162 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1805. 



suiEcient, and such new matter liad 

 couic out, as rendered it impossible 

 not to vote an impeachment, or some 

 other mode of criminal proceeding. 

 The conduct of the noble lord could 

 not be blinkedjbut must come to a fair 

 trial, before his innocence could be 

 proved ; he therefore, upon the re- 

 port of the select committee, called 

 upon the house to impeach him, on 

 three distinct grounds: first, for the 

 TJolation of the act of parliament; 

 secondly, for having, by false pre- 

 tences, obtained the public money ; 

 and, thirdly, for having participated 

 in the emoluments derived from the 

 use of the said money. Upon these 

 three points he argued at great 

 length, recapitulated the whole of the 

 evidence, so often adverted to, and 

 pursued the same line of observation 

 which we have already detailed, in 

 the course of these proceedings, as 

 far as our limits would admit. He 

 tlien concluded with moving, " that 

 *' Henry lord viscount Melville be 

 <' impeached of high crimes and 

 ^' misdemeanours." 



Mr. Bond agreed with the last 

 speaker, as to the necessity of tiie 

 measure, but dissented from him 

 respecting the mode proposed. He 

 thought a criminal prosecution to be 

 preferred, as it was less tedious and 

 expensive, and full as likely to an- 

 swer every end of public justice. 



The Master of the Uolls thought 

 that lord Melville had been already 

 punished severely, by the erasure of 

 liis navnefrom the councils of his so- 

 vereign, by his loss of place, and by 

 his future disqualification ; he there- 

 fore was of opinion, that any far- 

 ther proscputioa would be vexatious 

 and unjust. 



Earl Temple considered the noble 

 lord as highly culpable, and trusted 

 the heuEC would not give up the 



prosecution, corruption being so 

 notoriously apparent, and the law 

 of the land so flagrantly outraged. 



Mr. J. H. Brown coasidered the 

 noble lord to have been already 

 sufficiently punished by the vote of 

 the 8th of April, and the subsequent 

 consequences of that vote, nor did 

 he think the public looked for any 

 thing further, 



Mr. Alexander was of the same 

 opinion, but if the house was deter- 

 mined to carry the matter further, 

 restitution, sought through the at- 

 torney general, was the most pro- 

 per mode of redress to the ])ublic. 

 After some further conversation, 

 the chancellor of the exchequer (on 

 account of the lateness of the hour) 

 moved an adjournment, Avhich was 

 unaniniQusly agreed to, and, at 3 

 o'clock in the morning, the house 

 adjourned. 



When this debate was resumed, on 

 Wednesday the 1 2th, Mr. Leycester 

 saixl, that after the house had adopted 

 a civil mode of proceeding, for the 

 recovery of the money alledgcd fo 

 have bci'n withdrawn from the pub- 

 lic, itM'ould be inconsistent in them 

 to order a criminal prosecution also: 

 he thought the ends of justice were 

 satisfied, that lord Melville had been 

 sufficiei)tlypunished,and thatenough 

 had been done for example; he 

 should therefore vote against the 

 motion. 



Mr. Wilberforce said, whatever 

 doubts he might have entertained 

 before, the speech of the noble lord 

 himself convinced him, that a crimi- 

 nal prosecution should be instituted, 

 before the ends of substantial justice 

 could be satisfied : what affected him 

 principally in that speech, was the 

 avon'al of the noble lord, that he had 

 applied 10,000/., of which he would 

 give no account to that house, nor to 



any 



