stance, because several of them had made declarations on the guilt of the noble lord, and at public meetings had prejudged his case. This was very idle. What great prosecution was there ever carried on, upon the merits of which, before trial, persons liable to be impannelled as a jury were not in the habit of conversing, and of giving their opinion. No great case could occur but it would be the topic of discussion; and it was no argument against a fair trial, that it was freely canvassed beforehand. But a learned gentleman (Mr. Bond) had thrown out an intimation as if there was something in the mode of impeachment which made the house of lords an unfit instrument for a trial, and he referred to the dilatory, protracted trial of Warren Hastings. Lord Henry contended that this was an argument against the constitution of the country. The argument of protraction in one case did not apply to another. There never was a'case more suitable to impeachment than the present :-a minister of the crown, a public accountant, a peer had violated an act of parliament of his own making, had committed a high breach of duty in using the public money for his own emolument, or at least there was strong presumption that he had done so. Then by whom could he be properly tried but by the house of peers? By whom could he be properly pursued but by the house of commons, the guardians of the public purse, which he had dared to violate? But it was said by an hon. gentleman (Mr. Hawkins Browne) that there were other reasons against further prosecution, and he mentioned one, the menace of invasion! What, said Lord Henry, would the hon. gentleman insinuate, that such is our dread of the enemy that we must not even dare to proceed in the administration of our own laws for the preservation of public morals! What would he say, on reading a paragraph in the Momiteur, that such was our dread of invasion as to desist from pursuing a state delinquent! Lord Henry put this in a strong point of view, and concluded with an animated appeal to the house not to disappoint the expectations of the people, which their steady and vigorous conduct in the outset of this affair had so happily raised.

The Master of the Rolls and Mr. H. Browne explained. Mr. Wilberforce, as there were yet many persons desirous to speak, thought it advisable to adjourn, in order that they might enter into the discussion with more disposition and patience than could be expected at so late an hour.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed that it was better

to

to adjourn then, than at a later hour, as they would be more able to renew the debate the next day.

In this opinion the house coincided; and at three o'clock in the morning adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORD S.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12.

Counsel and evidence were further heard relative to Teush's divorce bill.

A short conversation ensued between Lord Carnarvon and the Chancellor, relative to the further progress of the bill; in the course of which, the latter observed, he was afraid he should find it his painful duty to resist the second reading of the bill. The further consideration of the cause was adjourned till Monday.

Mr. Fyer, from the admiralty, presented an account of the proceeds of old naval stores, from the 1st of December 1803, to the 1st December 1804, which were ordered to be printed.

After a conversation between the Marquis of Buckingham and the Lord Chancellor, relative to the question of the application of an Irish act of the 2d Geo. I. to a part of the case of Mr. Justice Fox; and the Lord Chancellor's remarking, that any question grounded on that statute, would be duly considered by the house,

Counsel and evidence relative to the matters in charge against Mr. Justice Fox were called in, and two or three witnesses examined, after which the further consideration of the case was deferred till Friday. Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12.

Mr. Creevey gave notice, that he should the next day move for an exchange of lists between the parties interested in the Middlesex election; and also that the ballot be deferred.

Lord Glenbervie gave notice, that he should the next day move for leave to bring in a bill to consolidate the several acts relating to the land tax.

Admiral Berkeley brought in a bill to continue in force for a limited time, the woollen manufacturers suspension act, passed last session, which was ordered to be read a second time the next day, and to be printed,

Mr.

Mr. Giles obtained leave to bring in a bill to extend the provisions of the act in force in this country, to prevent the forgery of bank notes and bills of exchange, to every part of the kingdom. He apprised the house that it was his intention to have the bill printed.

Lord A. Hamilton brought in a bill for explaining and amending the act for regulating the exportation and importation of corn, which was ordered to be read a second time on Monday next, and to be printed.

The further consideration of the report of the committee on the Duke of Athol's claim, was appointed for Wednesday

next.

A message from the lords informed the house, that they had agreed to the post horse farming duty bill, the paymastergeneral's bill, and the auditors of public accounts bill.

Colonel Craufurd moved, that there be laid before the house an account of the number of soldiers who returned from the East Indies to Europe, in consequence of the expiration of their service, from the years 1788 to 1794 inclusive; and the number of recruits raised. Ordered.

Mr. Grey deferred his motion on the state of the nation, which stood for Wednesday, to Thursday next.

IMPEACHMENT OF LORD MELVILLE.

Mr. Lycester moved the order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for the impeachment of Lord Viscount Melville.

The original question and amendment having been put from the chair, Mr. Lycester took that opportunity of offering a few words to the house in explanation, as shortly as possible, of the grounds on which he felt that he should discharge his duty conscientiously, both to Lord Melville and the public, in giving a negative to the motion. But before he should come to state these grounds, he begged to say a few words on a subject that was only collateral to the question in debate, namely, what the hon. gentleman who had brought forward the motion had said with respect to Mr. Wilson. That hon. gentleman had fairly and candidly admitted that he understood Mr. Wilson to be a very meritorious officer, and when he had appeared as a witness before the committee, to have behaved himself in a very proper and becoming manner. In this statement he concurred, as he was sure every member of the committee would. But then the hon. gentleman had stated that the right hon. gentleman below him (Mr. Canning) VOL III. 1895.

Hh

ought

ought to have dismissed Mr. Wilson from his office, and in this he differed from that honourable gentleman. The hon. member here offered some observations to shew that Mr. Wilson had not acted criminally, and ought not to have been dismissed from his situation. Having stated so much as to the collateral point, he came next to the main question. If the present were an original proceeding against Lord Melville, he should not give his negative to the motion of the honourable gentleman, because the facts before the house were not satisfactorily accounted for, and he thought inquiry was necessary. But from his professional habits he was not disposed to think a man guilty, till he should be proved to be so, after having had a full opportunity of justifying himself against the charges against him on a fair trial." Whatever would have been his opinion, with respect to the present motion, if it had been an original proceeding, the question had now taken a different turn. The question now was, whether an impeachment according to the motion, or a criminal prosecution, according to the amendment of his honourable and learned friend (Mr. Bond) should be adopted? and here it was to be considered what proceedings had already taken place. On the 8th of April, resolutions of censure had been passed on the conduct of the noble lord. On that occasion he had been discharging his duty in a different place, and had not heard what had been urged to induce the house to adopt these resolutions. He had no doubt that something conclusive must have been brought forward on the occasion; but for his part, he could not find any thing that would justify the proceedings that had been taken. Lord Melville had been charged with withdrawing the public money from the bank, for the purposes of private - emolument; but Lord Melville had stated the very reverse to be the case; he had stated, that it had been drawn only for the expediency of the public service. From all that had passed, he had not observed any thing tending to criminate Lord Melville on that head. The noble lord had afterwards been struck out of the list of privy counsellors; and on the 29th of April an order was made, directing the attorney general to commence a civil suit against his lordship. Two questions had arisen on that occasion; first, whether a civil suit should be commenced against him; and next, whether a criminal prosecution should be instituted; and though many different opinions prevailed on the subject, which were fluctuating and changing, yet at length the civil suit for the recovery of the money was preferred. It would be

inconsistent for the house to order a criminal prosecution after having adopted the other mode of proceeding; and herein it was painful to him to differ from his right honourable and learned friend (Mr. Bond), for whose opinion he entertained the highest respect, and for whose person he felt the most sincere and zealous friendship. The circumstances which led to a suspicion of participation on the part of Lord Melville, had been before the house, in that part of the evidence of Mr. Trotter, where he says that he had been sometimes in advance ten thousand pounds, or twenty thousand pounds to Lord Melville. As the civil suit had been ordered, the select committee, with the instructions they had received, had considered themselves as precluded from inquiring into any matters that were the objects of that suit; and if any of the witnesses that had been examined before them, had set out with stating that they were about to give evidence touching sums advanced for the private use of Lord Melville, he had no doubt that they would have been stopped in the outset. That having been the case, he contended that it would be highly inconsistent for the house to stop the civil suit, and institute a criminal prosecution now. He did not mean to say that a case might not be made out, in which it would be right to adopt such a course; but he insisted that such a case should be first made out. His learned friend had stated that new matter had been produced to the house, and he was ready to admit that if such matter, as had not been in the contemplation of the house before, had been brought to light, and of sufficient magnitude to justify the alteration of their proceedings, the inconsistency might be properly incurred. This question turned upon the cases respecting two or three sums. As to the twenty thousand pounds that had been lent to Lord Melville by Mr. Trotter, there was no evidence to prove that his lordship knew the fund from which it had been procured. Neither could he discover any trace of evidence to prove, as stated by his learned friend, that Lord Melville had participated in the interest arising from navy, exchequer bills, or other stock purchased; and he saw no reason for supposing that such participation existed. He admitted that the ten thousand pounds which had been in the possession of Lord Melville previous to 1786, and the other sum of ten thousand pounds, or twelve thousand pounds, being half of the twenty-three thousand pounds advanced out of the public money, had been primâ facie unexplained. But, for sake of argument, he should suppose, what would be most disadvantageous to Lord Melville, that both had been applied