Henry the fourth to the predeceffors of the Duke of Athol, and continued from that period in his family.

In fupport of this part of the preamble, counsel was ordered to be called in and heard.

After they had concluded their arguments, it was determined to poftpone the preamble, and to proceed to the feveral claufes of the bill.

The Lord Chancellor wifhed them to be gone through without much difcuffion, and to referve the debate till the third reading.

The Marquis of Buckingham, though inimical to this precipitate mode of proceeding, and anxious for delay, gave way to the noble and learned lord's fuggeftion.

On the claufe granting the annuity of a fourth of the revenues of the ifland from the confolidated fund,

The Duke of Norfolk objected to the mode of granting the allowance, as calculated to interfere with the proper management and application of the public revenue. He accordingly took the fenfe of the house on the subject.

On the divifion the numbers were

For the claufe 19-Againft it 5-Majority 14.

The other claufes were, after fome converfation, gone through, the report was received, and the third reading appointed for the next day, when the Lord Chancellor intimated that he would ftate his fentiments against the paffing of the bill. Adjourned at four o'clock in the morning.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

TUESDAY, JULY 9.

Mr. M'Donald took the oaths and his seat on his election for the borough of Dornock, &c. in Scotland.

LORD MELVILLE.

Mr. Whitbread moved, that the engrossed articles of impeachment against Henry Lord Viscount Melville be read, which were read accordingly; on which the hon. member moved that they be carried to the lords. Ordered.

It was then ordered, on the motion of Lord Temple, that Mr. Whitbread do carry the articles to the lords, which he instantly did, accompanied by many members; and on his return acquainted the house from the bar, that he had delivered the articles of impeachment, pursuant to the order of the house, at the bar of the house of lords.

IMPEACHMENT COMMITTEE CONTINUING BILL.

Mr. Whitbread, pursuant to notice, rose to move for leave to bring in this bill. In consequence of what he had before stated, it would be unnecessary for him to take up much of the time of the house. The measure he proposed was undoubtedly a deviation from the constitutional forms; but as every such deviation was justifiable, on the ground of the expediency that existed for it, the question then was, whether such a degree of expediency existed in the present instance, as would justify such a deviation. Cases of impeachment had not frequently occurred, and when they did, it was on very grave and serious grounds. The house of commons had voted an impeachment in the present instance against Henry Lord Viscount Melville, and it would be to be regretted that the object of it should be defeated by any accident that might occur. The house was aware that the impeachment had been voted at a late period of the session. The committee that had been appointed to draw up the articles of impeachment, had sat every day without intermission. Many witnesses remained yet to be examined, one of whom he had mentioned the preceding day. That person had since arrived from Scotland, and might undoubtedly be examined before the prorogation. But there were other witnesses from that quarter, whom it would be desirable to examine as soon as possible. If the other house should agree to the indemnity bill, it would be desirable also to examine Mr. Trotter without delay. These were the grounds upon which the committee felt it their duty to submit this proposition to the house. If the house should agree to it, they would unquestionably grant large powers, which he was confident would be exercised with moderation. At the same time, if the house should not be disposed to grant these powers, it was not his intention to press the proposition. If any case should occur to defeat the proceedings already taken, neither the committee nor he would think they had discharged their duty, if they had not submitted such a proposition to the house. he hon. member then moved, that leave be given to bring in a bill, that the proceedings now pending before parliament for the impeachment of Lord Melville should be continued, notwithstanding any prorogation or dissolution of parliament; and that the committee of impeachment do continue to sit, notwithstanding any prorogation or dissolution of parliament.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer felt that it would be necessary for him to say but a very few words indeed, as the hon. gentleman

4 E 2

gentleman himself had admitted that his proposition was liable to grave objections; to him the objections seemed insurmountable. The motion, if agreed to, would amount to a direct inroad upon the constitution. Nothing could be more certain, than that his majesty possessed constitutionally the prerogative of putting an end to their deliberations, either by prorogation or dissolution, which would be virtually taken away by a measure of the nature of that proposed. There was not a single instance of a similar mode of proceeding, except in such periods, of our history as the house would not be much inclined to draw into precedent. It was only for grave and weighty reasons that he could bring himself to object to any thing proposed, for the purpose of promoting the views of the house in the present instance. But he felt that any degree of inconvenience that might be apprehended was better, than in order to obviate it to commit a breach of the principles of the constitution. He felt, therefore, that no ground had been laid for the measure, because the utmost inconvenience that could arise would be, that the committee could not continue their functions a few days longer now, but might employ themselves on the same subject a few days in the beginning of next session, because it was not to be supposed that the house would proceed with the impeachment in the earliest days after their meeting. The only question therefore was, whether the committee should sit a certain number of days at the commencement of next session, or the house should adopt a measure that would break down the barriers of the constitution.

Lord Temple agreed with his hon. friend (Mr. Whitbread), that this motion should not be pressed against the sense of the house; but did not think that his right hon. relation had stated the question fully. The question was not, whether they should have the power of examining now such witnesses as they might next session examine, but, if the other branches of the legislature should pass the indemnity bill, whether they should not have an opportunity of getting the evidence which that was calculated to procure, before any improper impressions should be made, that might interfere with it.

Mr. Wm. Wynne thought there was another inconvenience which might be remedied by the bill, and which had not been noticed by his noble relation. The death of Mr. Trotter might withdraw him altogether from examination, and if the committee were to have the benefit of his evidence immediately in the event of the bill passing, it might lead to other sources of information.

Mr.

Mr. Whitbread proposed that the objectionable part should be left out of his motion, and trusted that there would be no objection to pass a bill for continuing the proceeding already taken and now pending, notwithstanding any prorogation or dissolution of parliament, as in the case of Mr. Hastings's impeachment.

Lord Henry Petty moved the amendment, that the part of the motion which related to the sitting of the committee be left out; but on the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the motion was put in the exact terms of the precedent in Mr. Hastings's case, "for leave to bring in a bill to provide, that the proceedings now pending before parliament for the impeachment of Henry Lord Viscount Melville shall not be discontinued notwithstanding any prorogation or dissolution of parliameut."-The motion was agreed to, and the committee of impeachment ordered to prepare and bring in the bill.

CAPTAIN WRIGHT.

Mr. Windham felt it to be his duty, previously to the separation of the house for the session, to direct their attention to a subject of much interest, to which he called their attention towards the close of last session. This was the case of Captain Wright, an officer who had been captured on the high seas, after a gallant and obstinate resistance, and with his majesty's commission in his pocket. This was material to shew that his case was not distinguished by any circumstances from that of the other prisoners of war; but the French emperor, it appeared, thought he had been employed on other services, as in landing men upon the coast of France, which placed him on a different footing from prisoners of war. When questioned on this head, he had, like a gallant and determined man, refused to give any answer though menaced with death. Nothing so atrocious however had been committed; but he had been committed a close prisoner to the Temple, denied pen, ink and paper, and excluded from society. The severity of the confinement there, could be explained to the house by a gallant officer then in his eye (Sir Sidney Smith) from experience, who had, after escape from confinement there, distinguished himself so gloriously by his defence of Acre. to the charge against Captain Wright, he thought it unnecessary to inquire into it, because, if true, it amounted only to a performance of what he was in duty bound to do, and what the French themselves had frequently done by landing persons on the coast of Ireland. The fact was, that the hostility

As

of

of the French emperor to Captain Wright, arose from his having been the close friend and intimate associate of the gallant officer to whom he had before alluded. How Captain Wright was to be relieved now, he would not say, and though that officer had every claim on the country, his relief was not the principal consideration, but the prevention of similar acts of violence in future. Retaliation in the first instance was the only means of preventing such violence. The omission of that retaliation in that instance was as much as to tell Bonaparte he might do what he pleased, and we should not retaliate for fear of what he should afterwards do. If we were once to admit this, it would amount to a confession of inferiority, and would have an injurious effect on the people and the officers in the service. What officer would enter a service when exposed to such violence? What people would not flock to it, if assured that any unwarrantable violence offered them would be repelled with the whole weight of the nation? This principle, he was sorry to say, had suffered considerable relaxation in the case of the enemies with whom we have had to do for the last few years. The admission of inferiority that would follow from our being afraid to retaliate, would be the most grievous degradation. It had been said, that Bonaparte had a hold upon us through the persons that had been detained at the commencement of the war at Verdun. These were no doubt so many hostages, but not distinguishable from those who became hostages by being made prisoners of war in the service of their country. If they had not less, they had not greater claims upon the feelings of the country, especially such as had gone to France for amusement, without business or necessity. So far, he stated, if it should be supposed that retaliation would be productive of the apprehended consequences. But what ground was there to suppose that it would be productive of such consequences? The French emperor, great as he was, was not released from the obligations of public faith, nor without the reach of the public opinion of his subjects, on whom the effects of the retaliation would fall. He saw that the attempt would be made with infinitely less advantage late than at first. Without answering for it now, he was confident it would have been effectual in the first instance. It must be grievously affecting to the country to know that a meritorious officer had been suffered to languish under severity, which he had drawn upon himself by his meritorious exertions in its service. He had mentioned this subject last session, and had been given to understand that some steps would be taken. If he were to proceed with the business now,

he