him to this his favourite employment. This, however, was rendered impossible. The noble lord was absolutely felo de se. He was literally a suicide. Never more could he indulge the hope of revisiting the political Elysium. He is doomed for ever to wander on the banks of the Styx, indulging in fruitless penitence, and forming useless schemes of reformation. Quam vellent æthere in alto Nunc et pauperiem, et duros perferre labores! The hon. member, after this classical allusion, proceeded to comment on the destruction of all the documents, memorandums, or records which could throw light on these mysterious transactions, which established Lord Melville's criminality. He reprobated this proceeding, and appealed to any learned gentleman in the house, whether it was not of a nature that would beget suspicion of fraud in any court of law or equity in the kingdom. On the subject of Lord Melville's being already sufficiently punished, as contended by his friends, he wished not long to occupy the attention of the house, having already more than once fully stated his sentiments. He only put it to the house, whether any one conceived that Lord Macclesfield was sufficiently punished by a vote of censure, and by having that vote of censure carried up to the throne. No one ever held such a monstrous proposition, and what was the guilt of Lord Macclesfield in point of enormity to that of Lord Melville? Here, however, the right hon. gentleman came forward, and asked, will you first inflict the severest wounds, shut up the criminal in a dungeon, and when his pain is almost subsided, drag him forth, and afflict him with fresh cruelties? It was easy for the right hon. gentleman's fancy to sport with these metaphoric tortures, but if he wished to know what tortures in reality were, he would refer him to the tortures inflicted on the bare backs of the unfortunate inhabitants of Ireland. He begged leave to assure the right hon. gentleman, that what he wanted was not cruelty. It was substantial justice against a great public offender that he required, and this justice, with the assistance of the house, he trusted he would effect. The hon. member was very pointed on the subject of the repayment of the public money, on which some gentlemen laid so much stress. There was not a single document to prove the repayment, and the only evidence of it was the evidence of Trotter, which was frail, confused and unsatisfactory, and certainly nothing 002 more more satisfactory was obtained from Lord Melville, who had a recollection to the full as frail as his paymaster and agent. It could not be positively asserted, but there was a strong presumption that the repayment was by means of improper speculations with the public money. To clear up this business inquiry was indispensable, and no mode of inquiry was so dignified, or so just to all parties as impeachment. He shewed that many of the inconveniences of an impeachment applied to the admirable institution of juries. The case of Mr. Hastings's impeachment had no analogy to that now proposed. It would be just as conclusive to say that the impeachment would last only twenty-five days, occupied in the trial of Lord Macclesfield, as that it would last ten years, occupied in the trial of Mr. Hastings. The hon. gentleman concluded by an animated appeal to those who were favourable to a criminal prosecution to join in so important an end. Mr. Sheridan stated, in a few words, the reasons that induced him to prefer the impeachment to a criminal prosecution. The house then divided on the original motion: For the impeachment Against it Majority against the impeachment 195 272 77 That motion having been lost, the house afterwards divided on Mr. Bond's amendment, for a criminal prosecution against Lord Melville: when the numbers were, For the criminal prosecution Majority for the criminal prosecution 9 About six o'clock in the morning the house adjourned to Friday. In a committee of privileges, counsel and evidence were heard on Sir Cecil Bishop's claim to the barony of Zouch. Lord Auckland laid on the table the annual account of the directors of the Chatham chest. Ordered to be printed. On the question for the second reading of Moore's divorce bill, a conversation arose between the Lord Chancellor, Lord Auckland, the Marquis of Buckingham, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, on an understanding said to be existing between the the agents for the parties, that the damages obtained in the court below should not be levied. The second reading was in consequence postponed till Monday. The Lancaster justices bill was committed and reported. The house then went into a committee on the stipendiary curates' bill, when, after a long discussion on the first clause, progress was reported, and the chairman obtained leave to sit again next day.-Adjourned. HOUSE OF LORDS. FRIDAY, JUNE 14. Earl Suffolk fixed his intended motion on the state of Ireland for Tuesday next, for which day the lords were ordered to be summoned. The further proceedings on the case of Mr. Justice Fox were posponed till Monday; on which day Lord Auckland gave notice he should submit a motion, the effect of which would be to postpone the further proceedings on that business. till next session. The house then resolved itself into a committee on the stipendiary curates' bill, the further consideration of which was deferred till Tuesday.-Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS. FRIDAY, JUNE 14. The bill for suspending the penalties on woollen manfacturers was ordered to be read a second time on Monday. The members of parliament bankrupt privilege bill was ordered to be read a second time on Tuesday. A message from the lords acquainted the house that their lordships had agreed to the bill for regulating the farming of the poor; and had consented to allow the Earl of St. Vincent to attend the committee to whom the conduct of Sir Home Pophamı had been referred; but on the subject of the desire expressed by the house of commons, that they would permit the lord president of the council, the Earl of Buckinghamshire, and the Earl of St. Vincent, to attend the committee on the eleventh report of the commissioners of naval inquiry, their lordships required to be informed of the grounds of such request. It was resolved, that to the latter part of this the house would send an answer by messengers of act for the redemption of the land tax having been enas read, Lord Glenbervie obtained leave to bring in a to amend the same, and to render it more effectual. The London port bill went through a committee, and the report was ordered to be received on Monday. The offenders escape bill was read a third time and passed. Sir J. Newport gave notice, that on Tuesday next he would submit to the house a motion relative to the two boards of commissioners in Ireland, one for granting compensation to the suffering loyalists, the other for granting compensation to officers in that country whose offices had been extinguished, or whose emoluments had been diminished by the union. Colonel Craufurd postponed his motion from Monday to Tuesday. The Secretary at War brought in a bill empowering his majesty to retain in full pay the officers of the militia notwithstanding the reduction, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Monday. The bark preservation bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Monday. The Dublin paving bill went through a committee, and the report was ordered to be received on Monday. The Secretary at War presented accounts of the effective military force of Great Britain on the 1st of May, 1805, which were ordered to lie on the table. Colonel Craufurd, adverting to the above accounts for which he last week moved, observed, that they did not go as far as he wished. It was therefore ordered, on the hon. colonel's motion, that there be laid before the house an account of the effective strength of the garrisons and of the veteran battalions on the 1st of May, 1805. The committee on the Isle of Man bill was deferred till Friday. The English and Irish militia pay bills, the lottery bill, the militia subalterns' bill, the militia adjutants' bill, and the Irish paper regulation bill, were read a third time and passed. 2 LOAN TO BOYD, BENFIELD, AND CO. Mr. Whitbread rofe, pursuant to notice, to move certain refolutions refpecting the conduct of the right hon. the Chancellor Chancellor of the Exchequer, in those transactions which had been discovered in the report of the commiffioners of naval inquiry, and farther inveftigated in the felect com. mittee of the house. He trufted, after the proceedings in which the house had been engaged the preceding evenings, he fhould no longer appear dilatory in having brought forward these resolutions, and he trufted they were couched in fuch terms as would procure the concurrence of many, who might not go the full length of fome of his opinions on the fubject. Another honourable gentleman, Mr. Lafcelles, had given notice of counter refolutions, but counter refolu tions, he was fure, there could be none; and if with his refolutions the hon. gentleman could concur, while with his (thofe of Mr. Lafcelles) probably he could not concur, he trufted that for the fake of unanimity, and of the dignity of the house, the hon. gentleman and the house would adopt those he should have the honour to propofe. The object he had in view, was to put on the records of the house, fuch a view of transactions, unquestionably irregular, as would prevent the danger of example. None, even of those who think the particular act meritorious, could with that on fome future occafion public money fhould be perverted by the precedent, without the juftification of a fimilar neceffity. There were three points to which he should chiefly direct the attention of the house. On a former occafion he had stated, as the refult of good information, that Mr. Pitt had been acquainted with the fact of money being withdrawn from the bank, and kept at a private banker's. Now, the evidence of Mr. Raikes diftin&tly proved that affertion, and though there was a flight difference as to the terms in which the information was conveyed between Mr. Raikes and Mr. Pitt, there was no doubt as to the fubftance of the communication. It was in 1797, when Mr. Raikes was governor of the bank, and most extraordinary it was, if unexplained, that Mr. Pitt took no steps, fuch as might have been fuggested by what he had been told by Mr. Raikes. Previous to that communication, and fince, it now is certain, that money was irregularly drawn from the bank in large fums, and applied to private profit. And yet no ftep was taken to ftop the irregularity, nor fufficient inquiry made into its existence. No charge of perfonal corruption ever was made on Mr. Pitt refpecting this bufinefs, and moft certainly he ftands acquitted of all imputation of that fort; but of negligence he cannot fo easily be abfolved. It is of no confequence in what |