. Mr. Whitbread then proceeded to reply to that part of Mr. Plomer's argument which respected the hardship imposed upon his lordship by the species of prosecution adopted, and said, it was the defendant's wish that it should be so. house of commons, he said, had ori◄ The ginally proposed to prosecute be fore the ordinary tribunal; but the defendant's friends would have it otherwise. The learned counsel had also dwelt upon the noble lord's services. He (Mr. W.) did not deny those services, and thought him entitled to praise for his general conduct, excepting with regard to the public treasure, and that he had abused. That was the only crime the commons charged him with. The orator then went on, enforcing the necessity of keeping the naval treasure sacred and apart from every other service. It had its fibrous root, he said, in the industry and labour of the meanest peasant, and was a fund that ought not to be exposed to the possibility of risk or loss. The learned counsel had ostentatiously stated that lord Melville had paid up all his balances. That made no difference in the question. If he had not paid them, he would have been compelled by. legal process. in one instance, did not justify the But, doing his duty omission of it in another. As little would the argument avail him, of his giving up the salary and profits of office. He could not do other. wise. An act of parliament was passed, by which no servant of the public could receive more 6000l. a year; and, as lord Melthan ville's places amounted to considerably more than that sum, he could not take credit to himself for not receiving the receiving that which it was out of his power to receive. But he might have relinquished one of his offices, had he not known from experience that 4000l. a year as treasurer of the navy, was better than 40001. a year as third secretary of state. Mr. Whitbread then touched upon the destruction of rouchers; and observed, that notwithstanding Mr. Trotter had made the act exclusively his own, yet their lordships would decide whether it was possible that lord Melville should not have participated in that act. He then referred to the several bank notes issued for the public service, and traced to his lordship's private account; introducing, by way of analogy, the story in the "Adventures of a Guinea." -First, he said, it was given to a counsel for gaining a cause against evidence then passed into pocket of the great earl of Chatham, from him to general Wolfe, and so on; but he would ask, what would have been the gratification of that guinea, had it been sent from the exchequer for the naval service of the country? "O, happy guinea, that I am (it would have exclaimed), now shall I be conveyed to Portsmouth to clothe the gallant tar, to administer to his comforts, or be expended to make his infant and its mother happy!" But what the disappointment, when, instead of being thus honourably employed, it found itself thrust into an iron chest, for the private uses of a treasurer, or, with 3 or 4000 fellow-sufferers transported into Scot.. land in aid of ostentatious prodiga lity, and applied to services that could not be revealed? Their lordships would draw their own conclusion; but he would maintain, that the public money had been inter cepted, and applied to the private advantage of the noble defendant, in violation of his lordship's contract, in violation of law, and in abuse of his high oflice. The identity of certain notes, he said, had been proved with the same accuracy as on a trial for forgery; and though it was said that his character was dear to the defendant as his life, yet if the managers had proved him guilty, it was their lordships' duty to find him so, whatever the consequences might be to that character. The high and the low were amenable to the same law; and if their lordships were convinced of the noble defendant's peculation, they were bound to say so by their verdict. Mr. Whitbread then adverted to lord Melville's declaration, that he would not account for the application of a sum of 10,000l. charged against him, and asked, whether a public accountant should be permitted to say, with impunity—“ I will not tell you how I have disposed of the public money!" But he would tell their lordships why. lord Melville did not choose to divulge the application of that 10.000%. as he had done the 40,000%, to Boyd, Benfield, and co. It was because the application and the appropriation were exclusively his ownadministered to his own private wants and uses. With respect to that "Sanctuary of Liberty," the house of commons, which the learned counsel had taken the liberty to sneer at and treat contemptuously, he should not conclude without noticing the insult he had conveyed, and in the name of that house of commons expressing its indignation. The commons house of parliament, he would tell him, were rightly jealous of their privileges, and and must not be trifled with any more than the sceptre of the monarch, or the scarlet and ermine of their lordships. It was therefore the duty of the peers of parliament to enforce the respect due to the one, as well as to the other. Mr. Whitbread then called their lordships' attention to Mr. Trotter's evidence; and argued, that if lord Melville was justified in removing the public money from the bank to Coutts's, he was justified also in removing it to his own house. The short question then was, did Mr. Trotter remove and use the public money with the permission of lord Melville? He would contend that he must have had such permission, and, if so, lord Melville was guilty of connivance. With respect to the argument, that lord Melville could not be actuated by so base a propensity as that of making advantage of the public money, he would reply, in the words of a Roman historian-"That a man might be covetous of another's wealth, and yet profuse of his own." He again referred to the vouchers, and said, that the destruction of papers had always been considered as presumptive evidence of guilt. The rincing of bottles was esteemed such in the case of captain Donellan and sir Theodosius Boughton; and the burning of papers, in which poison had been folded up, the same in Miss Blandy's case. The defendant's innocence or guilt was now with their lordships, and he felt as sured they would decide with justice and with honour. After urging these, and a variety of other topics, which our limits will not permit us to follow, he concluded by observing, that as the commons had entered upon the prosecution without fear, so had they, he hoped, concluded it without re proach. SIXTEENTH DAY. Thursday, June 12. On this day the anxiety to hear the final determination 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 Westminster hall. The lords were closely shut up until 12 o'clock; during which time, the several articles of impeachment were read, and the final arrangements made for passing judgment in the high court of parliament. Their lordships then went in the accustomed procession to the hall. The peers sat exactly arranged according to their rank; as they were to be called upon from a paper which the lord Chancellor held in his hand. 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 pronounce judgment on the several questions; questions; and the first question is this." His lordship then stated the charge contained in this article, and asked the opinion of each lord, beginning with the junior in rank present, in the following form: "John lord Crewe (the junior baron,) what says your lordship to this first article of charge?" Lord Crewe answered, "Not guilty, upon my honour," laying his right hand upon his left breast. "James lord Lauderdale, what says your lordship to this first article of charge?" "Guilty, upon my honour." His lordship then put the question in succession to every other peer, up to his royal highness the duke of York, the prince of Wales not being present. The lord chancellor, having taken all the other opinions, gave his own in this form : "I Thomas lord Erskine having fully considered and deliberated upon the matter of the first article, am of opinion, that Henry viscount Melville, is not guilty on 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 twenty-five minutes was taken up in collecting the votes on each charge. The whole of the votes were entered about a quarter before three; but it took Rear an hour more to count the numbers. At twenty 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: "My Lords, "A majority of the lords have ACQUITTED HENRY VISCOUNT MELVILLE of the HIGH CRIMES and MISDEMEANOURS changed upon him by the IMPEACHMENT of the coxMONS, and of all things contained therein." " HENRY VISCOUNT MELVILLE, "I am to acquaint your lordship, that you ARE ACQUITTEn of the ARTICLES of IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED AGAINST YOU by the com MONS, for HIGH CRIMES and MISDEMEANOURS, and OF ALL THINGS CONTAINED THERFIN." Lord Melville, who stood up while the lord Chancellor addressed him, bowed and retired. The lord chancellor, then put the question to adjourn to the chamber of parliament; which was im, mediately ordered. *Lord Suffolk went out, 3-128 88 47-41 85 50-35 Lord Chancellor, 2, 3, 6, 7 DUKES-York, 3 Clarence, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10 Sussex, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10 St. Albans, 2, 3, 6, 7 MARQUISES Winchester, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 Headfort, 2, 3, 6, 7 EARLS-Derby, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 Holland, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10 Grantley, 2, 3, 6, 7 Somers, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 Fife, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 Dundas, 2, 3, 6, 7 Carysfort, 2, 3, 6, 7 Ellenborough, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 Lauderdale, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10 Crewe, 2, 3, 6, 7, NOT GUILTY UPON ALL THE CHARGES. DUKES. Suffolk, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 Winchelsea, 2,3 Carlisle, 2, 3, 7 |