has received by the publication of a book that discussion is a sort of polemical controentitled the Anti-Jacobin Review, represent-versy between two noblemen whose names ing that he was acquainted with the circum- are mentioned, the one a noble earl and the stances which preceded that dreadful outrage other a noble lord and chancellor of Ireland; in Ireland, which took place on the 23rd of but if in the course of what has been pubJuly, 1803, when lord Kilwarden was destroy-lished the defendant has unfortunately tript, ed, and that he did not put government on its guard by a timely disclosure of that fact, and that his concealment was of such a nature that government was convinced of his treachery on that occasion. The libel is stated to be published here, and he has brought this action for the purpose of deciding whether the libel has been so published, and what reparation he is entitled to. Gentlemen, I cannot find fault with Dr. Troy for bringing his action here. The publication of which he complains took place here, and the propriety of his coming here cannot, I think, be doubted, because in a country recently agitated by dispute and even rebellion, where" wounds of deadly hate have pierced so deep," where one party are of the Protestant, the other of the Roman Catholic persuasion, we could not expect so impartial a trial as here, where no recollection of lost friends, or other passions which agitate men's minds and affect their feelings as they do in Ireland, can have any influence. The plaintiff has, therefore, brought his action here, and I think he has done well; he has brought it for damages for a libel, not to subject the party to punishment by criminal proceeding, but to make reparation as for a civil injury, in which he has given the party an opportunity of justifying and making out the truth of the charge, if it be true; for in a civil action the truth of the charge is a defence, which is not the case in an indictment for a libel, therefore I do think that both with respect to the place where, and the mode whereby he submits his case for consideration, he has acted fairly. In the first place he is sure to have it tried with purity, by purity I mean exemption from prejudice, for no doubt there is purity in the administration of justice in Ireland as well as in this country; when I say purity, I speak with reference to the absence of local prejudice. Having brought his action here, and the defendant not having justified the truth of the paper complained of by Dr. Troy, it is to be considered as a libel not to be justified; whether under all the circumstances it is to be considered as slanderous or not, is for your consideration. Gentlemen, it is certainly very true, as was contended with great force and effect by the learned gentleman who is of counsel for the defendant, that the purpose for which it is published is extremely material-whether the purpose be to calumniate Dr. Troy, or only the discussion of the conduct of the Roman Catholics with reference to the Protestant government? the discussion, if carried on with moderation, on the subject of government, is very allowable, and the fair scope of and stated that which is injurious to the plaintiff, he certainly is responsible to him in this action. If so, then, the question would be, considering all the circumstances of the case, what would be fair and temperate damages; I say fair and temperate, for one would wish to be temperate and moderate, if it appears that he has only tript upon an improper expression, and said of Dr. Troy that which he ought not to have said; still if in what he said there should appear to be no evil design, or perhaps it be meritorious, yet the person to whom the publication is injurious, has a right to ask for redress. The publication has been proved, and the whole of it has been read to you, in order that the whole of the context might be explained; I will state the material part to you, which from the nature of the evidence is necessarily reduced to a few lines. The defendant says, in this publication, that Dr. Troy must have known all the circumstances which preceded the insurrection which took place in Dublin on the 23rd of July, 1803, and that he did not inform government. Must have known," without imputing any criminal motive for his conduct, I should have thought the action not maintainable, because it appears to me only equivalent to "might have known," which is nothing cri- . minal, because I might have known as well as he. Does he mean to impute to the plaintiff that he conducted himself like a good subject, or that he was guilty of criminal negligence towards his country? That he must have known all the circumstances previous to the insurrection might mean, " practically innocent;" if he meant that the plaintiff did not know the circumstances, he could not put government on its guard. The question here is, whether he did not take upon himself, in terms, to aver that he did know---then come the words, "For the present administration are convinced of his treachery"-On that occasion his conduct was such, that it worked on government a persuasion of his treachery It is for you to say, whether you understand this as imputing to the plaintiff that he had foreseen this insurrection, namely, that he had an actual knowledge preceding the rebellion, of circumstances which indicated that a rebellion was to take place, and that be withheld from government, treacherously, the information." I do not think it is to the purpose to ascertain whether there was blame or even merit in the general motive, if there was an object to impute treachery to the plaintiff; for I do not decide on the general motive. If you are of opinion that the defendant meant to impute to the plaintiff actual knowledge and ac tual concealment, and an actually treacherous purpose, the defendant will come within the Scourge of the law, by doing that which he is unauthorized to do, with the character of Dr. Troy; and the only question will be, the quantum of damages which Dr.Troy has a right to receive at the hands of the defendant. I have no doubt that the object of Dr. Troy is the purgation of his character, and to do away the foul stigma of suspicion; and while he was obnoxious to that suspicion, I own, I think that Dr. Troy has done commendably in bring ing this action. With a view of giving the defendant an opportunity to come forwards to verify the fact, he has brought this civil action. Nobody has come forward to verify the fact, he knew the danger certainly, and no event of this day has furnished any proof, before us, injurious to Dr. Troy; he stands completely exculpated; but it is for you to say what reparation should follow. It does not appear in evidence that this publication was in Ireland, but here. I can hardly give any line to guide you. If the proceeding were criminal, there are many points that would go to mitigate the sentence of the judges. To the extent you think this gentleman has been injured, you will make a moderate compensation; you will give such an amount in damages as may be necessary to vindicate the honour of this gentleman, as any one of you would wish to go out of court with if attacked; farther than that which may be sufficient to prevent any farther imputation upon him, I think you ought not to go, considering the nature and state of this publication. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages FIFTY POUNDS. In the cause of Troy v. Hales, for the same libel, Mr. Erskine signified that the plaintiff would be satisfied with nominal damages and his costs. A verdict of ONE SHILLING was given accordingly. 674. Trial of the Right Honourable HENRY Lord Viscount MELVILLE, before the Lords House of Parliament in Westminster Hall, for High Crimes and Misdemeanors whereof he was accused in certain Articles of Impeachment exhibited against him by the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses in Parliament assembled, in the Names of themselves and of all the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, April 29-June 12: 46 GEORGE III. A. D. 1806.* INTRODUCTORY NOTE. In order fully to understand the merits of this case, it is necessary that the reader should peruse the tenth Report of the Com missioners of Naval Inquiry, which was, on February 13, 1805, ordered by the House of Commons to be printed, and which gave rise to the impeachment of lord Melville. The report is therefore printed at the end of this trial by way of Appendix. "In pursuance of an order of the House of Peers of the 12th day of June, 1806, I do appoint Joseph Gurney and William Brodie Gurney to print and publish the whole pro-and the trial of lord Melville.* ceedings in the House of Peers, upon the impeachment exhibited by the knights, citizens, and burgesses in parliament assembled, in the names of themselves, and of all the Commons of Great Britain and Ireland, against Henry lord viscount Melville, for high crimes and misdemeanors, and do forbid any other person to print or publish the same. The following is a brief sketch of the proceedings which took place in parliament between the presentation of the tenth Report " ERSKINE, C." By the licence of Mr. Gurney I am permitted to avail myself of his report of this important trial. ville to the Commissioners of Naval Inquiry, N. B. Copies of the letter from lord Meldated March 28, 1805, and of the letter from the Commissioners to his Lordship, dated April 2, 1805, were (on the motion of the chancellor of the Exchequer-vide 4 Hans. Parl. Deb. 165) presented to the House of Commons on April 3, and ordered to be printed. These letters will be found in the proceedings on the fourth day of the trial, infrd when they were given in evidence. On Monday, April 8th, 1805, Mr. Whitbread, in the House of Commons, after a speech of considerable length, arraigning the conduct of lord Melville [then first lord commissioner of the board of Admiralty] while treasurer of his majesty's navy, moved the following resolutions: "1. That on the 18th of June, 1782, the House of Commons, in a committee of the whole House, came, amongst others, to the following resolutions:-That it is the opinion of this committee, that 'some regulations ought to be adopted, for the purpose of lessening and keeping down the balances of public money which appear to have usually been in the hands of the treasurer of the navy, and it would be beneficial to the public if the first and other clerks in the different branches belonging to the said 'office were paid by fixed and permanent 'salaries, in lieu of all fees, gratuities, and other perquisites whatsoever. That it is the opinion of this committee, that from henceforward the paymaster gene'ral of his majesty's land forces, and the 'treasurer of the navy for the time being, 'shall not apply any sum or sums of mo'ney imprested to them, or either of them, to any purpose of advantage or interest to themselves, either directly or indirectly. That it appears to this com'mittee, that the commissioners appoint'ed to examine, take, and state the pub lic accounts of the kingdom, have, so 'far as appears from the Reports which they have hitherto made, discharged the duty intrusted to them with great diligence, accuracy, and ability; and if 'parliament shall carry into execution 'those plans of reform and regulation 'which are suggested by the matter con tained in the Reports of the said com'missioners, it cannot but be attended 'with the most beneficial consequences to the future welfare and prosperity of 'this kingdom.’ "2. That in furtherance of the intention of the House of Commons expressed in such Resolutions, his majesty, by his warrant dated June 26, 1782, directed that the salary of the treasurer of the navy should be increased to the sum of 4,000l. per annum, in full satisfaction of all wages and fees, and other profits and emoluments theretofore enjoyed by former treasurers. "3. That it appears to this committee, that during the treasurership of the right hon. Isaac Barré, the conditions of the aforesaid warrant were strictly complied with; that the whole of the money issued from the Exchequer to Mr. Barré for naval services was lodged in the Bank; that it was never drawn from thence previously to its being advanced to the sub-accountants to be applied to the public service; that during the time Mr. Barré acted as treasurer and ex-treasurer, he had not in his possession or custody any of the public money, and that neither he nor the paymaster of the navy did derive any profit or advantage from the use or employment thereof. "4. That the right hon. Henry Dundas, now lord viscount Melville, succeeded to the office of treasurer of the navy on the 19th of Aug. 1782, when a farther addition was made to the salary of the said office, in order to produce a nett annual income of 4,000l. after the payment of all taxes and charges on the same; and that this additional salary was considered by the said lord viscount Melville as granted to him in lieu of all wages, fees, profits, and other emoluments enjoyed by former treasurers. "5. That the said lord viscount Melville continued in the said office till the 10th of April, 1783; that being asked, whether he derived any advantage from the use of the public money during that period, he, in his examination before the commissioners of Naval Inquiry, declined answering any question on that head; but that he has, in a letter since written to the said commissioners, and dated the 28th of March last, declared, that, previous to 1786, he did not derive any ad'vantage from the use or employment of any monies issued for carrying on the 'service of the navy. But Mr. Douglas, who was paymaster, being dead, and his lordship having refused to answer any question on this head as aforesaid, no evidence has been obtained as to the application of monies issued for the service of the navy, or the mode of drawing the same from the Bank during this period. 6. That the hon. C. Townshend, now lord Bayning, held the office of treasurer of the navy from the 11th April, 1783, to the 4th of Jan. 1784; and that from the examination of his lordship it appears, that during his treasurership, no part of the money issued for the service of the navy, was applied to his private use or advantage; and that he does not believe that Mr. Douglas, who acted under him as paymaster, derived any profit or advantage from the use or employment of the public money, except the money issued for the payment of Exchequer fecs. "7. That the right hon. Henry Dundas was re-appointed treasurer of the navy on the 5th of Jan. 1734, and continued in the said office until the 1st of June, 1800. "8. That in the year 1785, an Act of parliament was passed (25 Geo. 3rd, cap. S1), intituled, An Act for better regulating the Office of Treasurer of his Ma'jesty's Navy' whereby it is directed, that no money shall be issued from the treasury to the treasurers of the navy; but that all monies issued for naval services shall be paid to the Bank on account of naval services, and placed to the account of the treasurer of the navy, and shall not be paid out of the Bank unless for naval services, and in pursuance of drafts signed by the treasurer, or some person or persons authorized by him, which drafts shall specify the heads of service to which such sums are to be applied, and that the regulations under the said act shall take place from the 31st of July, 1785, "9. That the execution of the said act was postponed till the month of January, 1786, and from that time till the month of June, 1800, when lord Melville left the office of treasurer, contrary to the prac tice established in the treasurership of the right hon. Isaac Barré, contrary to the resolutions of the House of Commons of 18th of June, 1782, and in defiance of the provisions of the above-mentioned act of the 25th Geo. 3rd, c. 31, large sums of money were, under pretence of naval services, and by a scandalous evasion of the act, at various times, drawn from the Bank, and invested in exchequer and navy bills, lent upon the security of stock, employed in discounting private bills, in purchasing Bank and East India stock, and used in various ways for the purposes of private emolu ment. 10. That Alexander Trotter, esq. paymaster of the navy, was the person by whom, or in whose name, the public money was thus employed; and that in so doing, he acted with the knowledge and consent of lord viscount Melville, to whom he was at the same time private agent, and for whose use or benefit he occasionally laid out from 10 to 20,000l. without considering whether he was previously in advance to his lordship, and whether such advances were made from his public or private balances. the commissioners of Naval Inquiry, requiring an account of money received by him, or any person on his account, or by his order, from the paymaster of the navy, and also of the time when, and the persons by whom, the same were returned to the Bank or paymaster, has declared, that he has no materials by which he could make up such an account, and that, if he had materials, he could not do it without disclosing delicate and confidential transactions of government, which his duty to the public must have restrained him from revealing. "13. That lord Melville, in applying monies issued for the service of the navy to other services, stated to have been of so delicate and confidential a nature, that, in his opinion, no account can or ought to be given of them, has acted in a manner inconsistent with his duty, and incompatible with those securities which the legislature has provided for the proper application of the public money." On the question being put on the first resolution, Mr. Pitt, first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer, moved as an amendment, "That the tenth Report of the Commissioners of Naval Inquiry be referred to a Select Committee of this House, to examine the matter thereof, and report the same to the House:" He was however afterwards induced (in order that, whether they were carried or not, Mr. Whitbread's resolutions might be entered on the Journals) to withdraw this amendment, and in lieu thereof to move the previous question; stating it to be his intention, if he should succeed on the motion for the previous question, and thereby get rid of the original resolutions, to move for the appointment of the committce as in his first amendment. A very long and interesting debate ensued, the result of which was, that on a division the numbers were equal; that the question be now put, 216-Noes, 216. The Speaker, Mr. Abbot, then gave his casting vote in favour of the question, and the first ten Resolutions were forthwith agreed to. Mr. Pitt then proposed to amend the eleventh Mel-Resolution by leaving out the concluding words, " been guilty of a gross violation of the law and a high breach of duty," and substituting the words "acted contrary to the intentions of the said act." This amendment however he withdrew, and proposed to insert after the words "private interest or emolument" the words "of Mr. Trotter," to which last-mentioned words, in the proposed amendment, were afterwards added the words "as acknowledged by lord Melville." The amended motion then stood thus: "That the right hon. lord viscount Melville having been privy to, and connived at, the withdrawing from the Bank of England, for the purpose, as stated by lord Melville, of private emolument to Mr.. Trotter, sums issued to lord Melville as treasurer of the navy, and placed to his account 11. That the right hon. lord viscount ville having been privy to and connived at the withdrawing from the Bank of England, for purposes of private interest or emolument, sums issued to him as treasurer of the navy, and placed to his account in the Bank, according to the provisions of the 25th Geo. 3rd, c. 31, has been guilty of a gross violation of the law, and a high breach of duty. "12. It farther appears, that subsequent to the appointment of lord Melville as treasurer of the navy, in 1784, and during the time he held that office, large sums of money, issued for the service of the navy, were applied to other services; and that the said lord Melville, in a letter written in answer to a precept issued by in the Bank, according to the provisions of the 25 Geo. 3rd, c. 31, has been guilty of a gross violation of the law, and a high breach of duty." The original motion of Mr. Whitbread however was ultimately carried, the amendments being rejected. his majesty on the 11th instant, with the resolutions of the House of the 8th instant, relative to lord viscount Melville, whereupon his majesty was pleased to give the following most gracious answer: "Gentlemen; I shall on all occasions receive with the greatest attention any representation of my Commons; and I am fully sensible of the importance of the matter which is the subject of your reso Mr. Whitbread then moved an address to his majesty, praying him to remove lord Melville from his councils; but the debate having lasted till five o'clock in the morning of Tues-lutions.". day, April 9th, the consideration of this motion was postponed until the next day, Wednesday, and the House adjourned until that day. On Wednesday April 10th, the Chancellor of the Exchequer communicated to the House that since they had last met, lord Melville had tendered to his majesty his resignation of the office of first lord of the admiralty, which resignation had been accepted. After some other business had been gone through, his majesty's answer was, on the motion of Mr. Whitbread, again read. Some conversation then took place between Mr. Whitbread and the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the propriety of expunging the name of lord Melville from the list of the Privy council: Mr. Whitbread, after having given notice of a motion for a future day on this subject, proceeded to move, "That a seMr. Whitbread then moved, that the resolect committee be appointed to make further lutions of Monday should be read. It was inquiry into the matters contained in the rehowever ordered that the eleventh Resolution port of the commissioners, and to report the only should be read. That resolution having same, with their opinions and observations been read accordingly, Mr. Whitbread moved thereon, to the House." Upon which the "that an humble address be presented to his chancellor of the Exchequer proposed the folmajesty, praying that his majesty will be gra-mittee be appointed, to consider further of the lowing amendment; "That a select comciously pleased to remove lord viscount Melville from all offices held under the Crown during pleasure, and from his councils and presence for ever." A very animated debate* ensued, which ended in Mr. Whitbread's moving that "his original motion be withdrawn;" which being agreed to, the hon. gent. proposed," that the resolutions of Monday be entered as read;" which was also agreed to. His next motion was, " that these resolutions be laid before his majesty." This motion was agreed to nem. con. Mr. Whitbread again rose, and said, that he thought the most solemn mode of carrying such an important step into execution ought to be adopted on the present, occasion; on that account he should propose," that these resolutions be laid before his majesty by the whole House." The motion having been agreed to, it was ordered "that such of the members as were of his majesty's most honourable privy council should wait on his majesty, to know when he would be graciously pleased to receive the same." On Thursday, April 11th, the House adjourned until Thursday the 25th; and immediately after, the right hon. the Speaker, followed by several members, went up to St. James's-palace with the Resolutions of Monday the 8th. On Thursday, April 25, the Speaker reported to the House, that the House attended matter contained in the tenth report of the took place; the numbers were for the amend- Mr. Whitbread then proposed the names of 21 members to form the committee; on which the chancellor of the Exchequer proposed that the committee should be chosen by ballot; the House divided on this motion. For a ballot, 251; Contra, 120;-131.‡ On Monday, April 29, Mr. Spencer Stanhope moved," that the attorney-general be directed to take such measures as may appear most effectual in ascertaining and securing, by a due course of law, such sums as may be due to the public by lord Melville and Mr. * Vide 4 Hans. Parl. Deb. 398. The committee was accordingly afterwards appointed by ballot; which mode of appointment gave rise to some curious and interesting debates, especially as to the practice of circulating lists of the names to be balloted for. Vide 4 Hans. Parl. Deb. 430, 511. |