HISTORY OF EUROPE. 



103 



any human being. If the house were 

 to recognise sucli principles, it would 

 put an end to its most invaluable 

 privileges, and to ail the benefits of 

 the constitution. He concluded by 

 saying, that though he felt himself 

 disposed to prefer <he amcudmcnt, 

 yet, as it was desirable that those 

 who agreed about the end should 

 not difi'er as to the means, he 

 should vote for the original eio- 

 tion. 



Jjord Castlereagh observed, tliat 

 every step hitherto taken by the 

 house, seemed to indicate that they 

 had relinquished all idea of a crimi- 

 nal prosecution. JNTany supporters 

 of this measure had declared, that if 

 lord Melville was removed from his 

 majesty's councils, they would not 

 think of any further personal pro- 

 ceedings. He then reviewed the 

 whole of the circumstances, and con- 

 cluded with stating, that he should 

 consider himself guilty of infringing 

 the most sacred principles of justice, 

 if he did not ^ivc his negative to the 

 motion. 



]\ir. Grey contended, that since 

 their former resolutions, new cir- 

 cumstances had come out, and par- 

 ticularly the sum of 10,000/., of 

 which the noble lord himself said, 

 that he never would give any ac- 

 count. If the parliament passed over 

 such a declaration. -is (hat unpunished, 

 there was an end of all responsibility 

 in public officers. He thought there 

 was an irresistible mass of evidence 

 to shew the criiuinality of the noble 

 lord, and if the impeachment Mas 

 not agreed to, he hoped the house 

 would vote that he be proceeded 

 against criminally. 



Mr. Robert ]3undas (son of lord 

 Melville) spoke generally in justifi- 

 cation of the conduct of the noble 

 lord. 



Mr. Ellison was in favour of th« 

 impeachment, and Mr. G. Vansit- 

 tart for a criminal proceeding, as 

 the most clfectual mode, and the 

 most consistent with economy. 



Mr. Banks said, that it always 

 appeared to him, that a civil prose- 

 cu'ion woidd be attended with no 

 ultimate advantage, but a criminal 

 suit was the only way in which the 

 matter could be fully sifted and in- 

 vestigated. He supported the pre- 

 sent procecdiiig of the house, by a 

 reference to similar proceedings 

 against lord IlaJiifa?; in 1702, and 

 that of the great duke of JMalbo- 

 rough in 1711. 



Mr. Canning contended that 

 these instances were not applicable 

 in the present case, and thought, that 

 nnder the circumstance of the con- 

 fusion and mixture in Trotter's ac- 

 counts, it was impossible for the 

 noble lord to say positively whether 

 Mr. Trotter did, or did not, deriva 

 any profit from the public monej'. 

 After an elaliorate review of the 

 whole of the transactions, he pro- 

 fesscd himself to be adverse to the 

 motion. 



Mr. B. Bathurst spoke in favour 

 of the amendment. 



The Attorney General argued, 

 that though the civil suit was no bar 

 to criminal proceedings being insti- 

 tuted by the house, but as it would 

 not have been so in the case of any 

 othtM' prosecutor, it- was for their 

 discretion io determine whether 

 they would not proceed by analogy. 

 It was quite clear that there was 

 legal guilt on the part of lord Mel- 

 ville, and that therefore he could 

 not be acquitted; but as the house 

 had ])unishi'd hiui for that already, 

 and had also instituted a civil pro- 

 cess against him, he hoped they 

 would not now proceed in a way 



11 4, which 



