110 
reply was communicated to the com- 
mons, and by them referred to the 
managers. 
The next proceeding in this busi- 
ness was a report of the managers, 
presented to the house of commons, 
on the 4th of March, containing 
further matters of a criminal nature 
against lord Melville, which was 
ordered ‘to be printed and taken 
into consideration on a future day. 
Upon the facts disclosed in this re- 
port an additional article of im- 
peachment was moved.on the 7th 
of March, and, after some conver- 
sation, agreed to without opposi- 
tion. When this additional article 
was communicated to the lords, it 
was referred to a committce, to 
search for precedents of the pro- 
ceedings of the house in such cases, 
and the report of the committee 
being favourable to the admission of 
the additional article, it was ordered 
to be communicated to lord Mel- 
ville, that he might put in his an- 
swer to it within a limited time. 
In the mean time l'rotter, one of 
the principal witnesses in this cause, 
having refused (o answer the ques- 
tions put to him by thé managers, 
on the ground that Lisauswer might 
subject him to a civil suit, was or- 
dered by the house of commons: to 
be taken into the custody of the 
Serjeant at arms; but, having next 
day (March 6,) presented a humble 
petition to the house, expressive of 
his contrition for having eended 
them, and having given the mana. 
gers satisfaction as to the questions 
which he had refused to answer, 
he was set at liberty, after.a pro- 
per admonition from the speaker. 
Lord Molville’s auswer to the ad- 
ditional article, which was a general 
plea of not guilty, like his answer 
to the preceding ones, haying been 
ANNUAL REG ISTER,'1806: 
presented next day at the bar of the 
of lord Melville, and to send a mes. 
presented to the house of lords on 
the 24th of March, and the replica. 
tion of the commons having been 
house, their lordships were pleased, 
on the motion of earl Fitzwilliam, 
to fix the 29th of April for the trial 
sage to the commons, to acquaint 
them therewith, and to require them 
to appoint a committee to manage 
the impeachment. 
On the following day Mr. Whit- 
bread moved, in the house of com-_ 
mons, ** that the house should be 
present at the trial of lord viscount 
Melville, as acommittee of the whale 
house.” 
It was objected to this motion by 
the friends of Jord Melville, that the 
adoption of it would necessarily lead — 
to the trial being carried on in 
Westminster Hall, which would be’ 
the cause of great delay, and of much 
additional expence to the defendant ; 
and it was contended, that justice 
would be more speedily and more 
cheaply, and not less effectually ob~ 
tained, by a trialat the bar of the 
house of lords ; in proof of which, 
the trial of lord Macclesfield at the 
bar of that house, which lasted only 
twenty one days, was contrasted 
with the trial of Mr. Hastings in 
Westminster Hall, which Jasted 
during eight sessions of parliament. 
It was answered, that it. ill be- 
came the friends of lord Melville, 
who had prevailed in having a trial 
by impeachment preferred to the 
trial by indictment, on which the 
commons had originally determined, 
to object to the impeachment heine! 
conducted according to, the old and 
established usage of parliament; that — 
ali their former arguments for pre- 
ferring trial by impeachment to trial 
by indictment, derived from the 
rank 
