The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-06-28
IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
Arm 95.
LORD MELViLLEs CASE.
(Coae!uded from or laa.)

man (Mr. Whitbread)of former protection he
had made-that of being ready to cooperate
with his right honorable friend in any meafure
that had a tendency 20 promote the Object he
had jn view. Ills RICH; hon. friend had no de-
fign of DELAYING the inquiry he was only of O.
pinion that If it was the intention of the hon..
gentleman to move for a legal prcfecution, il
would be proper to give that motion precedence
ofth- other. The propriety of this motion was
obvious. For thofe perfons who were to be
fpoieeted to legal enquiry were not TO be expec-
ted to give any anfwer before the committee
that might tend 10 criminate them before n court
of juftice. Such an arrangement, therefore,
would defeat the very end of any legal proceed
ing, and cramp at the fame time the enquiries of
the committee, as thofe Perions were the only
evidence from whom they were to derive their
information. In regard to the amendment pro-
pofed by his right hon. friend, he entirely con.
cured in thinking that the committee ought To-
be confined to their proper Object, and not TO
interfere III fuch points as ihould be Judged ne
cetiary to be referred 10 a court ofiuflice. If
therefore, the motion for legal inquiry were
irf fixed and the Object or objects for that legal
invcfigation determined, the committee would
have the advantage of knowing to. what objects
they were to coaiine their exertions, and would
be relieved from that part of the fubjett which
would come under the cognizance Of court OF
Juice. From the dilpofition the hon. gentle
man ieerned to be in the night this frbiea was
before the houfe, he did not think he could have
any objections to fach an arrangement.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer dfclaimed
every idea ofheing implicated in any of the char
ges addnced by the tenth report, and challeng-
ed any gentleman to point out Jingle palTige
In the report that implicated him in any refpeSt
MIR. Fox admitted that there was no paliaee
to be lure, that directly Implicated The right.
honorable gentleman BUT the article relative
to the money for fecret fervicc, though it did
not mention him by name, would certainly lead
to dccifon how FIR that right honorable gem
tlcnan was involved.
MIR. Gray WIS of opinion that it would be
'mpoilble to carry on the two inquiries toge-
ther; andto give up the quelton entirely to the
Encouragement VAS giving up too much.
iherc was preiumptive evidence, he thought,
Tor concluding that lord Melville had participant.
ed IN the emoluments diverted from the frryice.
and ne had therefore been of opinion at one
tune that If would be better to refer this part of
the ouiinefs to the Encouragement, aud to ap-,
point Il committee to go on with the other OBJ,
jects or inquiry. Should the houi- however, be
OF opinion that the whole huGnefs fhould be re-
ferred to the committee previous TO any legal in
curry, he would willingly accede tn it.
The matter of the rolls coatended, that the
moment the queftion was referred to law, all in
veit'sation on the part of the houfe mutt necef-
farily cesie. They might previouGy difcufs the
grounds on which they ihould refer the queRion
to law; out there they beloved to flop, and
leave the court of law TO its own operation. He
agreed with the hon. gentleman who Eat down,
that the mode OF proceeding which had been firf
faggefsed would be the beh.
MIR. Fox thought 1t would occupy Leaf time
hrit to come to a refolution refpecting the COM
inIttee, and ;hen to proceeato the other view of
the fnbjett '.'
The matter of The rolls explained.
MIR: k'nnard argued that the Object of his
Ton. friend was not Only to effect the relttution
OF the public money, but to find grounds ALTO.
for an impeachment and that he would much
rather give up any reference to the Attorney &C.
neral than an impeachment, fhould inficent
ground appear for that meafurc. He begged
the h~uie to pduie before it came to decison.
The right hon. gentleman had not thought pro.
per to advite his majefty to diftnifs the noble
lord noin his councils, though, in fone meafnre,
ne admitted his guilt. 1t was of the greateR
conteqnence, therefore, to take fuch means as
might completely alcertan the queaion Of his
guilt.
Mr.. C. Ponfonby did not think that LEGAL
tr,ai would be equally productive of dilcoyery
AS Committee. Suppofe the attorney general
ioald move IN d court of idw that accounts be
gwen relative TO the public money, il would be
competent TO denur, under an apprehension that
otherwiie the party might c.iminate therniclves
aad il he might judge from what had fallen from
The RICH. honorable gentleman, he would not b.
forward to object TO It. Suppoic Mr.. Trotter
charged no interet of Lord Melville, or twenty
or thirty thoniand pounds at time, which
would be Involving Lord Melville IN participa-
ton OF enoiums nts, how could "A court of law
eei at the sruth! A Committee, however, might
40 forhething, AS they couid avail themfelves of
Evidence that might not be ftric.iy admiii5e in
court OF law, or that court Of law might not
have in their power TO call for. He deprecated
the idea OF the boufe tying the,nfelyes up, and
putting 1t out of their power ever TO refumc it
aed'n, whatever farther light they might receive
on the iubjrst In a committee, befides dec'in-
ing to aniwer queftions, would be equivalent 4,
pleading guilty: whereas in court of iutice,
no concuhon could be legally drawn from it:
IL did not with TO be fevere, but he wiihed the
houie TO DO their duty, ana by falutary pro-
ceedinE, to prevent fuch deiinquences from a.
gain occurring.
Lord Henry Fetty was not 70 well qualified
he LAID, as many others ia the houft, 70 form
judgement OF the e6ecl of the interference Of
the attorney general, but protected hiT.fs,t adj
verte TO every thing thar might in any degree
prevent full inquiry. That Lord Melville was
guilty was clear decjion of the Houfe but
there other fer, I'm. l,e taken ,L,ro