the conduct of the noble peer who had been that evening heard in the body of the house in his own defence; the next subject of debate was, Whether a criminal or civil prosecution should be instituted against him, and after that

mittee was appointed to make further inquiries into the circumstances of the case; but that committee was precluded from any investigation as to the participation of the noble lord in the profits of public money, which, according to the terms of the resolutions, had been misapplied. Something, however, had incidentally come out which appeared like a proof of his participation, and the hon. gentleman who had opened the debate had reserved himself to the present opportunity of bringing that before the house. But he could assure the house that no positive evidence to that effect had appeared before the committee, although there were grounds for conjecture, principally arising from the idea of the commixture of accounts, and from the circumstance of papers having been burned which were at that time supposed to be useless. But there was no additional evidence as to these points. The circumstance of a release having passed between the parties, he conceived to be the only new point that was now brought forward; and, as far as any man could positively take on himself fairly to say, Lord Melville might have been unacquainted with the minute clauses, or precise terms of that release, though he knew, generally speaking, that a release was to be executed, and signed it in perfect confidence on the propriety of conduct of the party from whom it came. In such a case, it was necessary either to settle accounts and give up vouchers, or else to destroy them generally The latter course was adopted; and as he was confident that, before any grand jury, that would not be sufficient evidence upon which to find a bill, he could not be induced to think that such a circumstance would form sufficient ground for that house bringing up an impeachment to the bar of the higher chamber of parliament. The hon. gentleman who opened the debate had nevertheless thought that it afforded the strongest authority for the adoption of such a measure, and had given three principal reasons in support of his opinion. But when the house came to consider of the first of them, namely, the charge of a breach of law by the manner in which he had applied the public money, they would find themselves under the necessity of revising their former proceeding before they could be enabled to come to a fresh determination upon that point. In fact, before the year 1782, it was a question which

admitted

admitted of some doubt, whether the application of public money, in the manner which had been stated, was not to be considered the fair emolument of office; and even on a consideration of the act of drawing money from the bank, it did not appear to him that there was any thing criminal within the meaning of the act; there was no mention made about where the money was to be deposited after it was drawn from the bank, whether it was to be lodged in the strong chest at the navy office, or whether it might not be placed in the hands of the most convenient banker. But admitting to the full extent the idea of criminality as expressed already by the house, and to which determination it was his wish to pay the utmost possible respect, was it not to be recollected that the house had already made its option, that it had adopted a certain line of proceeding; that Lord Melville had been already punished by the erasure of his name from the councils of his sovereign, by his loss of place, and by his future disqualification from holding any place of public trust in consequence of such proceedings? It was not proposed to undo the former part of his punishment, and it was contrary to all principle of law to punish any person a second time for the same offence. All punishment was inflicted for example sake; and would any man presume to suppose that it was at all probable that any future treasurer of the navy would say, that the punishment of Lord Melville was nothing, that he might follow a similar course with safety, provided there was no danger of an impeachment? There was one point of the speech of the hon. gentleman who made the motion, however, on which he thought it would be necessary to make a single remark; it had ́ been stated that the noble lord had challenged the whole country as unfit to sit upon his jury; that there was not at present any tribunal which was likely to come to a fair, dispassionate decision on his case. Was it of slight consequence that the commons of the united kingdom had come to a decision that he had been guilty of a gross violation of law, and a high breach of duty? was it of slight consequence that meetings had been held in various parts of the country following up such a declaration? was it of slight consequence that peers of parliament had lent the sanction of their names to resolutions of a similar nature; or could any reasonable man suppose that it would be in the power of any individual whatever to do away the impression which would be made upon the minds of all classes of his majesty's subjects by the authority pf such resolutions, or by the force of such examples ? If

any

any tribunal, however, could be chosen which was more pure than another, it was the assembly in which the subject was then discussed; they were not tied down by the forms of ordinary courts of justice; they were a discretionary court, and they would know how to appreciate the value of what had already passed, form a correct and impartial judgment as to what Lord Melville had already suffered, and he had no doubt that they would, by a fair comparison of the nature of the charge with that of the punishment which has followed, very readily decide whether the noble lord has not been already punished in a proportion adequate to his offence, or whether there is a foundation in justice for bringing him to a new trial. To those who thought that Lord Melville had, in the first instance, deserved to be impeached, he supposed it must now be clear that any further prosecution would be vexatious and unjust.

Earl Temple observed that the right hon. and learned gentleman had chiefly rested on a comparison between the proceedings on the case of Lord Melville, with the ordinary course of proceedings in a court of justice, though he had admitted what constituted the most essential part of the difference between the proceedings in that house, and those of a court of law, that is, that while the latter are confined by rules of law, the power of the former is discretionary. This was an argument why they should not be supposed to be fettered by any thing of adherence to the dry forms of law which might, in some instances, be favourable to the rejection of a charge on which the criminal ought, in strict justice, to be found guilty, and to receive the punishment of the law. The learned gentleman, however, could not wish that the noble lord should be freed from the charge which lay against him by any fiction of the law; it must be his wish that his lordship should be acquitted in a more honourable manner. For this reason, he supposed, he had quoted the case of Lord Somers; but he had entirely omitted to notice the distinction between the two cases. In the case of Lord Somers there was an address sent up to the throne, and an impeachment to be moved for in the house. In the case of Lord Melville the house had only determined what appeared to them to be the nature of the offence committed by Lord Melville, and left the sovereign to the exercise of his own feelings, without calling upon him for the expression of any opinion which might possibly be supposed to have weight in any other place. The learned gentleman had mentioned in another part of his speech that there

was

was nothing new in what now appeared before the house. Was it not something new that the noble lord had himself acknowledged that he might have applied a considerable sum of money to the management of affairs in Scotland; and that he had added, that he would not on any account divulge the na◄ ture of these transactions? Was it not of serious importance that the noble lord had not related the whole of another transaction when questioned by the chancellor of the exchequer, but had concealed a part even from him? And, with respect to the law, though it did not precisely state where naval money was to be placed, in transitu from the bank to the hands of those who had demands upon the navy office, it stated clearly enough where it was not to be; it was not to be placed in the hands of Mr. Mark Sprott, or subjected to the control of Messrs. Coutts. He trusted the house would not lose any thing of its dignity by giving up a prosecution in a case where corruption was known to boil and bubble, and where statutes were laid aside as useless lumber.

Mr. I. H. Browne, although he voted for the original resolutions against Lord Melville, because, however he esteemed the private qualities and eminent public services of that noble lord, he felt himself too strongly impelled by a sense of public duty to refuse his support to those resolutions, yet could not persuade himself to concur in either the motion of impeachment, or the amendment proposed by his right hon. friend. It did appear to him that enough of punishment had been inflicted, and therefore he should resist any farther proceeding against the noble lord. He could discover no new matter in the report of the select committee, nor in the speech which the house had that night heard from the noble lord, to warrant the proposition submitted by the hon. gentleman on the other side. In the speech, indeed, he heard much to extenuate, and nothing to aggravate, the offence of the noble lord. On the whole, he begged it to be understood that he did not oppose the motion before the house from any idea that peculation was a slight offence, or that it should be but lightly punished, but from a conviction that sufficient ignominy had been attached to the guilt that appeared in this case, and that to proceed any further would be highly unjust, from a consideration of the former conduct of the noble person who was implicated, and inexpedient from a view to the present peculiar circumstances of the country. So far from the voice of the people calling for farther punishment, he was induced to think, from all the opportunities of information he had, that all unpre

judiced

judiced persons, who looked only for justice, were fully satisfied with what had already been done, and desired not the infliction of any other punishment.

Mr. Hiley Addington declared that he was proceeding to execute the most painful duty, that in the whole course of his political life he was ever called on to perform; because he could not divest his mind of a just consideration of the great services rendered to his country by the noble person who was in this instance the object of accusation, and because he could never cease to remember the many marks of private friendship and kindness, of unremitting attention, which it had been his fate to experience from that noble lord. These were considerations which could not be obliterated from his mind by any circumstances whatever. But still they must yield to a sense of public duty. After the very ample and able view which had been taken of the whole of the case by his right hon. friend, who moved the amendment, in all whose sentiments he entirely concurred, he did not feel it necessary long to trespass on the attention of the house. To what had been urged by his learned friend on the floor (the master of the rolls), and also by the noble lord who was heard that night in his own defence, he had listened with the utmost attention, and he confessed, that for the first time in his life, he was not convinced by his learned friend. When the first proceedings were taken against Lord Melville, when the criminating resolutions were proposed, his wish was to have the whole of the case referred to the examination of a select committee, before the house should come to any decision upon it. But in that it was his misfortune to differ from a majority of the house, and to the vote of that majority he bowed with deference. He could not, however, forbear to remark, that if one were allowed to judge from events, had the course then recommended to the house been adopted, this consequence at least would have resulted, that the whole of the charges would have been referred to a committee, which would have gone into the investigation unfettered. There would have been in that event no pretence, and therefore there could be no wish or intention, to subject the committee to any restriction. The house having come to no determination upon the case of Lord Melville, the house of peers could have had no reason to hesitate in allowing that noble ford to attend a committee of this house, and to submit to an unrestrained examination. The restraints since imposed on Lord Melville were, he fully believed, founded on the crimiVOL. III. 1805.

G g

natory