122 
plication to navy services, and that 
the treasurer was not justified for 
defeating the principal and main 
object of the act, by his adherence 
‘in his drafts to the literal form of 
words which it prescribed. The 
learned gentleman proceeded to 
shew, that the clauses of the act 
were consistent with the exposition 
of it contended for by the com- 
mons, while many of these clauses 
were repugnant to tie construction 
attempted to be put upon it by thé 
defendant. He particularly insist- 
ed on the following proviso in the 
bedy of the act, ‘that nothing 
_ shall be construed to prevent him 
(the treasurer of the navy) from 
drawing for such limited sums, as 
may be thought necessary by the 
navy board for paying ships, and 
carrying on recalls.” Seeing ina 
Jaw such a proviso as this, could 
he construe it in the way in which 
the learned counsel for the noble 
Jord, called upon their lordship’s to 
construe it? He did not deny on 
the part of the commons, that the 
treasurer might draw small sums 
from the bank, to supply the daily 
wants of his sub-accomptants, and 
carry Onethe daily business of the 
navy pay oflice, but he was not to 
withdraw large sums on that pre. 
tence, in order to lodge them in a 
place of custody different from 
that provided by the wisdom of the 
legislature. i 
In answer to the third charge 
comprehending the remaining arti- 
eles of impeachment, the counsel. 
for the defendant began by stating 
thatthe charge against lord Mel- 
ville was neta charge for neglect 
of duty, for omitting to keep a 
vigilant and superintending eye 
over the conduct of his paymaster, 
whereby the .latter was enabled te 
ANNUAL REGISTER; 
evidence brought in support of it. 
1806. | 
commit the offences proved in evi- 
dence ; but thathe wilfully, know. 
ingly, illegally,- and fraudulently 
connived at, and permitted, and 
authorised all that was done. This — 
charge the learned counsel contend. 
ed, was directly, positively, clearly 
and satisfactorily disproved by the ~ 
Trotter, though he had every pos-_ 
sible motive to extenuate his own 
offences, by dividing the guilt of © 
them with his patron, had declared 
upon oath, that all the acts charged 
against lord Melville, were his own 
unauthorised acts, and committed 
without the knowledge or suspicion | 
of that noble lord. But if the evi- 
dence of Trotter was rejected as un- 
worthy of credit, the whole evi- — 
dence for the prosecution fell to the 
ground ; for, it could not scarcely 
be argued, that his evidence was 
to be believed when it made against — 
lord Melville, and disregarded when 
it made in his favour. The learned 
counsel then entered into an exami- 
nation of the evidence affecting the — 
defendant, in which weshall not 
attempt to follow them, having al. 
ready stated the substance of the 
evidence as itappears to us, accor. — 
ding to theimpression which it has 
made upon our minds. 
After the managers had closed 
their reply, and the lords adjourned 
to the chamber of parliament, some 
conversation took place in the 
house, upon the day to be fixed for 
discussing the charges, and as the. 
evidence was not all printed, and 
was very voluminous, it was agreed 
to defer going into the business for 
ten days, and-accordingly the trial 
was put off till Wednesday the 28th 
of May, when the lords were ors 
dered to be summoned, 
In the commons a motion was 
made 
