To the high estimation in which Mr
Dundas was held, at a period comparatively early in life, lord Kames
bears flattering testimony in the dedication to his "Elucidations of the
common and statute law of Scotland." That dedication is dated in 1777,
and the following are the terms in which this distinguished lawyer and
philosopher addresses Mr Dundas:—"Though law has been my chief
employment in a long and laborious life, I can, however, address my
young friend without even a blush, requesting his patronage to this
little work. As in some instances it pretends to dissent from
established practice, I know few men, young or old, who have your
candour to make truth welcome against their own prepossessions; still
fewer who have your talents to make it triumph over the prepossession of
others." Mr Boswell, the biographer of Johnson, furnishes another
contemporary account of Mr Dundas as a Scottish barrister, which is
equally laudatory. In reference to the celebrated case of Knight, the
negro, who claimed his freedom as a consequence of setting his foot on
the soil of Scotland, Mr Boswell, writing also under the date of 1777,
mentions that Mr Dundas had volunteered his aid to Knight. The leading
lawyers were retained on both sides, and exerted themselves to the
uttermost, and the following is Mr Boswell’s account of the impression
made on him by Mr Dundas’ eloquence: "Mr Dundas’ Scottish accent, which
has been so often in vain obtruded as an objection to his powerful
abilities in parliament, was no disadvantage to him in his own country.
And I do declare, that upon this memorable question, he impressed me,
and I believe all his audience, with such feelings as were produced by
some of the most eminent orations of antiquity. This testimony I
liberally give to the excellence of an old friend, with whom it has been
my lot to differ very widely upon many political topics; yet I persuade
myself, without malice, a great majority of the lords of session decided
for the Negro."
—Boswell’s Johnson.
We have now reached a
stage of Mr Dundas’ life, at which he may be almost said to have taken
leave of the Scottish bar, and of law as a profession, and to have
entered on a scene where objects of still higher ambition presented
themselves. In 1774, he stood candidate for the county of Edinburgh in
the general election of that year, and was returned in opposition to the
ministerial influence. But he soon joined the party then in power, and
became a strenuous supporter of lord North’s administration. He
frequently spoke in the house of commons, and notwithstanding the
disadvantages of an ungraceful manner, and a provincial accent, he was
always listened to with attention, on account of the clearness of
his statements and the weight of his arguments. As a reward for his
services, he was, in 1775, appointed lord advocate of Scotland, on the
elevation of Sir James Montgomery to the office of lord chief baron; and
in 1777, he obtained the sinecure appointment of keeper of the king’s
signet for Scotland.
The lord advocate holds
the highest political office in Scotland, and is always expected to have
a seat in parliament, where he discharges something resembling the
duties of secretary of state for that quarter of the kingdom. And Mr
Dundas, from the time of his obtaining this appointment, appears to have
devoted his chief attention to public business and party politics. The
contentions among political parties ran very high towards the close of
lord North’s administration; but supported by the king, that nobleman
was long enabled to hold out against the unpopularity occasioned by the
disastrous progress of the American war, aggravated by the eloquent
invectives of an opposition, perhaps the most talented which any British
ministry ever encountered. The result of the unfortunate campaign of
1781, however, compelled lord North to resign. Mr Dundas had supported
his administration; but at the same time, by maintaining a cautious
forbearance during this arduous struggle for power, he ingratiated
himself with all parties. Nor is it uninteresting to observe the manner
in which at this period he met the opposition of Mr Pitt, then a young
man, in his twenty-first year; but who, even at that early age, was so
remarkably gifted, that a man of Mr Dundas’ penetration was at no loss
to foresee and to predict his speedy rise to the highest political
distinction. We quote from Tomline’s life of that great statesman. "The
lord advocate, (Mr Dundas) who had been a uniform supporter of the
American war, and was one of the ablest debaters in favour of the
administration, replied to Mr Pitt. After adverting, in general terms,
to several persons who had taken part in the debate, he proceeded thus,
with a sort of prophetic eulogy—‘The honourable gentleman who spoke
last, claims my particular approbation. I am unwilling to say to that
honourable gentleman’s face, what truth would exact from me were he
absent; but even now, however unusual it may be, I must declare, that I
find myself impelled to rejoice in the good fortune of my country, and
my fellow subjects, who are destined, at some future day, to derive the
most important services from so happy a union of first-rate abilities,
high integrity, bold and honest independency of conduct, and the most
persuasive eloquence.’"
When the fall of lord
North’s administration became certain, Mr Dundas’ knowledge of public
business, and his intimate acquaintance with the state of the nation,
rendered him a most valuable accession to the new administration. He
held no office, however, except that of lord advocate under the
Rockingham ministry; but the dissensions in the cabinet which followed
the death of lord Rockingham, and the promotion of lord Shelburne to the
premiership, made way for Mr Dundas, who, in 1782, was appointed
treasurer of the Navy. The administration under which he thus accepted
office was however speedily displaced by the celebrated coalition
administration; on the formation of which Mr Dundas resigned, and became
the able coadjutor of Mr Pitt, in his opposition to the measures
proposed by Mr Fox and lord North. At that time public attention was
turned very much to India, in the hope apparently, that in that quarter
of the globe the country might find something to counterbalance the loss
of our American colonies. The complaints of misgovernment in India were
very loud. The British conquests in that country were at the same time
rapidly extending; and, at last, the dissensions in the supreme council
of Bengal rendered it necessary to bring the subject before parliament.
In April, 1782, on the motion of lord North, a secret committee was
appointed to inquire into the causes of the war in India, and the
unfavourable state of the company’s affairs. Of this committee Mr Dundas
(who had previously rendered himself remarkable in parliament for his
intimate acquaintance with the affairs of India) was appointed chairman.
His reports, extending to several folio volumes, were drawn up with
great ability and precision, and contained a mass of authentic and
important information concerning the transactions of the company and
their servants, both at home and abroad, of the very highest value.
These reports Mr Dundas followed up by a "Bill for the better regulation
and government of the British possessions in India, and for the
preservation and security thereof." But the ministry having intimated
their intention to oppose this measure, and to introduce one of their
own, Mr Dundas did not attempt to carry it through the House; and in
November, 1783, the ministerial pledge was redeemed by the introduction
of Mr Fox’s famous East India bill.
It is foreign to the
purpose of the present memoir to inquire into the merits or demerits of
this celebrated bill. It met, as is well known, the uncompromising
opposition of Mr Pitt and Mr Dundas. Nevertheless it passed the house of
commons, by large majorities, and would also have been carried through
the house of lords, but for the firmness of the king, which led, of
course, to the resignation of lord North and Mr Fox; when Mr Pitt was
called to the helm of affairs. On first taking office this great
statesman had to contend against a majority of the house of commons, and
in this arduous struggle he was most powerfully aided by Mr Dundas, who
led the ministerial party in the house of commons during the temporary
absence of Mr Pitt prior to his re-election, after his acceptance of the
chancellorship of the exchequer. This extraordinary contest between the
ministers and parliament was terminated by the general election of 1784.
In the new parliament Mr Pitt had a decided majority; and very soon
after its meeting he introduced his India bill. The introduction of that
measure was also preceded by a select committee, of which Mr Dundas was
chairman; and although the new bill was not liable to the strong
objections which had been urged against that of Mr Fox, it nevertheless
encountered a very serious opposition, and might have been greatly
obstructed or mutilated in its progress, but, for the assistance of Mr
Dundas. His intimate acquaintance with Indian affairs, and his skill and
dexterity as a debater, were invaluable to government, and contributed,
in no inconsiderable degree, to neutralize, or overcome, the opposition
of the East India Company, and ultimately to carry the bill triumphantly
through parliament.
We have Dr Tomline’s
testimony to the valuable assistance rendered by Mr Dundas at that time.
"Though the whole business of the nation," (says he, talking of Mr
Pitt), "rested upon him, as the sole minister in the house of commons,
it would be injustice not to mention, that he had a most able adviser
and supporter in Mr Dundas, who had been accustomed to take an active
part in parliament during lord North’s administration, and who now
exerted his vigorous understanding and manly powers of debate, in a
manner highly useful to Mr Pitt. On him he could always rely as ready to
argue judiciously, and with effect, any point which might be brought
into discussion; and the particular attention which Mr Dundas had for
many years given to the affairs of India, enabled him to render Mr Pitt
the most essential service, in arranging and carrying through parliament
his plan for the future government of that important part of the British
empire."—Life of Mr Pitt, vol. i. p. 567.
Mr Dundas had been
restored to his office of treasurer of the navy, immediately on the
formation of Mr Pitt’s administration; and on the passing of the East
India bill he was also appointed president of the board of control As
treasurer of the navy Mr Dundas’ services were in the highest degree
beneficial. His arrangements for the disbursement of the money
appropriated to this branch of the public service, substituted order and
economy in the place of perplexity and profusion. He, at the same time,
provided for greater promptitude in the payment of the seamen’s wages;
and, in order to render the service still more attractive, he introduced
and carried through parliament, various measures calculated to improve
the condition and increase the comforts of the seamen in the royal navy.
In particular, he got an act passed for preventing the passing of forged
instruments. By this act, the wills and powers of attorney, executed by
seamen, were required to be counter-signed by the officers of the port
at which they were dated, and thus a check was given to numerous frauds
against the families of sailors who were either absent or who had fallen
in the service of their country. He also introduced a bill which was
afterwards passed, empowering seamen to make over half their pay to
their wives and families. By these and other reforms which he effected
in the naval department, Mr Dundas, while he greatly increased the
efficacy of the navy, showed a humane consideration for those engaged in
the service, which is at this day gratefully remembered by many members
of that profession, who can speak from their own experience of their
obligations to one who was most justly called "the sailor’s friend."
Among the measures introduced by Mr Dundas while he held the
treasurership of the navy, was the act for the regulation of the money
destined for the service of the navy. Previously the salary of the
treasurer of the navy was £2000 per annum; but the perquisites attached
to the office, and particularly the command of the public money, added
greatly to the emoluments. In order to prevent the risk, profusion, and
irregularity inseparable from such a system, Mr Dundas’ bill fixed the
salary at £4000, and prohibited the treasurer from making any private or
individual use of the public money. It was in consequence of a supposed
violation of this statute, that Mr Dundas, at a later period of his
life, was exposed to much unmerited obloquy, and made the subject of a
public inquiry, to which we shall have occasion more particularly to
advert in the sequel.
In the session of 1784,
Mr Dundas introduced his bill for restoring the estates in Scotland,
forfeited on account of the rebellion of 1745. The expediency of this
measure as a means of conciliating the inhabitants of the
northern part of the island, and reconciling them to the reigning family
was manifest; still it was necessary, for obvious reasons, so far to
cover the true motive, and to represent the boon as a reward to the
people of Scotland for the services which they had rendered in the
armies of the country, during the recent wars. And such accordingly was
the tone taken by the supporters of the measure. [It was in the course
of the debates on this bill that Mr Dundas introduced a passage from a
speech of the great lord Chatham, which may not seem altogether out of
place here, not only on account of its intrinsic merit and pertinency,
but also as indicative of the superiority of that great man’s mind to
those national prejudices which are happily now wearing out, but which,
in those days, were openly avowed in very high quarters. "I am," said
lord Chatham, "above all local prejudices, and care not whether a man
has been rocked in a cradle in this, or on the other side of the Tweed:
I sought only for merit, and I found it in the mountains of the north. I
there found a hardy race of men, able to do their country service; but
labouring under a proscription. I called them forth to her aid, and sent
them to fight her battles. They did not disappoint my expectations; for
their fidelity could only be equalled by their valour, which signalized
their own and their country’s renown, all over the world."]
As president of the board
of control, Mr Dundas’ services were no less beneficial to the country.
His sound judgment and remarkable business talents, combined with his
intimate acquaintance with the complicated and multifarious details of
the East India company’s affairs, enabled him to simplify and reduce to
order what had been previously an absolute chaos. Hence, also, in
parliament, he was at all times prepared to give the requisite
explanations, and to furnish full information concerning Indian matters;
while it was his constant endeavour to collect, and to avail himself of
the information and suggestions which his situation placed at his
command, in order to introduce those reforms in the company’s
administration which the rapid extension of their possessions in that
quarter of the world rendered necessary. It was with this view, that, in
the session of 1786, Mr Dundas carried a bill through parliament for
effecting certain modifications and improvements in Mr Pitt’s India
bill. In the same session Mr Burke originated those discussions which
terminated in the impeachment of Mr Hastings. It is now well known that,
on that occasion, the exuberant and inexhaustible eloquence of Mr Burke,
was, without his being aware of it, to a certain extent made
subservient, not only to party purposes, but to the gratification of the
private animosity of Mr Francis. We can now look back dispassionately
and with sympathy to the unmerited and protracted suffering to which Mr
Hastings was subjected; but, during the progress of the investigation,
truth as well as justice were lost sight of, amidst the splendid
declamation of some of the greatest orators who ever appeared in
parliament. Even Mr Dundas seems to have yielded to the prevailing
delusion; for although he uniformly opposed himself to the spirit of
persecution which characterized the proceedings of the accusers, and
ultimately defeated their object, he made no attempt to vindicate Mr
Hastings from those charges, which, when stript of rhetorical and
oriental embellishments, were found to be either entirely groundless, or
such as admitted of explanations not only reconcileable with Mr
Hastings’ innocence, but which actually exhibited him as at once the
benefactor of the natives, and as one who, by the vigour and wisdom of
his administration, had contributed more than any of his predecessors to
the extension and consolidation of the company’s possessions in India.
After taking part with Mr
Pitt in the debates on the regency question, during the king’s illness
in 1788, the next prominent feature in Mr Dundas’ public life, was his
steady and determined opposition to the pernicious principles of the
French revolution. In that memorable struggle in which the salvation of
this country was attributable chiefly to the energy and firmness of Mr
Pitt, the minister, as usual, found in Mr Dundas his most able and
cordial coadjutor. In 1791, he was appointed principal secretary of
state for the home department, and thus became a member of the cabinet.
He, at the same time, retained his other appointments; and yet, such was
his aptitude for business, and his unwearied application to his official
duties, that the three important departments committed to him, never
were in a state of greater efficiency. Many of the most approved public
measures originated with, or were directly promoted by him. Among those
were the formation of the fencible regiments, the supplementary militia,
the volunteer corps, and the provisional cavalry. The whole, in short,
of that domestic military force which, during the war, consequent on the
French revolution, was raised and kept in readiness as a defence at once
against foreign invasion and internal disturbance, was projected and
organized under the direction of Mr Dundas. To him also we owe the
improved system of distributing the army throughout the country in
barracks and garrisons, by which, in times of commercial distress and
political agitation, the most prompt protection to the lives and
property of the inhabitants might be afforded. On the accession of the
duke of Portland and his party to the ministry, in 1793, it was thought
advisable to appoint a third secretary of state, rather than remove Mr
Dundas from the superintendence of the military system which he had
brought into operation. Accordingly, while the duke of Portland took the
home secretaryship, Mr Dundas, in 1794, was nominated secretary of state
for the war department. At this time he also held the office of keeper
of the privy seal of Scotland, and governor of the bank of Scotland;
still retaining the presidency of the board of control and the
treasurership of the navy,—which last office he continued to hold until
May, 1800; his other political offices he held until his resignation
along with Mr Pitt, in 1801.
While in the house of
commons, Mr Dundas represented first the county, and afterwards the city
of Edinburgh. He sat for the county from 1774 to 1787, and for the city,
from the latter year, until 1602, when he was raised to the peerage. And
during the whole course of his official life he was considered as
virtually the minister of Scotland. He had what is called the political
patronage of that quarter of the kingdom; and so acted, as well in the
discharge of his various public duties, as in the distribution of the
favours of government, that he attached to himself, and to the
administration of which he formed a part, the great majority of the men
of rank, property, and influence in that country. It has been objected
to him, that in the exercise of this patronage he looked too exclusively
to his own political partisans; but in justice to him, it must
never be forgotten, that he held office in times when the acrimony of
his opponents (to say nothing of the dangerous principles avowed by some
of them) put conciliation entirely out of the question; and besides, the
charge is to a great extent unjust; for on his trial it was admitted,
even by his bitterest enemies, that in disposing of appointments in the
navy and army he was remarkable for his impartiality and indifference to
party distinctions. Nor is it possible to overlook the fact, that the
political party by whom this charge was brought against Mr Dundas, had
always been proverbial for their own adherence to the practice they were
so ready to condemn in him.
When Mr Pitt retired from
office in 1801, previous to the peace of Amiens, Mr. Dundas followed his
example. On that occasion he laid before parliament a very favourable
statement of the condition in which the East India company’s affairs
then were; and although his opponents did not fail to cavil at his
views, yet all parties concurred in expressing the highest approbation
of the manner in which Mr Dundas had discharged his duty as president of
the board of control. The court of directors were disposed to award him
more substantial marks of their gratitude; but finding that he had
resolved to decline any pecuniary remuneration, they conferred a pension
of £2000 per annum, on Mrs Dundas. About the same time the town council
of Edinburgh testified their sense of his merit, by resolving, at an
extraordinary meeting called for the purpose, that a subscription should
be opened for the erection of a statue of him as a tribute of gratitude
for his lengthened and eminent public services.
In the year 1802, the
Addington administration raised Mr Dundas to the peerage by the titles
of viscount of Melville, in the county of Edinburgh, and baron of Dunira,
in the county of Perth. On this event, the town council of Edinburgh
again came forward, and in a letter addressed to him by the lord
provost, in the name of the council, expressed their attachment to him
and his family; their admiration of his talents; and their gratitude for
the many services which he had rendered to his country, and particularly
to the city of Edinburgh. This address lord Melville answered in person,
taking occasion, in a speech delivered at a meeting of the town council,
to touch on various interesting topics, and, in particular, to bring
under their notice one of the practical blessings of the British
constitution, of which his own life afforded a very striking example.
"Having mentioned the constitution under which we have the happiness to
live," said his lordship, "I trust I shall not be thought to deviate
very far from the object of my present address, if I presume to trouble
you with one observation, resulting from the situation in which I am now
placed. I will not trouble you with any of the particulars of the outset
of my life; they are too well known to need any detail from me. I
content myself with barely alluding to them. It has pleased Providence
to bless my family with success beyond my most sanguine expectations:
while we, therefore, continue to resist the pernicious effects of these
frantic principles of ideal equality, incompatible with the government
of the world, and the just order of human society, let us rejoice in
those substantial blessings, the result of real freedom and of equal
laws, which open to the fair ambition of every British subject the means
of pursuing with success those objects of honour, and those situations
of power, the attainment of which, in other countries, rest solely upon
a partial participation of personal favour, and the enjoyment of which
rests upon the precarious tenure of arbitrary power. It is impossible to
look round to any quarter without seeing splendid examples of the truth
of this remark."
On Mr Pitt resuming the
premiership in 1804, lord Melville was appointed first lord of the
admiralty; but this important office he did not long enjoy. The earl of
St Vincent, his predecessor at the head of the admiralty, had obtained
the appointment of a commission of inquiry to investigate certain
suspected abuses in the naval department of the public service. That
commission, in their tenth report, implicated lord Melville, while he
held the treasurership of the navy, in a breach of the statute which he
had himself introduced in 1785; whereby the treasurer of the navy was
prohibited from converting to his own use or emolument, any part of the
public money voted for the service of the navy. This report led to an
unsatisfactory correspondence between lord Melville and the
commissioners; and on the 8th of April, 1805, Mr Whitbread brought the
matter under the notice of the house of commons. After a speech full of
violent invective, that gentleman moved thirteen resolutions, to the
effect generally, that lord Melville had been guilty of gross
malversation, and breach of duty, in so far as he had misapplied or
misdirected certain sums of public money, and had also in violation of
the act of parliament, retained in his possession, or authorized his
confidential agent, Mr Alexander Trotter, who held the office of
paymaster of the navy, to retain, and to speculate in the funds, and
discount private bills with the balances of the public money, voted for
the service of the navy, in the profits of which transactions lord
Melville had participated. Mr Pitt, after an eloquent and able defence
of lord Melville, concluded by moving as an amendment, that the tenth
report be referred to a select committee of the house. He was replied to
by lord Henry Petty, now lord Lansdowne, Mr Fox, and other leading
members of the whig party; and the result was, that in
a very full house (433), the original resolutions were carried
by the speaker’s casting vote.
The debate was then
adjourned to the 10th of April, 1805, on which day Mr Pitt announced to
the house on its meeting, that in consequence of the vote of the former
evening, lord Melville had resigned the office of first lord of the
admiralty. Mr Whitbread then delivered another vituperative speech, and
concluded by moving that an address should be presented to the king,
praying that lord Melville might be dismissed "from all offices held by
him during pleasure, and from his majesty’s council and presence for
ever." Mr Canning, who at that time held the office of treasurer of the
navy, deprecated the rancour with which the whig party were
proceeding.—He contrasted their conduct with that of lord Melville
himself, when lord Grey and the earl of St Vincent were on their trial
before the house, under similar circumstances, upon which occasion, lord
Melville, although the political opponent of these noblemen, had
strenuously defended them; while he, "so far from experiencing equal
generosity, was now persecuted and hunted down; and by whom? by
the friends of lord Grey and earl St Vincent! He congratulated the
gentlemen on their sense, true spirit, and virtue; and prayed God
Almighty to forbid that he should ever imitate their example." The
debate concluded by a vote that a copy of the resolutions of the 8th of
April should be laid before his majesty by the whole house. Some
discussion afterwards took place as to the ulterior measures to be
adopted against lord Melville and Mr Trotter, in the course of which,
the same extraordinary acrimony was displayed; and on the 6th of May, Mr
Pitt intimated that his majesty had been advised, in deference to the
prevailing sense of the house, to strike the name of lord Melville out
of the list of the privy council, and that accordingly, it would be
erased, on the first day on which a council should be held. In making
this communication, Mr Pitt appeared to be deeply affected; but no
sympathy was shown on the opposition benches. On the contrary, it is
impossible to deny, that relentless exultation over the expected
downfall of an illustrious public servant, and a total disregard for the
feelings of his friend the premier, were too prominently manifested by
the whig party, on that, as on every other occasion on which this
painful subject was before the house.
On the 11th of June, the
speaker stated that he had received a letter from lord Melville,
announcing his readiness to attend and be examined relative to the tenth
report. He was thereupon admitted, and a chair placed for him within the
bar; when he entered upon a concise vindication of his conduct;
declaring his entire ignorance of Mr Trotter’s speculations with the
public money, either in the funds, or as a private banker; denied all
connivance at the violation of the statute 25th George III., relative to
the money voted to the navy; and solemnly asserted, that on no occasion
whatever, had he authorized Mr Trotter to draw money from the bank for
his own private emolument;— the only object in allowing him to lodge
money with private bankers having been to facilitate the public
payments. In short, lord Melville gave those explanations of his conduct
which were afterwards triumphantly established on his trial, by
evidence. But, as may be easily believed, they did not, at this time,
satisfy his opponents; and after a protracted debate, and more than one
division adverse to the whig party, it was at last resolved, that the
mode of procedure should be by impeaching his lordship at the bar of the
house of lords, of high crimes and misdemeanours. On the 26th of June, a
committee of twenty-one members was appointed to prepare articles of
impeachment:—Mr Whitbread’s name being placed at the head. Among the
members of this committee were Mr Fox, Mr Grey (late earl Grey), Mr
Sheridan, lord Archibald Hamilton, and other leaders of the party. The
committee on the 4th of March, 1806, made a report to the house, of
certain new information which had come to their knowledge; and the
result of the debate which ensued, was an additional article of
impeachment. To this new article lord Melville was of course allowed to
put in a replication; and the preliminaries being at length adjusted,
the house of lords fixed the 29th of April, 1806, for the trial.
This imposing exhibition
was conducted with the customary pomp and solemnity. Westminster hall
was, as usual, fitted up for the occasion; and the nobility, including
the princes of the blood, having taken their places in the full robes of
their respective ranks, this tribunal, the most august and venerable in
the world, proceeded to the discharge of their high duty. The articles
of impeachment resolved into ten charges, of which the following is the
substance.—1. That lord Melville, while treasurer of the navy, prior to
January, 1786, fraudulently applied to his own use, or at least mis-directed,
and would not explain how, £10,000, of the money which came into his
hands as treasurer of the navy.—2. That, in violation of the act of
parliament already mentioned, he permitted Mr Trotter to draw large sums
from the money issued to the treasurer for the use of the navy, and to
place it in the banking house of Messrs Coutts and Co. in his (Mr
Trotter’s) own name.—3. That while he held the office of treasurer of
the navy, and after the passing of the foresaid act, he permitted Mr
Trotter to draw large sums of money from the treasurer’s public account,
kept with the bank of England, under the said statute, and to place
those sums in Mr Trotter’s individual account with Coutts and Co., for
purposes of private emolument.—4. That after the 10th of January, 1786,
and while treasurer of the navy, he fraudulently, and illegally, and for
his own private advantage, or emolument, took from the public money, set
apart for the use of the navy, £10,000; and that he and Mr Trotter, by
mutual agreement, destroyed the vouchers of an account current kept
between them, in order to conceal the advances of money made by Mr
Trotter to him, and the account or considerations on which such advances
were made.—5. That whilst Mr Trotter was thus illegally using the public
money, he made, in part there from, several large advances to lord
Melville, and destroyed the vouchers, as aforesaid, in order to conceal
the fact.—6. That in particular, he received an advance of £22,000,
without interest, partly from the public money, illegally in Mr
Trotter’s hands, and partly from Mr Trotter’s own money in the hands of
Messrs Coutts, and destroyed the vouchers as aforesaid.—7. That he
received an advance of £22,000 from Mr Trotter, for which, as alleged by
himself, he was to pay interest; for concealing which transaction the
vouchers were destroyed as aforesaid.—8. That during all, or the greater
part of the time that he was treasurer, and Mr Trotter paymaster of the
navy, Mr Trotter gratuitously transacted his (lord Melville’s) private
business, as his agent, and from time to time advanced him from £10,000,
to £20,000, taken partly from the public money, and partly from Mr
Trotter’s own money, lying mixed together indiscriminately in Messrs
Coutts’ hands; whereby lord Melville derived profit from Mr Trotter’s
illegal acts.—9. That Mr Trotter so acted gratuitously as lord
Melville’s agent, in consideration of his connivance at the foresaid
illegal appropriations of the public money; nor could Mr Trotter, as
lord Melville knew, have made such advances otherwise than from the
public money at his disposal by his lordship’s connivance, and with his
permission.—10. That lord Melville, while treasurer of the navy, at
divers times between the years 1782 and 1786, took from the moneys paid
to him as treasurer of the navy, £27,000, or thereabouts, which sum he
illegally applied to his own use, or to some purpose other than the
service of the navy; and continued this fraudulent and illegal
conversion of the public money, after the passing of the act for
regulating the office of treasurer of the navy.
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:-
|
Guilty |
Not
Guilty |
Majority |
First charge |
16 |
119 |
103 |
Second charge |
56 |
79 |
23 |
Third charge |
52 |
83 |
31 |
Fourth charge |
None |
All |
|
Fifth charge |
4 |
131 |
127 |
Sixth charge |
48 |
87 |
39 |
Seventh charge |
50 |
85 |
35 |
Eighth charge |
14 |
121 |
107 |
Ninth charge |
10 |
119 |
103 |
Tenth charge |
12 |
123 |
111 |
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.
Lord Melville can hardly
be said to have been an author, but he published the three subjoined
political pamphlets, each of which was distinguished by his usual good
sense and knowledge of business. [The substance of a speech in the house
of commons, on the British government and trade in the East Indies,
April 23, 1793, London, 1813, 8vo. – Letter to the chairmen of the court
of directors of the East India Company, upon an open trade to India,
London, 1813, 8vo. – Letters to the right honourable Spenser Percival,
relative to the establishment of a Naval Arsenal at Northfleet, London,
1810, 4to.]