The charges, of which the above is an abstract, having been read, Mr Whitbread, as leading manager for the house of commons, opened the case in an elaborate speech, in which he detailed, and commented on, the evidence which the managers proposed to adduce. This was followed by the examination of witnesses in support of the several charges; the chief witness being Mr Trotter himself, in whose favour an act of indemnity had been passed, in order to qualify him to give his testimony with safety. The examination of the witnesses in support of the charges occupied nearly nine days. On the tenth day of the trial, Sir Samuel Romilly, one of the managers, gave a summary of what, as maintained, had been proved. He was followed by Mr Plomer, the leading counsel for lord Melville, who opened the defence in a speech of distinguished ability, the delivery of which occupied two days. The substance of the defence was, that lord Melville, so far from being accessory to, or conniving at, Mr Trotter’s appropriation of the public money, was entirely ignorant of these irregular practices. As to the £10,000, it was admitted to have been diverted from the service of the navy, and used in another department of the public service, but this was prior to the passing of the foresaid act, when such a proceeding was perfectly lawful and customary; and at any rate, no part of that sum was applied either directly or indirectly to the individual profit or advantage of lord Melville. Mr Plomer farther showed, that lord Melville had been remarkable during his whole life for his carelessness about money, and for his superiority to all mercenary motives—that while he held the office of treasurer of the navy, he had voluntarily relinquished the salary attached to the office of secretary of state, to the aggregate amount of £34,730, being a sum exceeding the whole of the public money which he was said to have misapplied—that if there had been any irregularity at all, it was imputable solely to Mr Trotter, and perhaps, to a slight degree of laxity on the part of lord Melville, whose attention was distracted by many engrossing and more important public duties. Witnesses were then called to prove that lord Melville had voluntarily relinquished, for the benefit of the public, £8,648, 13s. 2d., in the home department, and £26,081, 7s. 5d. in the war department, making a total of £34,730, 0s. 7d.; and the case on the part of the defendant was then concluded by a very able speech from Mr Adam, afterwards lord chief commissioner of the jury court in Scotland. Sir Arthur Piggot, on the part of the managers of the house of commons, replied at some length to the legal arguments of Messrs Plomer and Adam, and Mr Whitbread closed the case by a reply upon the evidence, in the course of which he resumed the invective and sarcasm against lord Melville, which had distinguished his opening speech, as well as all his speeches on this subject in the house of commons. It would seem, however, if we are to judge from the result, that either his sarcasm or his arguments had by this time lost their efficacy. After a few words from Mr Plomer, the peers adjourned, and having met again, after an interval of nearly a month, on the 10th of June, to determine on lord Melville’s guilt or innocence, he was acquitted of every charge by triumphant majorities. On the 4th charge in particular, which concerned the sum of £10,000, alleged to have been applied by lord Melville for his own advantage or emolument, their lordships were unanimous in their acquittal; and in general the majorities were very large on all the charges which imputed corrupt or fraudulent intentions to lord Melville. The votes on the several charges were as follow:-

The dukes of York, Cumberland, and Cambridge, generally voted not guilty. The dukes of Clarence, Kent, and Sussex, guilty, except of the 4th charge. The lord chancellor, Erskine, generally voted with the dukes of Clarence, Kent, and Sussex. The prince of Wales was not present.

On looking back dispassionately to the whole of this proceeding, it is impossible not to be struck with the rancour with which it was characterized. Had lord Melville been a rapacious and mercenary peculator, enriching himself at the public expense; or a vindictive political partisan, and otherwise undistinguished, we might have found some excuse for the uncompromising course adopted. But the reverse of all that was the fact. He was confessedly a generous and high-minded competitor in the great game of politics; incapable of pecuniary meanness—impoverished rather than enriched by his connexion with the state, and the consequent expense in which it involved him;—and above all, he was, by the admission even of his enemies, a most meritorious public servant, who, during a long and laborious official career, had conferred great and lasting benefits on his country. On this last point we can have no better testimony than that of Mr Whitbread himself, who, on this very trial, was constrained, in common justice, to admit,—"that, during the time lord Melville was treasurer of the navy, several most beneficial regulations took place in his office, and several acts were passed for the protection and defence of those who were before unprotected and defenceless. The widows and orphans of those gallant sons of the empire, who were fighting the battles of their country, were the objects of his peculiar care, and a number of lives were preserved by his prudent and generous interposition. However detestable the crime may be, it had been a common practice to forge the wills of those who fell in the defence of the state, and this atrocious conduct, and its pernicious consequences, have been, in a great degree, prevented by the salutary plans recommended by the defendant; for which he deserves the thanks of the British people." Mr Whitbread might easily have extended his eulogy to the defendant’s public conduct as president of the board of control, as home secretary, as secretary of state for the war department, and finally to his patriotic exertions for the improvement of his native country of Scotland.

Yet such was the man, who, after having been held up to popular execration, in vague and declamatory speeches in parliament, was brought to his trial labouring not only under the odium and prejudice thus excited, but actually punished before trial; for it never can be forgotten, that his accusers, before attempting to prove the charges, in the proof of which they ultimately failed, and even before putting him on his trial, had declared him incapable of public trust, and had succeeded in getting his name erased from the list of the privy council. In such circumstances of degradation and obloquy, with his cause to a certain extent prejudged, and almost overwhelmed by the weight and influence of his adversaries, his acquittal was indeed the triumph of justice, and a memorable encomium on the impartiality of the august tribunal before which the trial proceeded. Nor is it necessary for lord Melville’s vindication from the graver charges to deny that he was guilty of a certain degree of negligence. Undoubtedly, amidst his multifarious public avocations, he was not so vigilant in scrutinizing Mr Trotter’s money transactions, as in strictness he ought to have been. But such oversights are comparatively venial, and, in this instance, they were natural; for, even before lord Melville became treasurer of the navy, Mr Trotter was in a confidential public office. He afterwards rose by his own merits to a place of higher trust, and throughout, nothing had occurred to excite suspicion. Indeed, it is not the least remarkable feature of this prosecution, that it was never attempted to be shown, that the public had lost one farthing by the supposed delinquencies of lord Melville, or even by the admitted irregularities of Mr Trotter. To assert, however, that the investigation originated merely in factious or party motives, would be going beyond the truth; but perhaps it may be now said without offence, that the many disclamations of personal hostility, and the anxious professions of disinterested zeal by the public service, which the accusers were in the daily habit of repeating during the whole progress of the discussion, were found to be necessary, in order to counteract the growing suspicion, that their zeal was stimulated by the prospect of supplanting, or at least displacing, a powerful and able political opponent, and perhaps paralyzing the administration, of which he was so conspicuous a member.

The proceedings against lord Melville made a deep impression on Mr Pitt, who unfortunately did not survive to congratulate him on his acquittal. According to the author of the article "Great Britain" in the new edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Mr Pitt was thus deprived "of his only efficient coadjutor, at a time when, from the magnitude of his public cares, he was more than ever in want of support. The consequent fatigue and anxiety made severe inroads on a constitution naturally not strong. His indisposition became apparent in the early part of the winter, and, on the meeting of parliament, it was understood to have reached a dangerous height. His (Mr Pitt’s) death took place on the 23d January, 1806."

Soon after his acquittal, lord Melville was restored to his place in the privy council; but although the whig administration which was in power at the end of the trial, resigned within a few months, he never returned to office. The loss of his friend, Mr Pitt, and his own advanced age, rendered him little anxious to resume public life; and thenceforward he lived chiefly in retirement; taking part only occasionally in the debates of the house of lords. One of his last appearances was made in the year 1810, when he brought forward a motion recommending the employment of armed vessels, instead of hired transports, for the conveyance of troops. His death, which was very sudden, took place in Edinburgh, on the 27th of May, 1811. He died in the house of his nephew, lord chief baron Dundas, in George Square; having come to Edinburgh, it is believed, to attend the funeral of his old friend, lord president Blair, who had been himself cut off no less suddenly, a few days before, and who lay dead in the house adjoining that in which lord Melville expired.

Lord Melville’s person was tall, muscular, and well formed. His features were strongly marked, and the general expression of his face indicated high intellectual endowments, and great acuteness and sagacity. In public life, he was distinguished by his wonderful capacity for business; by unwearied attention to his numerous official duties; and by the manliness and straightforwardness of his character. He was capable of great fatigue; and, being an early riser, he was enabled to get through a great deal of business before he was interrupted by the bustle of official details, or the duties of private society. As a public speaker he was clear, acute, and argumentative; with the manner of one thoroughly master of his subject, and desirous to convince the understanding without the aid of the ornamental parts of oratory; which he seemed, in some sort, to despise.

In private life his manner was winning, agreeable, and friendly, with great frankness and ease. He was convivial in his habits, and, in the intercourse of private life, he never permitted party distinctions to interfere with the cordiality and kindness of his disposition; hence, it has been truly said, that whig and tory agreed in loving him; and that he was always happy to oblige those in common with whom he had any recollections of good humoured festivity. But perhaps the most remarkable peculiarity in his character, was his intimate and familiar acquaintance with the actual state of Scotland, and its inhabitants, and all their affairs. In Edinburgh, in particular, there was no person of consideration whose connections and concerns were not known to him. Amongst the anecdotes told of him, there is one which strikingly illustrates the natural kindness of his disposition, while, at the same time, it discloses one of the sources of his popularity. It is said, that, to the latest period of his life, whenever he came to Edinburgh, he made a point of visiting all the old ladies with whom he had been acquainted in his early days; climbing, for this purpose, with unwearying steps some of the tallest staircases in the old town He was sagacious in the discernment of merit, and on many occasions showed a disinterested anxiety to promote the success of those he thought deserving. His public duties left him little time for the cultivation of literary pursuits, even had he been so inclined; he frequently, however, proved himself a sincere but unostentatious patron of learning. In the earlier part of his life he enjoyed the esteem and friendship of Dr Robertson; and lived on habits of great intimacy with Dr Hugh Blair, on whom he conferred several preferments. On the death of Dr Robertson, he obtained the office of historiographer for Scotland for Dr Gillies, the historian of Greece, whose merit he fully appreciated. He also increased the number of the royal chaplains in Scotland from six to ten, thus adding one or two additional prizes to the scantily endowed church establishment of Scotland.

But lord Melville’s great claim on the affection and gratitude of Scotsmen is founded on the truly national spirit with which he promoted their interest, and the improvement of their country, whenever opportunities presented themselves. We have seen of late a disposition to provincialize Scotland, (if we may so express ourselves,) and a sort of timidity amongst our public men, lest they should be suspected of showing any national predilections. Lord Melville laboured under no such infirmity. Caeteris paribus he preferred his own countrymen; and the number of Scotsmen who owed appointments in India and elsewhere to him, and afterwards returned to spend their fortunes at home, have contributed in no inconsiderable degree to the marked improvement on the face of the country which has taken place during the last fifty years. Neither did he overlook the interest of those who remained at home. The abolition of the public boards, courts, and other memorials, of the former independence of Scotland, had not occurred to the economists of lord Melville’s day. He acted, therefore, on the exploded, although by no means irrational notion, that the community, generally, would derive benefit from the expenditure of the various resident functionaries, at that time connected with our national establishments. In all this he may have been wrong, although there are many who are still at a loss to perceive the error; but however that may be, he must be but an indifferent Scotsman, be his political principles what they may, who can talk lightly of the debt which his country owes to lord Melville. Indeed it is well known, that during his life, the services which he had rendered to this part of the island, were readily acknowledged even by those who differed most widely from him on the general system of public policy in which he took so active a part.

The city of Edinburgh contains two public monuments to lord Melville’s memory—the first, a marble statue, by Chantrey, which stands on a pedestal at the north end of the large hall of the parliament house. This statue, which is a remarkably fine specimen of the artist’s skill, was erected at the expense of gentlemen of the Scottish bar, in testimony of their respect for one who had in early life, been so distinguished a member of their body. Among the subscribers are to be found the names of many gentlemen who differed in politics from lord Melville, but who esteemed him as a benefactor to his native country. The other monument is the column surmounted by a statue of his lordship, which adorns the centre of St Andrew Square. This fine pillar is copied from Trajan’s column at Rome; with this difference, that the shaft, in place of being ornamented with sculpture, is fluted. The entire height of the column and pedestal is 136 feet 4 inches. The statue, which is of free-stone, and the work of the late Mr Forrest, the well-known sculptor, about 15 feet in height, giving a total altitude of about 150 feet. The expense of this erection was defrayed by subscription, chiefly among gentlemen connected with the navy. The foundation stone was laid in April, 1821; the scaffolding removed in August, 1822, on the occasion of George IV’s visit to Edinburgh, and the statue was put up in 1827. The architect was Mr William Burn of Edinburgh. Lord Melville was twice married; first to Miss Rannie, daughter of Captain Rannie of Melville, with whom he is said to have got a fortune of £100,000. Another of Captain Rannie’s daughters was the wife of Mr Baron Cockburn of the Scottish court of exchequer, and mother to the late Henry Cockburn, Esq., one of the lords of session. Lord Melville’s second wife was lady Jane Hope, daughter of John and sister to James, earl of Hopetoun. Of his first marriage there were three daughters and one son; of the second no issue. Lord Melville’s landed property in Scotland consisted of Melville Castle in MidLothian and Dunira in Perthshjre. He was succeeded in his titles and estates by his only son, the right honourable Robert Dundas, the present lord Melville, who held the office of first lord of the admiralty under the administrations of the earl of Liverpool and of the duke of Wellington.