The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1805-06-26 00:00:00

, drinkina itroeiedink should be instituted against Lord k.*Wine ; and I ask the majohlty of those Members who voted fa the Attentiment, whether they were at the time aware of the difference between an impeachment and a criminal pro ceeding, or whether they knew that their condat was unprecedented ? I am ready to admit that a vote of this House should not be hastily or lightly rescinded I but. in answer to this objeaion, 1 have to quote the proceedings of the House ag.iinst itself; for the firit decision was, that Viscount Mel ville should be atminally prosecuted tor the recovery of any losses sustained by the Public ; and after that, it recognised the principle of revision by suspending its former resolution, and determining that the Atom ney General should be dire led to proceed criminally against him. Upon that precedent, therefore, it is fair to argue that the House is now as competent to emelt its present error as it was the former one. For my own part, I am not sensible of any roll . Way. nor any other interest in this question, than, as 1 before stated, to obtain the ends of substantial justice, and shall therefore move, That this Howe do proceed by Impeachment *pima Henry Lord Viscous% Melville, in the several charges contained the Tooth Report of the C numisinuere of Naval Inquiry, an .1 the Report of die Scluct Committee of this nous • and, that Hte Attorney iletn-railtc cl , :eded to suspend all criminal pro• Ceethigs r.gan.t hint. Sir ROBERT BUXTON seconded the Motion, and etpressed his regret that the motion fur im peachment was not acquieseed in on the first pro posal. As soon as he read the Tenth Report, he was of opinion that there was sufficient ground of charge against Viscount Melville, and considered that node to be far preferable to the resolutions which the House came to on the motion of Mr. Whitbread. He afterwards seconded the motion for civil procedure losing substituted for a criminal one, because he conceived it would be the most ad vantageous for the polslic. Ile then quoted a passage from Mr. Justice Blackstone's Commentaries, to sheen that by Afopta Char:a, it was the right of every British sullied to be tried by his equals, and particularly Peers, against whom there was gene rally a prejudice in the minds of common juries. It was but right and constitutional that the public should entertain a jealousy of those who were con eerneJ ih the administration of the public revenues ; but while prejudice prevailed, an impartial decision by a jury might reasonably be thought quostionable. Mr. BOND—" Sir, I should not have felt myself disposed to address the House, thus early in the debate. but that I have so often been alluded to by any kind and Learned Friend; and, against all the arguments he has advanced in support of his mo tion, I have to urge one solid and substantial rea son, namely, that the mode of proce.ding by crimi nal information has been the decision of this House. I own I am surprised that the accurate and judicious mind of my Honourable Friend ; who certainly al ways speaks from the best and purest motive:, could have stooped to such a proposition as he has now sobmitred to us. Surely he cannot forget, that if, en the 13th of June, he, and those Gentlemen who now seem determ.ned to support him, wished for an im peachment against Viscount Melville, they had it completely in their power to force it on the House. I did not presume to offer the amendment which the - House has thought proper to adopt, without ma turely and deliberately considering it in all its bearings; and, from subsequent reftenion, and every thing I heard upon the subjeft, I find myself strength-nod and confirmed in the same opinion. So detply am I impressed with the same sentiments, and that the mode which I had the honour of sug gesting was the best, that if the Motion for the Im peachment had been carried, that it was proper to substitute a criminal prosecution : whatever reluc tance I might have to rescind a former Resolution so deliber.it ly given, I should certainly vote in fa vour of the latter. The uniform practice of Par liamentary law I take to be, that this House should proceed either by Impeachment before the House of Lords, or by Criminal Information in the Courts below. 1 know of no principle, no legal authority against the line of conduit which the House has thought proper to pursue. I did not bring for ward that Motion in a hasty or inconsiderate man ner, but as conceiving it to be, from a most mature deliberation, the preferable manner. I will not dispute the statement of my Learned Friend, that there is no fwecedent for this line of procedure in the lon mats of the House, except in the instance of Lot d Halifax, which he has quoted ; but on that occasion, though the House adopted a measure which was then new, I do not find that either the House of Peers, or the Noble Lord himself, so much as complained of any breach of privilege. Here, Sir, I stand upon the broad and general principle of the common law, to maintain that there is nothing illegal or unfit in the decision of this House. There is nothing in it con tradiElory to the sound and established principles of the law of the land. The principal reason why I preferred a criminal prosecution in the ordinary courts of justice was, that their decisions are prompt, and comparatively unexpensive, and that the pro cedure by impeachment is slow in its progress, and more harrassing to the individual, as well as tedious to the public. Where the question is within the reach, site, and grasp of a jury, as in the present instance, a criminal prosecutionhas eeeee ppeared to me prefer able to the long and harrassing process of impeach ment. In an impeachment. it almost always happens that the accused does not come to trial till at a late period of the Session, and after long debates, as well on the charges, as on the preliminary modes of pro ceeding. Its lung preceding discussions must of consequence greatly excite the public curiosity, and the speeches of those Members who brought for ward the charges are always sure to render them popular. I acknowledge that in high and import ant cases, which embrace matters relating to the Government of the country, or any of its de pendencies, which relate to foreign peace or war, or what is generally denominated a matter of State, common jories ca. not be esteemed the best judges, and the House of Lords must be esteemed the most competent tribunal. This case, however, cannot be considered as a matter of State, or regarding poli. tics; and, I think my Lea ned Friend mistaken, wheo he said 'hat it would be necessary for a corn • -- ^ consume twelve or fourteen days in ex - . Trotter's accounts. Ido investigation of the minutia '1 necessary, fur the question Viscount Melville was, in the profits ? When on the Boor of this House, wwnlnry to consume twelve &mining the items of Mr. T not apprehend that an inves of these account,' is at all no will be to ascetuin whether or was not a p4nieipAtor Viscount Melville told us, of that he had expended 10,0041. of the public Money, of which he never would give any account wliat;- ever, I t annot conceive why it should be consi"- deied as a matter of Suite, or why a jury should not be the most competent tribusial. My Ho nourable Friend erred in his statement of the fad, when he alleged that this came on as a common trial. According to the instructions given by the House, it must be a tri.il at bar, where the four Judges of the Court would assist, and at their head a Noble and Learned Lord, himself a Peet of the Realm, whose judgment, experience, profound know ledge, and known impartiality, would be the best se curity for the due and wholesome adminstration of public justice. The case will he tried, not, as has been said,by a common jury of tradesmen and shopkeepers, whose minds might be jaundiced by prejudices ag iinst the Noble Defendant, but by a special jury composed of freeholders of the county ; men of enlightened and liberal minds, not accessible to vulgar preju dice, and perfedly qualified and capable to decide on any case which may come before them. That Jury will be composed of the same description of men wild represent the Commons of England in this House, and if eligible to Parliament, ;and of capacity to judge of such a point in the first in stance ; I ask, why should they be considered as in competent to serve upon a Jury ? Surely my learned Friend could not have been serious in his statement, for I think there could not be a more gross libel on the country and the constitution, than to assert, that any misrepresentation whatever could mislead a Special Jury of Gentlemen Freeholders, which I contend to be the purest judicature now exist ing in the world. If the enemies of the proceed ing instituted by the House be of the same opi nion which Viscount Melville himself stated in this House, that the misapplication of money ap propriated to naval purposes is not contrary to the law and the Al of Parliament, where can there be found a more competent tribunal than a court of justice instituted fur the purpose of expounding and administering those laws ? As to the use made of the 10,0001. which Viscount Melville declares he never will reveal to any human being, I take it that a court of justice need go no farther than the reso lution of the House, which declared it, on deliberate investigation, to be a violation of the law. In that case the jury would have nn matters of state, no policy nor administration, nut of their province, to consider, but the simple matter of fact, which could not go before a more regular or competent tribunal. Supposing even the possibility that Viscount Mel ville should be acquitted, let me ask what acquittal is more honourable than that of a jury ? and, on the other hand, taking the probable case that he should be found guilty, can any man suppose that so en lightened a peer and statesman as the Lord Chief Justice of the Coutt of King's Bench would not, in pronouncing judgment, take into consideration every alleviation that could be urg ed, every stale excuse, ever y extenuation that could be suggested, and soften the judgment of the Court accordingly ? The mode of proceeding which the House has instituted, appears to me the most lenient that could have been adopted. In the u.e of the word lenient, I do not mean it as apply ing to the measure of punishment on conviction. but as founded in the humane and benign principles of the common law of England, which supposes evei y man innocent until he is convidel Upon this ground, I maintain that a criminal prosecution is lenient, in comparison with an impeachment, so tedious, so harrassing, and so expensive to the in dividual. There is not a principle of law so clearly and positively defined and determined, as that every man, whatever may be his rank or station, Is liable to be prosecuted at common law for any misdemean ors of which he may be accused, and I must there fore consider all that has bees said of the dignity of the Peerage in the present case as a declamation upon nothing. I defy my Learned Friend, or any other Member, to point out any positive law which limits the House of Commons to one mode or the other, either by Impeachment, or a Criminal Infor mation filed by the Attorney General ; and, taking the subjed in every point of view which my mind or judgment is capable of embracing. I conceive every good reason and every solid argument to be in favour of the latter mode of proceeding. I beg gentlemen to attend to the great importance of the subjed. The question is neither more nor less than whether you will consent to rescind a decision made by the fullest I louse that ever was assembled within t hese walls—a decision taken after the fullest discussion, and with every requisite deliberation on a matter long before them, merely upon a notice of not more than four and twenty hours ? I call upon the House to consult its own charader and the consistency of its proceedings, and to beware how they present to the public the unexampled spedacle of such wavering and vaccilating counsels. On all the various grounds I have stated, Sir, I hope I shall have the concurrence of the House in giving a decided nega tive to the Motion." The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir Vicary Gibbs) expressed his surprise that so accurate and enlightened a mind as that Hon. and Learned Gen. tleman who spoke last—a man so honourable in all respells, and so extremely discriminating, should so confound things, as to argue, that by the present Motion, the House was called upon to rescind a de cision which it had deliberately come to. If there was any blame in maintaining the opinion, that the House was now bound to revise its farmer proceeding, he for one must be contented to take his share of it. He was ready to contend, and could scarcely sup pose that any one would deny, that en the last question, the majority of the I louse was in favour of the proceeding by impeachment ; and that in voting for a criminal prosecution. they had cot aged con sistently with the first decisiln, which was, that no criminal proceeding should take place. The Learned Gentleman asked, where could be found a more competent tribunal than the Court of King's Bench? To this he would answer, that the Court of King's Bench must decide more upon the law than on the motives and he was certain no lawyer would argue that the condud of Viscount Melville was not a dire& breach of the law of the 2.5 th of the King. So far, therefore, the case was already determined. It was impossible to come to a contrary conclusion. The offence must be ad mitted, but he maintained that Viscount Melville being in to raved a manifest delinquent, the proper and customary usage of the Hour, accord• ing to all precedent, except that of Lord Halifax alluded to, was uniformly in favour of an im- ~,,~,y . 4r peachment before the house of T.ords.—lt woulij he superfluous n him, or any other Member, to go into my detail of arguments in supprirt of the impeachment as the preferable mode, do- he main tained that the majority of the very full House spoken of, was decidedly favourable to that mode of proceeding, and he codld see no obstrudiiiii to i:s being now adopted, but what arose from the mete point of form. The Hon. Gent. (Mr. Whitbread) who brought on the question, moved expressly for an impeachment against the Noble Lord, and the motion for a criminal prosecution was carried by a sudden and unexpeded amendmein, substituting that ft it • the original motion. It was pettedly evident that those Gentlemen who negatived the imp' .achment, were those who thought that no prose eution whatever should be in stituted. They were not to be supposed, thet et'ore, to give any opinion las to the comparative merits of the two modes which i had been submitted. Of the number of those pre sent, there were 195 Members who supported the i mpeachment ; but being di(f't dent of that, afterwa, rds voted fora criminal prose cution, as the next pr eferable mode, and carried the question by the jund ion of no more than forty-three Gentlemen, who so pported the amendment. It WAS, therefore, ma aifest, that this minority at no more than tort) Aire* Members carried this decision, in opposit ion to the majority of the House. He was re.s iy to admit, that against the present motion then e was the strong authority of the decision of the !ouse, in support of a criminal information ; bot it WAS, it the same time, indis putable, that the e najority, in the first instance, voted against any wosecution whatever. For his own part, he agreed with the majority of 145, and considered nothing as standing in the way of this motion, but the point of form. If the House should this night come to a resolution to rescind its twiner decision, it may be represented, and he made no doubt but there were many who would represent it, as a wavering and v: iccillating conduct; but, when the ends of substantial justice were to be obtained, he did not consider the revision of their former vote, as inconsistent :y or vaccination, but, as get ting rid of the mete si Tint of form ; for which reason he should vote in sup! port of the motion. Mr. BANKES ea; id there were two contr 'di:tory motions before the louse, and as he did not think they could be procel:•ded upon• at the same rims•, he wished to be inform' d what course it wets proper to take, and in what ms nner they could he &spied ? The SPEAKER raid, that it was competent for the House, in such a case as this, to divide the motion. Mr. BAVI:ESt6I n proceeded, and said that this question divided itel;•lf into two parts ; the first, as to the mode which should he adapted with respect to the punishment of the Noble Lord ; and the next, whether a decision a f the House should be set aside by this motion, or I ie would rather call it this sur prise, the notice be:t ig given so short a time before. If such a proceeding • should be set aside by a notice of twenty-four hour s, he saw no reason why every proceeding Should n ut be set aside in the same man ner. It was too nt 14,:h to think that any Member would COMe forwat d with such a notice. Would not this levity, this inconsistency, tend very much to lighten the chat ailer of that House with the people at large Wvuld it not be natural for them to say, are we follies -ing safe guides ? It had been stated by Gentlemen at the other side of the House, as a reason for opposing . a criminal prosecution, that the resolutions adopts !.1 in the early part of tile bu siness, were amply st ifficient fur the purpose of pu nishing what was chess known ; but what had come out before the Committees, subsequent to that, was not taken into consist erasion. Was there any pro. ceeding, during the whole course of the business, which had not been oisposed ? Did they not oppose the first resolutions ? Did they not oppose every thing subsequent to thorn, on the ground that they were a sufficient punisl'iment ? And now the pro.. position i; made to proceed to an impeachment, though, by their votes, they declared it ought not to take place. For his part, he had not a doubt of the reetitude of the decis ion of the Court, to which the matter had been writ ; and it the Noble Lora should be acquitted by .an honest and unprejudiced jury, it would give him the greatest satisfaction. His Learned Friend had alluded to the trial of Lord Halifax, and had given a whimsical reason wh•,- he was prosecuted in the Court of Exchequer ; a hat the reason was, in reality, he did not know ; but the conclusion,Jrawn from the failure of that proceeding, could be ae inducement to prevent him from following it. Ile would not be deterred by the event of this one precedent, when he thought it ought to dispose of the matter in th..t way, any more than he would by the numerous difficulties and terms which have at times taken place in pro secuting an impeachment, if he thought the nature of the case required that mode of proceeding. It is certain that there are very considerabk prejudices in the minds of the people, but in the country we live in, this is always the consequence of such con duel ; and in any country, would not such a case draw down the same effee, when such an extent of guilt was acknowledged? With respect Ito this, he thought it would be a goad cause to put off the trial, if it should be found that prejudices existed, strong enough to prevent his Lordship from having a fair impartial hearing. Another reason which made in favour of the present mode was, that such of the jury who were suspected of prejudices on either sides, could be challenged on that account ; whereas, in the impeachment, the friends as well as the enemies of the accused might sit and vote. If those who voted formerly against the Impeachment, and against the Criminal Information, now preiail ed on the House to abandon the mode it had al ready agreed to, for the purpose of commencing that which had been negatived, was it not probable, that by these raanceuvres they wished to arrive in some way or other at their original intention of not instituting either; he would therefore conjure them not to listen to such a proposition, especially when it came from the other side of the House. A notice of a day had been given for this most important motion, though it was universally known, that the commonest paper that ever was demanded, merely as a matter olcourse, had the same, if not a longer entice. If the Members who voted for the measure on the last night of discussing the matter were present, lie would have no difficulty in meeting them et once, but the possibility of that had been precluded by the shortness of the notice. He then alluded to the condu,n of the Attorney General, in PIMPF,IST P7r • -,~. 0' • and ern won./rig t c l .he ered fla at °e f o r s g uc t i i4 raelkofrc e l d n i ni ss .g .ll" reas l'hc' Pr eit I thought il the part of the iounsel to Weft to t client sue .h points as he t'•euTht he would h. te likely to succeed on. There'.were many mem of whist.; be had a per:Anial knov• ledge, uho w rte - have ar tended, if they had an idea that such a renei would he brought forward. -ie c ,, ,,,litdcd by ing, t 1 tat if proceeding; were to he set aside on sue: notic c c as these, he must as k w h ere such tracts' c. were cz d t e o n t stop th : why, n i s t s. e i oo r rn c o w u i h f .di whent ilbisiyi tbi and precedent, .eggs ll , I ll i t t e t r er a e n i y ld re o s f il a tit S :. at e though- p u pr •r• (.1 bud ET? of Ifratr! Hoop! Mi. LticLst .0 and Mr. harness severally ex plained. 1 .1 . PETTY. having been one of those who delivered his opinion formerly for the impeachment, thought he was now called upon to speak, a s hoe:tided to vote ;against it. 11: nos much astonist•: ed when he heered the Hon. Gentlernan wet) the motion argue, as one of the reasons is suppoo of it, that it had been !laity old inconsiderate, it was notorious that th• question had been a bated with so much form and solerinity, I r successive days, and 0 many Memhera pre, s Before the litioietrable Gentleman site him (Mr. 'Pitt) gave his vote, he was sramel that if he opposed an Impeachment, the C. 44.2. quince would he, that the fifotion foe Crimfaal Information would be earliest. Notwithstandi ri; this, the Right Hon. G ent l eman did not state !i't sentiments, but came to the (louse and voted agaimt both) Impeachment and Criminal Information, whets he had it in his power to have carried the impeach ment by a great majority, if he had so great it pre. terence for it. The Noble Lord then al.u.led to tle c.tse of Lord Halifax, and said, he could not see what conclusion the lon. Mover could dance friers the flaw in that indiarrein, in favour of his motion. Ile concluded by saying, that though he tho%:l t an impeachment the most constitutional mode it proceeding, yet, on account of the precedent, which the setting aside of the late decision would make, he certainly would vote against the motion. Sir IVILLIAM BURROUGHS—In rising to support the motion of his Learned Friend, he met voted for that which was the sense Af the majmity of the House, and though the Gentleman at his sidevoted against: both, yet he would appeal to any person preseet, whether almost eve' y one of them who delivered his sentiments on the sn'sioa, had not said, that if either were to be ad uste.i. ae would cemiiisl/ give the preference to the iinpeace. ment. He then adverted to the length r t time which, it had been stated, must elapse before tie Impeachment could be commenced, and said, hs thought that delay desirable, as the ferment which was now is the public mind would have by iliac time almost subsided. Another strong reason agait st the Criminal Information in the Court of stng's Bench was, that as there was no way of estaglishing the patticipation of Viscount Melville with Mr. Trotter, but by examining into the account!, it would be impossible to d.) that beftiie a jury. stt cept by adjournments, which ever) one WhO o'ls Ls the least acquainted with the lax, knew the ill clods of ; bur before the Lords, this could-be done with the greate:o ease. Ile therefore was decidedly in favour of an impeachment. Sir W. W. IVYNNE declared hi:use:E . in fienur of an impeachment, but thought the notice given for this motion was much too short. He then cater ed into algenients in favour of the impeachment, in bar of which, he said, no pardon under the great seal could be paraded, as there could if the matter was brought into the King's Bench. He then con cluded by moving that this debate be adjourned till Monday next. No Member rising to ,cc3ad this, the motion was, of course, lost. Mr. R. WILLIAMS said, if he had been ia tile House when the first resolutions had been propowd, he would have voted for them. He .ifterwards voted against the impeachment aid the crioanal informa tion, as he thought the punishment !TA] been suf ficient ; hut he would now vote agalest the ptesent . Mot', •, as he thought it would be a ha.l precedent. Mi. WINDHAM expressed his surprise at the extraordinary mode of proceeding which had been adopted on the present occasion. He had heard. he said, some very uncommon arguments advanced in that House, but he never before understood that the mode of prosecution by the Attorney General was not constontional. As to tl:e matter of prece. dents, it was by no means a wonder they were not very numerous, as it certainly had nil teen usral t that House to have occasion to p os:c ore criminally Pe-rs for misdemeanots. One precedent. however, there was, and that very stroller in point std . why, because it w as a s i ng l e , tr, as it Ilea been called, a solitary case, it should be called an in. auspicious one, he could not see any just or fair reason. He could not suppose it was called ,to, because there was a flaw in it, or that the Noble Culprit, whom the House had ordered to be pm scented, should have escaped throNhi the wale sion of some technical phrase in less., because, if that were the canoe, the same obj.trtion might equally lie against an ieepeachnu.nt. An At torney Gcnetal might, by accident, make a mistake in one case as well as the other, and being made, he supposed it would be equally fatal to the legal operation of the prosecution. Fot his part lie was always of that impeach. ment was the preferable mode of proceeding ; for though juries are almost continually trying CaILICS of accounts. yet he did not think it so elieible a mode of trial for a Peet es to try him by the Howe of Peers. lie adverted to the declaration of the Attorney General's at the commencement of the proceedings against Viscount Melville in that HOlige• visa ' that notwitho anding he spoh in his favour an a member of Patti arnent, nevertheless if the Hot" ordered a prosecu* ion he could carry it on in his public capacity at idiom its making any difference in the business itself.' He thought it 'eta shewile a very happy Cacility that was attached to the profession inf die law ; that if once any of its ptoti snort got eugsteed in a suit, on they went with the wen - oast spirit and energy, whether their side of th:e suit was right or ws 00. e% He had no doubt but the Right lionmir.i'.le Gentlems: would strut:lly p erlortn his duty, tliotigh he s hould have thought ifs case tun as strong if he had i.e.: given his opini in so repeatedly in favour of o.n party accused. Ile now came, he said, to the was MA question,grh‘ti icr Oij opinion of the Ibiust