114 
1803, when by mutual agreement 
dated the 18th and 23rd of Febru- 
ary of that year, it was destroyed 
with all the vouchers and other me- 
morandunss relative thereto, for the 
purpose of fraudulently concealing 
these transactions ; 
7th. That, in particular, lord 
Melville received from Trotter the 
sum of 22,000/. out of the public 
money, and that the accounts rela- 
tive thereto have been burned and 
destroyed for the above mentioned 
purpose ; . 
8th. That among other ad- 
vances of money as aforesaid, lord 
Melville received from Trotter the 
sum of 22,000/. for which he 
paid interest ; 
Oth. That Trotter acted as 
agent to Jord Melville without any 
pecuniary compensation, and in 
that capacity was generally in ad- 
vance for him to the amount of 
from 10,000/. to 20,0002. out of 
the public money in his hands ; 
that lord Melville was aware, that 
Trotter had no means of making 
him such advances, except from the 
public money of which he had ille- 
gally so possessed himself; and that 
Trotter was induced, to act gra- 
tuitously as lord Melville’s agent, 
and to make these advances, in con- 
sideration of lord Melville's con- 
nivance of his free use and uncon- 
trolled application of the public 
money to his own private profit and 
emolument ; 
. 10th. That lord Melville between 
August 19th, 1782, 
Ist, 1806, did take and - receive 
from the monies issued to him out 
of his majesty’s exchequer, as trea- 
surer of the navy, divers large sunis 
of money, amounting to 27,0002 
or thereabouts,and fraudulently and 
and January’ 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 1806, 
illegally convert the same to’ his 
own use or to some other corrupt 
and illegal purposes. 
The articles of impeachment weré 
far from being welldrawn up. The 
same charge was frequently repeated 
in different articles, and the same ar- 
ticle often contained more charges 
than one. Jt was sometimes diffi- 
cult to discover under what article 
a particular fact was charged, nor 
was it always easy to distinguish 
between a substantive charge, and 
what was meant as a mere aggrava~ 
tion of other charges. These 
defects in the articles of impeach- 
ment were in their operation fa- 
vourable to the defendant, by les. 
sening the apparent number of per- 
sons, who’ on the last day of the 
trial, pronounced him guilty, For, 
there were some of his judges, who, 
though they agreed in the facts of 
which they ‘thought him guilty, yet 
differed so widely in their construc- 
tion of the articles of impeach- 
ment, that meaning to find him © 
guilty of the same fact, they voted 
him, guilty on different articles. 
Accordingly, though 59 out of 136 
lords, who voted on lord Melville’s 
impeachment, found him guilty of « 
high crimes and misdemeanors, there _ 
were “net more than 53, who 
agreed in finding him guilty of any 
one article as charged by the com- . 
mons. ; 
Bot the charges against Jord 
Melville, though multiplied by the 
managers of the impeachment, were 
in substance only threc in number. 
The first was, that before the 10th 
of January 1786, he had, contrary 
to the obligation imposed on him 
by the warrant appointing him to 
the office of treasurer of the navy, 
applied to his private use and pro- 
fit,’ 
