620 
bounded confidence.. Upon the 
whole, therefore, he should contend, 
that’ previous to the passing of the 
aét; in 1786, there was no statute 
law to prevent the treasurer from 
using the public money ; that the vio- 
lation of his contract with the pub- 
lic was only the subject of a civil 
suit; and further, that after the 
passing of that act the old law still 
remained in force, and was no wa 
altered by the new enaétments., But 
if he was mistaken in the law, then 
the evidence was not sufficient to 
‘support the charges as against the 
defendant, and he must be acquitted. 
The learned gentleman concluded 
by stating, that lord Melville, so far 
from being that avaricious person 
described, or being capable of so 
meaa a propensity as that of deriving 
advantage from speculating with the 
public money, he should prove that 
he had freely and willingly given up 
the profits of his office, to the 
amount of 26,000/. and left it to 
their lordships to say, whether it 
was possible a man, who could so 
att, would, by unlawful means, en- 
deavour to defraud the public by pe- 
culation in his office, or could justiy 
be suspected of high crimes and mis- 
demeanors. 
Mr. Adam went over the same 
ground of argument, and contended, 
that the act of 1780 never meant 
thatthe public money should be 
Jocked up in the bank—it only 
meant that it should be deposited 
there in the first instance when im- 
pressed from the exchequer, and 
afterwards drawn out at the dis- 
cretion and will of the treasurer of 
the navy as the public service re- 
quired. 
Several witnesses were then called 
to prove the fact that lord Melville 
refrained from receiving the salaries, 
fecs, and profits of his office of third 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 
1806. 
secretary of state until the time of 
his resignation, amounting in all % 
a sum of 26,0007. 
The attorney general replied to 
the legal doctrines advanced by Mr. 
Plomer, and remarked, that they 
were as erroneous as they were 
novel and dangerous, He then en- 
tered ‘at great length into the mean- 
ing and import of theseveral statutes 
regulating the oflice of treasurer ; 
and insisted, that it was impossible 
for the most subtle reasoner, or ex- 
pert casuist, to convince their lord- 
ships that lord Melville had not vio- 
lated the aét of 1786. 
Mr. Whitbread proceeded to make 
hisreply. He began by expressing 
his surprise at the very extraordi- 
nary arguments the learned counsel . 
(Mr. Plomer) had been driven to : 
embracing principles, he said, not 
ouly dangerous to the public prospes 
rity, but to the very existence of 
the country. Hecould not help re- 
marking also upon the way in which 
the learned counsel had treated 
him ; but he disregarded the per- 
Sonalities- directed against him ; 
and only felt regret, that a 
man of great legal authority and 
celebrity should have degraded him. 
self by advancing doctrines to sup- 
port the innocence of his client, 
which ought never to have been 
stated in a British court of justice— 
doctrines calculated to put an end 
to all responsibility in, public ac- 
countants, and to leave the publie 
purse at the mercy of every indivi- 
dual who had any control over it, 
With respect to the topics urged 
against himself, he supposed the 
learned counsel imagined, that by - 
adopting biting sarcasm, he should 
irritate his feelings, and throw him 
off his guard. If so, he would be 
disappointed, He should imitate 
the eenduct of an individual describ- 
ed 
