Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 16.djvu/196

 position at the board of control. Dundas, however, gave Addington his general support, and at the general election of 1802 managed the Scotch elections in the interest of the government so successfully that out of the forty-five members returned only two were whigs. Greatly to Pitt's surprise Dundas accepted a peerage from Addington, and on 24 Dec. 1802 was created Viscount Melville of Melville in the county of Edinburgh, and Baron Dunira in the county of Perth. Melville unsuccessfully attempted to induce Pitt to join the Addington ministry, and on the return of Pitt to power was appointed first lord of the admiralty on 15 May 1804. In 1785 Dundas had carried through a bill for ‘better regulating the office of treasurer of the navy’ (25 Geo. III, c. 31), the object of which was to prevent the treasurer for the time being from appropriating any part of the money passing through his hands to his own private use. In 1802 an act was passed (43 Geo. III, c. 16) by which five commissioners were appointed to inquire into the frauds and irregularities which were supposed to exist in the several naval departments. On 13 Feb. 1805 their tenth report, which dealt with the office of treasurer of the navy, was presented to the house (Parl. Debates, iii. 1147–1212). The commissioners had extended their inquiry back to the time when Barré was treasurer in 1782. Melville had been examined before them on 5 Nov. 1804, and their report gave rise to considerable suspicions against him, as it was conclusively shown that large sums of public money during his tenure of office had been applied to other uses than those of the navy.

On 8 April 1805 Samuel Whitbread called the attention of the House of Commons to the tenth report, and moved a series of resolutions setting out the case against Melville (ib. iv. 255–9). Pitt thereupon moved the previous question, and promised that in the event of his motion being carried he would then move that the report should be remitted to a select committee. Wilberforce, in a powerful speech, gave his ‘most cordial and sincere support’ to Whitbread's motion. Upon a division, in a house of 432 members, the numbers were found to be equal, and the speaker (Abbot), after some hesitation, gave his vote in favour of the original motion. Melville immediately resigned the office of first lord of the admiralty, and on 9 May his name was erased from the roll of the privy council. On 25 April Whitbread moved that the tenth report should be remitted to a select committee, which was appointed on the following day. On 27 May the report of the select committee was presented to the house (ib. v. i–cxxxii). Melville was heard at the bar of the House of Commons in his own defence on 11 June, and at the close of his speech Whitbread moved that ‘Henry, lord viscount Melville, be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors.’ On the morning of the 13th Whitbread's motion was lost by 272 to 195, and Bond's amendment in favour of a criminal prosecution by the attorney-general was carried by 238 to 229. It was subsequently thought by Melville's friends that an impeachment would be less dangerous than a trial before Lord Ellenborough and a jury; and on 25 June Leycester's motion, that the house should proceed by impeachment and that the attorney-general should stay the proceedings in the prosecution already ordered, was ultimately agreed to. On the following day Whitbread, in obedience to the order of the house, proceeded to the House of Lords and impeached Melville of high crimes and misdemeanors. The impeachment was commenced in Westminster Hall on 29 April 1806. Whitbread opened the case for the prosecution, and both Piggott and Romilly, the attorney-and solicitor-general, were heard on behalf of the commons during the course of the proceedings. Melville was defended by Plumer, afterwards the master of the rolls, Adam, and Hobhouse. After a trial lasting fifteen days the peers reassembled on 12 June and acquitted Melville on all the charges, the majorities in his favour varying from 27 to 128, while on the fourth charge the acquittal was unanimous (, State Trials, 1821, xxix. 549–1482). On the second and third charges, which accused Melville of permitting Trotter, his paymaster, to withdraw public money from the Bank of England, and of conniving at its use by Trotter for his own private emolument, Melville was only acquitted by majorities of 27 and 31. These two charges were the strongest point of the prosecution; for though it is tolerably clear that Melville did not embezzle any of the public money himself, it is equally evident that he was guilty of considerable negligence, and that he had acted contrary to the spirit of the act of 1785. On the formation of the Duke of Portland's ministry, Melville's eldest son was appointed president of the board of control, and on 8 April 1807 Melville was restored to the privy council. Though he continued to take great interest in public affairs, and often gave his advice on matters connected with India and the navy, he never again took office. In October 1809 he declined Perceval's offer of an earldom (Diary of Lord Colchester, 1861, ii. 218). His last speech in the House of Lords was