June 25, 1805.

Mr. Leycester, after adverting to a resolution passed by the House on the 13th instant, viz. "That his Majesty's Attorney General be directed to prosecute Henry Lord Viscount Melville, for the several offences which appear, from the report of the commissioners of naval inquiry, and that of the select committee of the House of Commons, to have been committed by the said Henry Lord Viscount Melville; and that the Attorney General be directed to stay proceedings in the civil suit, instituted by order of the House, against the said Henry Lord Viscount Melville;" and after urging, as a more eligible mode of proceeding, the adoption of a parliamentary impeachment, moved "That the House proceed by impeachment against Henry Lord Viscount Melville for the several offences which appear, from the report of the commissioners of naval inquiry, and that of the select committee of the House of Commons, to have been committed by the said Henry Lord Viscount Melville; and that the Attorney General be directed to stay proceedings in the prosecution which he was directed by an order of this House, of the 13th of June, to institute against him.”

MR. PITT, in support of the motion, expressed his sentiments as follows:

Sir-From the arguments that have been urged against the motion of my honourable friend* behind me, it appears that the great ground of objection is, that the house cannot consistently rescind its own resolutions; there is something that puts it out of your power to attend to it. Now, Sir, to come at once to the examination of these arguments, there is one point which has been rested upon grounds contrary to the fact, I mean the notice. In adverting to that notice, I would desire gentlemen to attend to the dates. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the 11th and 12th, the original question was debated in the house, and it came to a vote on the morning of Thursday the 13th. On that day there was no house, and on Friday it sat again, and entered upon that discussion in which I was particularly concerned. In the next week there were only three sitting days before the right honourable gentleman behind me gave notice that he meant to apply to the house respecting some di rections as to the matters referred to the attorney-general to prosecute. When this was proposed, I would ask the house whether I did not distinctly say that the more I considered the circumstances of the case, the more my attention had been directed to it, the

• Mr. Leycester

more I thought, and the more I conversed upon it, I was the more convinced that an impeachment was a mode preferable to a criminal information. When the discussion took place on this subject, I ask whether it is not in the recollection of the house that I desired the honourable gentleman to put off his motion till this day, in order to have an opportunity of considering whether the impeachment might not be thought the most advisable manner of proceeding? This, indeed, went to such particularity, that I distinctly stated to him that he must be aware that we could not agree to give any fresh directions to the attorney general relative to this prosecution, while we were of opinion that the mode of impeachment was preferable. I stated this with a view to assure the house that a motion was in contemplation for rescinding the resolution of the house for a criminal information, and substituting an impeachment, which the house, with a few exceptions, has already declared to be the mode most consistent with the privileges of the house of lords, and better calculated to attain the ends of public justice.

This, Sir, I have taken upon me to state to the house, in order to shew that if it has not been forewarned of the present motion, it is no fault of mine. It rests with gentlemen themselves to account for this subject having come upon them by surprise;―if, as they say, it has in fact come upon them in this manner. This I am sure of, that they had the fullest opportunity to know, that it was proposed to revise the resolution which was passed for a criminal information. How then do we stand? Why, five days ago a notice was in reality given, that this motion was to be submitted to the house. And under what circumstances was the notice given? Was it when there was reason to conclude that the house would be thinly attended? No. So far was this from being the case, that a notice stood in your books for an inquiry into the state of the army;-a subject which gentlemen have stated to be of the last importance, and which it might rea sonably be presumed would command a full attendance of the house. What, then, becomes of the assertions of those who cry out against the proposition now before us, on the grounds that a

great many members have gone into the country, who ought to be present at this discussion?

But this is not all. The house was in fact in possession of the notice on Thursday and Friday, at the moment when the house was engaged in discussing the vote of credit and other points connected with it, points of the last importance to the empire and even to Europe, and to which they attached so much consequence, that they proposed that parliament should sit all summer, in order to be ready to receive information concerning them. These were surely things that called for a full attendance of the house, and there was a full attendance. Upon what ground then do they complain that they are taken by surprise? Upon a mature consideration of the case, I trust the house will be of opinion that this is a complaint without a foundation. Why, then, Sir, this is the situation in which we stood, and these are the circumstances under which the notice, though not perhaps formally, was in reality given. If you are determined to insist upon the point of notice, let us see whether it ought to be considered as extremely necessary in this case from what has already passed upon it. [Cries of "hear! hear!" from the other side.] Really, Sir, I should be glad to know what there is ridiculous in that? Do gentlemen mean to assert that no measure is to be carried without a specific notice long before? Let us look to what has been done on the resolution of impeachment. On the very day when that resolution was moved, an amendment for this criminal prosecution in the king's bench was proposed, without the smallest previous notice to the house to give gentlemen time to consider the point, without the smallest information that ought to be allowed in courtesy to the person accused, without any intimation that such a thing was to be brought forward; and this amendment was moved, too, as a matter of lenity to Lord Melville. I am not at all questioning the right of the house to adopt such a mode of proceeding, far from it; but I must at the same time be allowed to express my surprise, when I hear them loudly proclaiming that theproposition now submitted to their consideration is contrary to parliamentary usage. With this example before us, can we ad.

1

admit the justice of these complaints? I am sure we cannot, if we pay any regard to our own proceedings on various occasions.

Now, Sir, having disposed of the short notice, about which we have heard so much, I come to another point on which no less stress has been laid. This is the monstrous inconsistency of rescinding a resolution of the house in the same session, and the danger that would result from such a precedent. But what resolution is it proposed to rescind? Is it not true that we had rescinded a previous resolution of the house? A civil prosecution had been before ordered by the house, when the honourable gentleman* opposite came down to this house, and proposed that the proceedings in the civil suit should be suspended, and a criminal prosecution substituted in its stead. That proposition was agreed to by the house, and where then is the inconsistency, or the dangerous precedent arising from the proposal now before the house? But, if there is any inconsistency, if there is any dangerous precedent, the practice has already prevailed, and this is surely not the moment when the house would be anxious to adopt a different mode of proceeding. If the object of the resolution now proposed had been by any sort of management to destroy the effect of the votes of the house, or to leave it doubtful whether, after the criminal prosecution was set aside, any thing was to be moved in its stead, then, indeed, there might be a fair ground for the arguments urged by the gentlemen on the other side of the house. But when the very resolution which proposes to lay aside the one mode substitutes the other, then surely I may be allowed to say, that there is great reason to be astonished at the opposition given by gentlemen on the present occasion, contrary to their own declared opinions.

Such, then, being the notice, and such the point of rescinding the previous resolution of the house, we now come to another part of the case that deserves a considerable degree of attention. We are told that though they are still of opinion that the mode of impeachment ought to be preferred, yet that this seems to be a sort

of stratagem to defeat the object which the house has in view, viz. the ends of public justice; and besides, that it will be thought by others, that the house of commons in agreeing to such a resolution as the present would compromise its character for steadiness, deliberation, and consistency. Now, in what manner do they oppose us? One would think, from the course pursued in their arguments, that they really thought, as I before intimated, that the intention was to rescind the resolution for the criminal prosecution, leaving it to chance whether any other was to be proposed; and to set aside all criminal prosecution entirely. In this case there would be some reason in their arguments. But it is impossible that they can understand the object which we have in view, since that very resolution that rescinds the criminal information retains the motion for an impeachment. Which of the two proceedings is really most consistent with the opinions of a majority of the house? What do we propose to put in the place of a criminal information? An impeachment ;-that very mode of proceeding for which the honourable gentlemen on the opposite side argued so strenuously at first;-that mode which they have contended to be best calculated to answer the ends of public justice ;— that mode which they have said to be most consistent with parliamentary usage, most agreeable to the dignity of the house, and most consonant to the principles of the constitution: on these fundamental broad grounds, they have been loud in their preference of an impeachment. What then do I ask of them? It is to confirm their own sentiments. If they agree to our motion, they have only to adopt that mode of proceeding for which they were before o urgent. They have, from the beginning, preferred an impeachment; and if that opinion remain the same as before, I only wish them not to impute any improper motives to those who furnish them with an opportunity of acting according to their opinion.

But then they say, that they cannot now accede to this proposition, because the consistency of the proceedings of the house of commons is involved upon this occasion. If there be any inconsistency in this case, it rests with themselves. If this argument