be found, he had not that day departed from the fair and juft motives that induced him firft to bring the subject before the house. It might be faid, that this was a time of too great difficulty for impeachment; that the enemy we had to contend with was wife, and our own minifters weak and incapable; and that every hand fhould be employed in turning afide the danger which threatens us. He deemed it unfor tunate that the house must be fo occupied with fuch an enemy, and fo poorly provided with wifdom at home. But there was no trial for great crimes but in the moment of detection. If they are ever fuffered to pafs away without examination and punishment, the public feeling refpecting them cannot be revived; there is fomething in the human heart that revolts at that, and the fault of lofs of time, is that of the party accufed. It is his conduct that creates the neceffity, and the nation, fo circumftanced, lofes more by forbearing to profecute, than by any length of trial. But the impeachment need not occupy fo much time as was apprehended. The trial of Lord Macclesfield occupied only 25 days; and he would pledge himself, that the trial of Lord Melville need not take up more. The greatness of the expence might alfo be objected. But fuch a trial would be real economy in a nation fituated as this is. The country, if not too poor to be robbed, is not too poor to demand juftice. Nor can any expence be too great, to prove Lord Melville's innocence, if that was to be the refult. His lordship had dwelt on his greatnefs; he had been raifed to another house of higher dignity than this; that he had not been raised to that dignity by a monarch whom he had deceived and betrayed, was an object worthy of being afcertained. He was a new peer, raifed to that dignity under a minifter, now a member alfo of the fame houfe (Lord Sidmouth), of whom he would fay, he would never have advised his majefty to raise Lord Melville to that dignity, had he known of the tranfactions now known to the houfe of commons. But if a peer is difgraced by his practices, it ought to be known to that houfe that he is a difgraced man. Such a character is not meant to fit there. He concluded by obferving, that he would not move the articles of impeachment then, but would content himself with moving, "That Henry Lord Vifcount Melville be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors."

Mr. Bond; after expreffing his agreement in opinion with the hon. gentleman that fome further fteps fhould be taken

in this affair, declared his diffent from him in the mode which he proposed to purfue; to which he should therefore offer an amendment. The proceedings of the house in this bufinefs feemed to have become fomewhat embarraffed, and, with the leave of the house, he would take a fhort review of them. When the hon. gentleman firft brought forward his motion for a cenfure of the conduct of, Lord Melville, he had voted against it, because he confidered it as premature, and that it was not founded on a knowledge of all the cir cumftances of the cafe. The motion, however, for cenfure had been carried. The next step was the appointment of a fele&t committee to investigate clofely the allegations of the tenth report. Restrictions were impofed on that committee, fatisfactory, no doubt, to thofe who propofed them, but quite the reverfe to him. The queftion that then came to be difcuffed was, whether a civil or a criminal profecution should be instituted. Refolutions of cenfure had already been paffed against Lord Melville. He could not agree with thofe who afferted that this was no punishment of the noble lord; he fhould think himself wanting in refpect to the dignity of the house, did he agree with them; for his part, he fhould confider the expreffed difapprobation of the house, as one of the greatest calamities that could befall him. After this, Lord Melville refigned his high fituation as first lord of the admiralty; and here again he mutt differ from those who afferted that this was not the neceffary effect of the vote of cenfure. The ftriking off of the noble lord's name from the lift of the privy council was unquestionably the effect of that vote. Under thefe circumft inces, feeling that this punishment was in itself fevere, and being fatisfied that if the ends of juftice were fatisfied, the moft lenient modes should be adopted for that purpose, he supported the motion for a civil procefs, because that was the milder meature. The queftion now was, is there not new matter fufficient to warrant a different mode of procedure from that originally adopted? He contended that the circumftances recently disclosed were not only new, but in a much higher degree criminating than any that had hitherto appealed. Ley proved decidedly the participation of Lord Melvitie in the profits made by his agent. In the first place, 10,0001. which Lord Melville avowed to have been expended in the fecret fervice of Scotland, and which he declared, on being queftioned as to its application, that no human power should wrench it from him; was that a fatisfactory anfwer? Was it not rather a moft dangerous precedent? and who could VOL. III. 1903,

Ff

fay at what point it might ftop? Did the noble lord lend this fum, or give it away? If it was a gift, when was it repaid? If it was a loan, how was it poffible, whatever curious and delicate circumftances might have attended the transaction at the time in 1796, that fo many years should have elapfed without allowing of its being divulged? At a fubfequent period there was a fum of 11,0001. unaccounted for. Were these not new facts? The charge was not that Lord Melville had been a gainer by any particular speculation, but that the public money had been generally diverted from its proper courfe, from which he had derived advantage. It was proved by evidence, that money had been fo diverted, that the noble lord had laid his hands on it, that it had come into his poffeffion, and it was but fair to conclude, that the charge of profiting by it was established. These two grounds were a fufficient juftification of a criminal profecution; but there were other ftrong facts in referve. The hon. gentleman adverted to the converfation between Mr. Pitt and Lord Melville after the communication made to the former by Mr. Raikes, and reprobated the conduct of Lord Melville in concealing the truth from his right hon. friend. It was impoffible to blame that right hon. gentleman for allowing himself to be deceived; he had many things of great importance preffing on his attention, and was obliged to place implicit confidence in thofe with whom he acted. No blame therefore attached to him, but very ferious blame to the noble lord. When he practifed that deception he knew that he was in the wrong, he knew that if the real state of the cafe was explained the perfon to whom he was addreffing himself would have effectually prevented the recurrence of fuch abuses. Another ftrong fact was the circumstances attending the exchange of releases between Lord Melville and Mr. Trotter. The noble lord pretended to fay, that had it been his intereft to conceal any part of this tranfaction, it would have been abfurd to difplay it as he had done. But the difplay had not been very great. Neither Spottiswoode's partner nor clerk knew any thing about it; and as to the registration, it was notorious that were the fouleft confpiracy that could pollute parchment fent to be registered, fo indifferent were the clerks to what paffed through their hands, that it would ftand as little chance of becoming public as if it had been done in a foreign country. The date of this releafe cicated more than ordinary futpicion. The act inftituting a commiffion of naval inquiry paffed on December 29. The first precept of the commif

fioners

9

fioners was dated the 17th of the fucceeding January; the fecond precept the 2d of February; and the release was figned by Lord Melville on the 18th of the fame month (hear! hear!). Immediately after we find the noble lord butily employed in deftroying papers, &c. If all this was innocent, if it were merely the effect of chance, then was the noble lord the most unfortunate of men; but a coincidence fo extraordinary required a great deal more explanation, and till that explanation was given, the impreffion on his mind, and on that of every honeft man must be, that there exifted grave grounds of doubt; that it was not entirely the refult of accident. Let it be remembered, that all he wanted was further inquiry. If the noble lord could acquit himtelf of the imputations on his character, he vowed to God he had no friend who would rejoice more fincerely than himfelf; but in the mean time, he felt it to be his duty to fend him to that inquiry. The proceedings ought certainly to be criminal, but he differed from the hon. gentleman oppofite as to the mode. There were two modes,-impeachment, and a criminal profecution by the attorneygeneral. In the prefent inftance he should prefer the latter. Some cafes were more fitted for the ordinary courts of juftice, others for a high and enlightened tribunal. If impeachment was more dignified, it was likewife more cumbrous and expensive. Of this we had had many proofs. Would to God that one of them (the trial of Mr. Haftings) could be blotted from our annals! Nothing human could be more perfect than the administration of juftice in the ordinary courts of Great Britain, and he trusted he fhould not hear any objection to the propofition, on the ground that the profecution. was under the management of an officer of the crown, when the high character of the attorney-general, for honour and integrity, was confidered. Although the hon. gentleman had hinted the propriety of fufpending the civil fuit now carrying on against Lord Melville, he had not made a fpecific motion to that effect. He would therefore infert it in his amendment, which would then run thus :-" That his majefty's attorney general be directed to profecute Henry Lord Vifscount Melville for the feveral offences which appear, from the report of the commiffioners of naval inquiry and that of the felect committee of the houfe of commons, to have been committed by the faid Henry Lord Viscount Melville; and that the attorney general be directed to ftay Proceedings in the civil fuit, inftituted by order of the houfe, against the faid Henry Lord Viscount Melville."

Mr. Whitbread, in explanation, observed that he meant to propose the suspension of the civil suit, if the impeachment should be carried.

The Master of the Rolls did not think it necessary to take up the time and attention of the house with entering into a detail of all that had already passed upon the case now before the house. But he would ask, was it not an object worthy of the attention of the house, that a notice had been publicly given of a motion to remove Lord Melville from his majesty's councils; and that that motion, or the effects which might possibly flow from it (an additional censure and a punishment, in consequence of the proceedings of that house), had only been prevented by the advice which his right hon. friend (Mr. Pitt) had given to that effect, and that his majesty had actually erased the name of that noble lord from the list of his privy counsellors? Was it not an object worthy of the attention of the house, that Lord Melville had resigned a most principal and ostensible situation in the government of his country, in consequence of the determination of that house? Were the resolutions of the 8th of April still unreversed; and were they to add the resolutions now proposed, to the punishment which he had already received? If the motion for an impeachment had taken precedence of the other proceedings, it would have been impossible, according to the regular proceedings authorized by the constitution of the country, to have added the former proceedings to that which is now proposed. By parity of reasoning, if not strictly speaking contrary to the forms of our law, it would be, strictly speaking, according to the principles of justice, repugnant to all idea of equity and fair reasoning, that the two modes of punishment should be inflicted in this inverted order of proceeding. The only case that he recollected in which any thing similar was attempted was in that of Lord Somers and three others. According to Bishop Burnet, it was evident that an address to the throne and an impeachment were moved upon the same case. The lords, however, differed in opinion from the commons, and thought that it might be deemed a bad pre-. cedent; they sent up an humble address to the throne, expressive of these sentiments, and the sense of the public appeared to go with them. The sovereign also refused to give his sanction to such an extraordinary mode of proceeding. Upon comparing that with the case now before the house, or at least with the proceedings had upon it, it would be recollected, that at first a vote of censure was passed upon

the