§ Mr. Whitbreadmoved the order of the day for the house taking into consideration the report from the committee appointed to draw up articles of Impeachment against lord Melville. He then said that he was unwilling to take up the time of the house, by entering much at length into the details of the report, which were already before them; and, indeed, it would be unnecessary to do so, as he trusted, that the house, from what had 365 been submitted to them, would find no difficulty in sanctioning the new article of impeachment which he was empowered by the committee to propose. But notwithstanding the clearness and accuracy of the report, which had been drawn up by an hon. and learned friend, now in the house, (Mr. Giles,) it might not be improper to say a few words as to its substance, and the form in which the committee had brought it before the house. They had thought that the new information which it contained was so important, that it could not with propriety be withheld from the house and from the country. The grounds of crimination appeared so new and material, as to call for the addition of another article of impeachment. It now appeared that not only the sum of 10,000l. had been misapplied by lord Melville, as admitted by his own confession, but that he had possessed himself, at an early period, of very considerable sums, to the gross amount of about 27,000l. This money had not been applied to the public service, but for his own private purposes, and for the accommodation of certain traders with whom he was connected. When he retired from the office of Treasurer of the Navy, he went out a debtor to the public; he remained a debtor during the short period of his retirement; and he was equally a debtor to the public when he resumed that situation; when he proposed the very bill for preventing the misapplication of the public money, he was a debtor to the public, and he continued afterwards to violate the very law which he himself had procured. Such were the facts which the report had disclosed. They might, indeed, have been brought forward by the committee, to substantiate the first article of impeachment; but they considered that, by being mixed with other matter, they were in danger of being confounded or overlooked, and that, by being used in support of a new article, the evidence would be more direct and satisfactory. Besides, it might seem unfair to the person accused, were charges not under the consideration of the house, at the time when the articles were first proposed, adduced in support of any of those articles. A right hon. gent. (the Speaker) who was intimately versant in the forms and usages of that house, had, indeed, informed him, that there was no precedent for bringing fresh articles of impeachment, after an answer had been delivered in by the person accused. But though the committee were 366 not supported by precedent, yet they were justified by reason and expedience. Were the general answer of the delinquent to preclude every future charge, this would directly tend to prevent investigation, and frustrate the ends of public justice. The committee were not chargeable with any want of diligence in the performance of their duty. During the last session, they had sat every day, from the period of their appointment, till the prorogation of parliament; only two days before which, the papers, on which this new article was founded, came into their possession. The hon. gent. added, that he did not expect any opposition would be made to his motion; and concluded with saying, that, whenever lord Melville should have given in his answer to this additional article, the managers were ready to go to trial on the earliest day that their lordships might think proper to appoint. He therefore moved, "that the committee which was appointed to draw up articles of impeachment against Henry lord visc. Melville, do prepare a new article of impeachment on the matter contained in their last report, and report the same to the house." Ordered.—After the lapse of a few minutes,
§ Mr. Whitbreadbrought up a report, which was as follows: "The committee appointed to draw up articles of impeachment against Henry lord visc. Melville, and who were ordered to prepare a further Article, have, purseant to the order of the house, prepared a further article against the said lord viscount Melville; which is as followeth; viz" ARTICLE X.—That Henry lord visc. Melville, after his maj. had by letters patent bearing date the 19th of Aug. 1782, given and granted unto him the office of treasurer of his maj.'s navy, did, on divers days and times between that day and the 5th of Jan. 1784, and also on divers days and times between the said 5th of Jan. 1784, and the 1st of Jan. 1786, take and receive, from and out of the monies from time to time issued or paid to him, as treasurer or as ex-treasurer of his maj.'s navy, from his maj.'s exchequer, or some other sources, for naval services, divers large sums of money, amounting together to a large sum, to wit 27,000l. or thereabouts; and did fraudulently and illegally convert and apply the same to his own use, or to some other corrupt and illegal purposes, and to other pur- 367 poses than those of the public naval services of this kingdom, to which alone the same was law fully applicable; and did continue the said fraudulent and illegal conversion and application of divers of the said sums of money, after the passing of the act of parliament for the better regulating the office of treasurer of his Maj.'s navy."
§ Mr. Whitbreadthen moved, that this article be taken into further consideration on Monday.
§ Mr. Percevalfelt himself unable, at the moment, to make up his mind as to the strict legality of this measure. He gave the committee the greatest credit for their exertions, but it had occurred to him, and he thought it might be useful to suggest to the committee, that even were the house to vote this additional article of impeachment, certainly contrary to precedent, and probably objectionable in some other respects, it might meet with considerable obstruction and opposition in another place.
§ Mr. Whitbreadallowed, that the lords might possibly object to this article, as not having received it before the defendant had put in his reply to the former articles. But undoubtedly, if the lords should be of opinion that a fresh article of impeachment could not be exhibited, and should refuse to receive it, it certainly was competent to the house, on the discovery of fresh crimes, to prefer an altogether fresh impeachment. Not only the reason of the thing, but motives of convenience to both houses, would, be trusted, induce their lordships to adopt a different determination. The motion was agreed to.