HISTORY OF EUROPE. 



71 



not follow that there v/m no ri'k 

 incurred. Lord ^JeIville indeed might 

 secure ^tr. Trotter from any Joss, 

 because he knew the navy bills were 

 likely to be funded. Mr. Trotter 

 might act npon his information, and, 

 by this sort of '^peculation, the pub- 

 lic actually did suffer a losr, of one 

 per cent, upon the discount of the 

 bills. That house had not any 

 power to inflict an adeijuate punish- 

 ment on such delinquents as lord 

 Melville and Mr. Trotter ; but if it 

 should determiae on any prosecu- 

 tion, with a view to punishment, he 

 maintained ti;at the confession of 

 the party accused would be evi- 

 dence to proceed upon, and the 

 house was called upon to act as a 

 grand jury to pronounce upon the 

 guilt of the party. Thcguilt consist- 

 ed in the violation of the law, and it 

 never could be pretended that such 

 afoundation was innocent. In many 

 eases the most severe punishments 

 attached to offences to which the 

 charge of moral turpitude did not 

 a])ply ; such as many of the offences 

 against our revenue laws: therefore 

 the breach of the law was proof 

 against lord Melville, and on this 

 proof, which arose out of the nature 

 of the law, he had no hesitation to 

 pronounce him guilty. He could 

 not say there was any direct evi- 

 dence that lord Melville participated 

 in the profits of i'rotter, but there 

 certainly was strong grounds of sus- 

 picion. When he held at the same 

 time the office of treasurer of the 

 navy and secretary of state, and 

 it was stated, on the other bide 

 of the house, that he only received 

 the salary of the latter office, and 

 nothingforhis treasurership. Iledid 

 not then, itseems, accept any thing of 

 the legal salary; but did it not jus- 

 tify something more than suspicioa 



that he fondly clung to the office of 

 his friend, Mr. Trotter, and when 

 there were so many, even of his own 

 relations too, who would have been 

 glad to accept the office of trea- 

 surer ? It had been said that the house 

 should proceed with the utmost 

 delicacy in deciding upon character, 

 butthecharacteroflord Melville was 

 already so completely destroyed, in 

 the public estimation for ever, that 

 were the vote of this night unani- 

 mous in his favour, it would not 

 have the slightest effect in wiping 

 away the stigma universally affixed 

 to his name. What was the world 

 to think of retaining a man at the 

 head of the naval department, who, 

 v.hen asked if he derived any ad- 

 vantage from the use of the public 

 money, Avas obliged equivocally to 

 answer, " to the best of my recol- 

 lection I never did ?" If a man 

 were asked if he was not, on a par- 

 ticular night, in a particular room, 

 with JohnaNoaks, it might be very 

 well to answer that, to the best of 

 his recollection, he was not there ; 

 but if he were asked whether Joha 

 a Noaks did not charge him with an 

 attempt to pick his pockets, what 

 w ould be the inference if he were 

 to answer that John a Noaks did 

 not, to the best of his recollection ? 



Lord Castlereagh exhorted the 

 house not to be led away, by voci- 

 feration, into a premature decision, 

 on a subject of so much magnitude^ 

 buttodtferit toa dclibcrateenquiry. 



Mr. VVilberforce did not see that 

 any of (he friends of lord Melville at 

 all affected to deny thebarebroad fact 

 of his having borrowed ten or twenty- 

 thousand pounds, at a time, from one 

 of his clerks, and had afterwards 

 admitted, that he had allowed the 

 same man to remove large sums of 

 public money to his private ban- 

 F 4 Is^eri, 



