gular practices. As to the £10,000, it was admitted to have been diverted from the service of the navy, and used in another department of the public service, but this was prior to the passing of the foresaid act, when such a proceeding was perfectly lawful and customary; and at any rate, no part of that sum was applied either directly or indirectly to the individual profit or advantage of lord Melville. Mr Plomer farther showed, that lord Melville had been remarkable during his whole life for his carelessness about money, and for his superiority to all mercenary motives—that while he held the office of treasurer of the navy, he had voluntarily relinquished the salary attached to the office of secretary of state, to the aggregate amount of £34,730, being a sum exceeding the whole of the public money which he was said to have misapplied—that if there had been any irregularity at all, it was imputable solely to Mr Trotter, and perhaps, to a slight degree of laxity on the part of lord Melville, whose attention was distracted by many engrossing and more important public duties. Witnesses were then called to prove that lord Melville had voluntarily relinquished, for the benefit of the public, £8,648, 13s. 2d., in the home department, and £26,081, 7s. 5d. in the war department, making a total of £34,730, 0s. 7d. ; and the case on the part of the defendant was then concluded by a very able speech from Mr Adam, afterwards lord chief commissioner of the jury court in Scotland. Sir Arthur Piggot, on the part of the managers of the house of commons, replied at some length to the legal arguments of Messrs Plomer and Adam, and Mr Whitbread closed the case by a reply upon the evidence, in the course of which he resumed the invective and sarcasm against lord Melville, which had distinguished his opening speech, as well as all his speeches on this subject in the house of commons. It would seem, however, if we are to judge from the result, that either his sarcasm or his arguments had by this time lost their efficacy. After a few words from Mr Plomer, the peers adjourned, and having met again, after an interval of nearly a month, on the 10th of June, to determine on lord Melville's guilt or innocence, he was acquitted of every charge by triumphant majorities. On the 4th charge in particular, which concerned the sum of £10,000, alleged to have been applied by lord Melville for his own advantage or emolument, their lordships were unanimous in their acquittal; and in general the majorities were very large on all the charges which imputed corrupt or fraudulent intentions to lord Melville. The votes on the several charges were as follow:—
| Guilty. | Not Guilty. | Majority. | |
| First charge, | ....16 | ....119 | ....103 |
| Second charge, | ...56 | ... 79 | ... 23 |
| Third charge, | ....52 | ....83 | ....31 |
| Fourth charge, | ...None | ...All | ...— |
| Fifth charge, | ....4 | ....131 | ....127 |
| Sixth charge, | ...48 | ...87 | ...39 |
| Seventh charge, | ....50 | ....85 | ....35 |
| Eighth charge, | ...14 | ...121 | ...107 |
| Ninth charge, | ....16 | ....119 | ....103 |
| Tenth charge, | ...12 | ...123 | ...111 |
The dukes of York, Cumberland, and Cambridge, generally voted not guilty. The dukes of Clarence, Kent, and Sussex, guilty, except of the 4th charge. The lord chancellor, Erskine, generally voted with the dukes of Clarence, Kent, and Sussex. The prince of Wales was not present.
On looking back dispassionately to the whole of this proceeding, it is impossible not to be struck with the rancour with which it was characterized. Had lord Melville been a rapacious and mercenary peculator, enriching himself at
