Page:Biographia Hibernica volume 2.djvu/260

 256 GRATTAN. been delivered up to the bar of the Lords, for the expres sions delivered that day. “I will repeat what I said on that day: I said, that his majesty's ministers had sold the peerages, for which offence they were impeachable. I said they had applied the money for the purpose of purchasing seats in the House of Commons for the servants or followers of the castle, for which offence I said they were impeachable. I said they had done this, not in one or two, but in several instances, for which complication of offences, I said his majesty's ministers were impeachable, as pub lic malefactors, who had conspired against the com mon weal, the independency of parliament, and the fun damental laws of the land; and I offered, and dared them to put this matter in a course of inquiry. I added, that I considered them as public malefactors, whom we were ready to bring to justice. I repeat these charges now, and if any thing more severe were on a former occasion expressed, I beg to be reminded of i t , and I will again repeat i t . Why d o you not expel me now Why not send me t o the bar o f the Lords Where i s your ad viser Going out o f the House I shall repeat my senti ments, that his majesty's ministers are guilty o f impeach able offences; and advancing t o the bar o f the Lords, I shall repeat those sentiments; or, i f the Tower i s t o b e my habitation, I will there meditate the impeachment o f these ministers, and return, not t o capitulate, but t o punish. Sir, I think I know myself well enough t o say, that i f called forth t o suffer i n a public cause, I will go farther than my prosecutors, both i n virtue and i n danger.” This subject was again renewed by Mr. Grattan i n the ensuing session, but with like effect; and, o n the motion for the address i n 1792, Mr. Grattan, with an astonish ing power o f eloquence, travelled over once more the whole ground, which h e had taken each o f the three last sessions, but with new point and redoubled vigour. I n the course o f the debate, Sir Henry Cavendish was very personal against him, for (what h e termed) the violence I