from a high and important trust, and separated by the interposition of parliament from the councils of my sovereign, is no punishment. I will not stop to discuss such puerilities; but I shall beg only to ask, whether what has already taken place does not probably amount to as much, as even in the case of a conviction upon an impeachment would have taken place? A declaration of incapacity to serve his majesty in any place of confidence or trust, would, even under such circumstances, have been considered as a punishment not wanting in due seve rity. The house of commons have not done this in terms, but they have done it in substance from what passed on the 8th of April and subsequent occasions.

You have gone further. To punishment you have added an attack upon the remains of my private fortune, by your direction to the attorney general. It may be said, this is only reclaiming unlawful gains. Is that so clear a case? and does it not admit of some doubt, whether claims upon me would be confined solely to what I have received? But in any view, is it no additional punishment to be harassed, God knows how long, in a court of law, by an investigation of my whole private concerns for a great part of my life, without any documents or vouchers of kind to aid any recollection in any my one particular?

Indeed, when I take a review of these past proceedings, I can scarcely bring myself to believe that a motion of impeachment can be seriously intended. If any such intention has been entertained, it must have been conceived in a moment of sudden violence, forgetting all that has been already said or done upon this subject. Is it meant that a civil prosecution, under the direction of the attorney-general, is to be going on in one place, where I am to be examined upon oath, and the result of that examination communicated to the managers of the impeachment, to aid them, in their conduct of their criminal accusation in another place?

I am confirmed in my conviction, that an impeachment can never be seriously intended or persevered in, from attending to other circumstances, and in particular to that of the many illustrious names, members of another house of parliament, which have been prefixed to requisitions for calling meetings, or have actually attended them in various parts of the country, expressing very violent and inflammatory opinions, founded on what they supposed to be the import of the resolutions passed by the house of commons. In the case of an impeachment, these peers would be the judges of the person chiefly VOL. III. 1805.

Dd

aimed

aimed at in those extrajudicial proceedings. It will scarcely be supposed, that no communications on this subject have passed between the great authorities in this house, who have taken a lead in its proceedings, and many of those noble lords to whom I have referred, and it is altogether inconsistent with a belief of such communications, to suppose that a motion of inpeachment could be intended; for it appears incredible, that under such circumstances, those high and honourable characters could have been induced to take a part so totally irreconcileable with the judicial functions they might be called upon to perform.

I believe I am accurate in the recollection of a circumstance which just occurs to me. It was on the occasion of the trials a few years ago at Maidstone, the circumstances of which will be easily recollected. A gentleman of the name of Raikes was challenged as a juryman, and the challenge sustained, on account of his having been heard to utter intemperate language with regard to the objects of the trials; and this was considered as sufficient to disqualify him from sitting as a juryman upon their trial.

It has been rumoured, that other modes of trial have been thought of, in the shape of indictment. But on that subject, likewise, I am disposed to be incredulous: for I am sure, if any such measure had been in contemplation, no member of parliament would have been induced to take part in the harangues and resolutions of meetings of every description, and even in this metropolis, calculated to poison the public feelings, and prejudice the minds of those from whom the jurymen must be selected, if such criminal prosecution were to take place.

Upon this subject of prosecution by indictment, I must repeat the same observation I have already made on that of impeachment. It would be an attempt at double punishment. Fine or imprisonment are the usual modes of punishment in the case of a conviction on an indictment in a court of law; but is there any man, circumstanced as I have been in life, who would ever consider what has happened in consequence of the interposition of parliament, as a lesser punishment than that which I have stated as the usual result of a criminal conviction? This proposition may be distorted by any subterfuge I which ingenuity may devise; but it is impossible seriously to maintain, that an attack upon me, in the form of a criminal prosecution, would not be an attempt to load me with reiterated punishment, and that too, aggravated by the methods

which have been already resorted to, for the purpose of poisoning and prejudicing the public mind.

These impressions are so strong and so convincing to my mind, that I feel secure no further proceedings will be taken against me, and therefore I should think myself guilty of an unnecessary waste of your time, if I were to insist upon them more at large. Perhaps I ought to be aware, that in cases of persons of rank, and who have filled high situations in government, their accusers may think themselves at liberty to pursue lines of conduct, which would be reckoned reprehensible and oppressive, if adopted in the case of a cottager or a peasant: but even that has its bounds, and there are certain fixed and unalterable principles, which cannot be departed from, in any case, without weakening in the minds of all ranks, that confidence in the pure administration of justice, which is essential to the happiness and safety of every inhabitant of a free country.

I have already expressed my hopes, that nothing in the course of this day has fallen from me, in any degree disrespectful to the assembly which, with their indulgence, I have been permitted to address. But I equally trust, I cannot be liable to censure, if I have not, in any part of what I have said, shewn a disposition to deprecate, by humiliating submission, any of the future evils which may be in contemplation against me. I have lived too long not to know, that popular clamour often dies away as rapidly as it is excited. A time may come, and I hope it is not far distant, when those who now pursue my conduct with such unexampled rigour, will perceive their error, and become conscious of the injustice I have suffered through misconception and misrepresentation.

Circumstances not in my power with honour to control debar me from the possibility of uttering, what it would be undoubtedly my personal interest to disclose. I despair not, even in my own time, to receive ample justice from my deluded country. This is, however, not the period to enter, upon that theme. But I feel the consciousness of my own rectitude deeply implanted in my breast, and I shall descend to my grave with the heartfelt satisfaction, that, however the shafts of severity and cruelty may be levelled against me at the present moment, the future impartial historian will be able to hand down my name, in the list of those who have strenuously, and I hope not ineffectually, exerted, during a long life of public service, their unremitting endeavours to

Dd2

promote

promote the welfare, and the dearest and most essential interests of their country.

Lord Melville having concluded and retired,

Mr. Whitbread rose, and observed that it must have given great satisfaction to the house, that the noble lord who was the subject of the accusation that had been brought forward by him, and against whom the house of commons had passed resolutions of censure, had taken that opportunity of being heard on the charges against him. It would afford himself complete pleasure if it were compatible with the forms of the house that the noble lord could be present to answer such arguments as it was his intention to urge on this subject. The noble lord, after having stated in the strongest terms his innocence, had expressed his expectation that posterity would do him justice. But it was impossible for the house to take, on this occasion, the assertions of the noble lord which were contrary to his own testimony on oath, and to the declarations of others also under a similar sanction. If the noble lord was willing even to go to his trial, he had stated, that there was no competent tribunal in the country to try him. It was impossible for him to be tried on an impeachment before his peers, because some of them had already prejudged his case, and no impartial jury could be found in the country because their minds had been contaminated against him. So that, according to the statement of the noble lord, there was not a single individual in the whole country competent to try him. Towards the close of his speech, the noble lord had said, that the former proceedings adopted by vote of the house, were inconsistent with the motion he proposed to make that night; but he denied the assertion. He called on the learned gentleman opposite (the Attorney General) to watch all that should fall from him on this subject, and to correct him if he should be wrong; and he repeated, that not one of their former proceedings was inconsistent with the motion which he should have the honour of submitting to the house that night. An hon. gentleman had very unnecessarily put a question to him, when he first gave notice of his motion of that night, whether in bringing the motion forward he acted as the organ of the committee. That hon. gentleman knew full well that he was not the organ of the committee; and he had not himself let fall a single expression that could lead any gentleman to suppose that he was. If there were to be any organ of the committee it must unquestionably have been the chairman,

chairman. But though the question was put without necessity, it might not have been put without design. It might have been put for the purpose of intimating that the motion had been brought forward against the sense of the committee. The committee, however, had not come to any decision or resolution on the subject; and as a member of that committee, he looked upon himself as justified in submitting to the house of commons a motion, such as he had given notice of, founded on the report of the committee to that house of commons, which had with so much honour to themselves voted the resolutions of the 8th and 10th of April. The first proceeding that ensued was a motion for a committee, to inquire into the matter of the tenth report, after which a civil process had been proposed. The committee was agreed to; but under such restrictions, as rendered their inquiry of little avail, as was afterwards proved, and he had then predicted. When the motion was made for instituting a civil suit against the parties, an amendment had been proposed in order to substitute a criminal prosecution? But the civil suit had been preferred. Did the civil suit preclude a criminal prosccution? And what would be the consequence if such a doctrine were to be admitted? The crown might thereby at any time defeat the ends of justice, and shelter à public delinquent from an impeachment, by directing a civil suit to be commenced against him. But were there never in fact two suits, one civil and the other criminal, carried on against the same individual? Whenever the offence was so atrocious as to call for exemplary chastisement, a civil action took place for the recovery of the money, and a criminal prosecution for the punishment of the offender. Notwithstanding all that had been said by the noble lord, he could not consider, nor could the house, nor would the country consider, that the bare recovery of the money would be a sufficient satisfaction or punishment in the present case. If it were not consistent however to commence a criminal prosecution whilst a civil suit was depending, what was the house to do? Why, to cut the knot that they could not untie; to abandon the civil suit which had been commenced, and to institute the criminal prosecution, which alone could lead to an adequate punishment of his delinquency. There was, however, another course that might be adopted, to suspend the civil suit till the criminal prosecution should be brought to a termination. But, said the noble lord, will you place me, by adopting the motion to be submitted to you, in a situation in which no man was ever placed? Will you subject me to the judgment