The Sun. — London, England, 1805-06-26 00:00:00

Trotter,. and , to have lira up clay after day to ex- How was: it possible all this could b done Ina common trial in the CoartS of Law, which sel dom took up more than ten or twelve, or at most 94 hours Though the tO,OOOl. would be attend.- ed with difficulty' in a Court of taw, it may easily be ineluded in an Impeachment, under which every part of `the criminal matter may be sifted to the bottom. It. Would be :,severe to Lord .Melville if he was guilty ;. it would be advantageous, to,birn if. he was innocent. • It would do justice More amply between himand the, Public, than the other coure; It would be the . most effeaual means cf discovering the trnth,• the' whole truth, and no., thing bit the 'truth. Another. important Consider anon •:was, the vast prejudice spread far and wide against Lord Melville; with an industry never be fore.known. Papers, were circulated through the whole'Peopld; stating, that the,Pablic had suffered to 'the amount: of hundreds of thousands, that the Seamen were defrauded,of their pay, and the Public: burthened with additional millions rn consequence .of the peculation' and embezzlement of Lord. Me lville. He asked, whither, with such a weight of prejudice on the mind of almost every individual, Lord IVlelvilla could he fairly tried by .a Jury ? Ti:e Jurors in, Westminster Hall Were generally • Composed of tradesmen and shopkeepers in West ,. eninster, respe4able and upright men he was ready to allow, but, most probably in this instance Pressed with a prijudice. .•Widch they could not poS etiare On. the trial ; The noble persons' who • would be judges on the Impeachment were least ac. Cessible,to that prejudice, and the deliberation With which the IMpeachment would preceed would enable Omni to exclude every improper impulse. For these resumes he preferred impeachment, and he trusted they would confirm the reasons on which the Hon. Oentlemen who preferred Impeachment on a former night grounded-their preference. He relied, there fore, on the support of A considerable majority Of the House, of which these Honourable,,Gen tlemen would form a great part. Whatever de , ference ire had for those who supported the Motion for a Crithinal Pkosecutinn, he must say they were more respeCtable fee'naines than for numbers ; for mitt of 40 Members present on that occasion, no More than so voted for a Criminal Prosecution as estarasted Witji Itripeachment, . the remainder of. those who voted for it, adopting it only in pre. fees ce to the total cessation of all further Pro , 6ccution than that already had.— He would ask trio =pricy of those who then iPoted foi the Criminal • Prosecution, whether they knew. bf the usage he had stated, whether they knew that the case of Lord Halifax was tho Only instance of devia tion from that usage ? He wotiid then ask“ ther an' ilicidental decisionshoUld tie ennsidered final in a else of so much importance to the Ifiteresti bf the Public, to the charaeter and consistency of Parliament, and to the.privileges of the Peers ? It rnay be asked, how those who Voted against Jill; petchtneot on the former night could vote for it now? As an argument ad hontinem this was strong; but when it was considered that this else involved the interests of the Public, the privilegesof the Nett; and the justice due to the a mere per= -soual ar g4unent shOuld not bee restraint from adopts. ing the usage of the. House. He admitted, a Rests luttoe of the House once formed should riot be light ly rescinded.. *it when it was proper to change a Resolution, it would be very erroneous to adhere to it against rivson ibr the sAltd of mere consistency . . lhose who . contended on the former night for a Cri minai Prosecution had prior Resolution to remove they contended that that Resolution should he rescind ed for the cause which they'shewed. Cr* . stild there be a stronger cause that) he had hewn fotrescinding the Otetien for erosecating criminally, than that it was formed without due deliberation ? He believed four s. fittlis of the Hoese were now of opinion, that LW , Nadel - tent was the: fittet mode of proceeding, the • most becoming the charaaer of the House,' and the best. calcialated for substantial juAice. 'Would it not then be better to adopt. it than to persevere in a course to be erroneous s He ag ai n s tated, that the only . motive why those who originally wished for . .impeklanent voted for the Criminal Proserao .was, a fear 'esti:here should otherwise be no, Proseention at all. The Motion for, the .Cri minal Prosecution was a precedent for - offering a V4ssoletiort opposite to a foriper one. He had little knowledge of Lord Melville or his connexions, and was induced to bring forwaid this Motion purely from a regard to substantial justice. He toncluded by trioviog, that the Heise should proceed against Lord Melville, by Impeachment, for his several Offences, and that the Attorney General be dire aad . to stay proceedings in the Criinitud Presecotion. ,1108 08 U lV seconded 'the Motion. Xle regr'etted that an Impeachment had net been resorted to in the first instance. lie confessed, that when he road the Tenth Bereirt be thought Lord Melville ought to be impeadied, and he was sorry the lion,. Gentleman Opposite (Mr. Whitbread) died not moved that Measure in the first instance. He 'concurred in the first Resolutions because he thousate Lord Melville deserved punisthiLene for what appeared in the Tenth Report. - was after.' ards one of those who -voted, for a CiVil Suit. If consistency was the principal thing to be looked to, why Was that departed frosts ? He voted for a Civil Seit, considerieg the Censure efthe House a crifoinal punishment. Here the Honourable Ba» tenet road a passage from Blackstone, where the proilriety of -Peers being judged by their Peers is insisted on from their being - obnoxious to popular odium, and: therefore likely to 'suffer by the pre indices of Juries:l and from its being an essential principle of the Constitution, that every should • be tried by his Peers. It ever there wail i case in which the Public was strongly, erejudiced - it was this, Ho liked that • the - public jealousy should he routed whee there wsss reason to think the public monev had been oanbezzled or abused, . But he thooeht it right that the persons accused of this crime should have that fair trial which was the right of every sefsje6t whatever Vl as charg;.el against liana On theSe „ t ee ls he preferred the Impeachment. Mr BOND offered himself thus 'carly to the at tention of tile House, because his Hon. ai d Learned F r iend iropc,iched the Resolution which he had the honour of proposing. ma) 'Whatever weaknes . s there 11311 C been in the arguments he had' offered to the Muse in support of that Res ol u tion, or i n his mode of urging those argumOts, there was now at least one -irresistible argument for adhering to the I.l.o‘xtitiings rtsiornmended by hint---that it was a. Resolution of the House. He ecluld easily give credit to his Honourable Friend' for the best tuOr tives ; but with .every„respea - for him, he vas at a loss to conceive that conld - be the particular motives that induced his Honourable Friend te bribg forward this Motion, after, the substance of it had been decided upon by as large a meeting as ever remembered; after his Honourable FrieneFfiad himself voted against it .for it could not be de. nied that it was in the - power of his Honourable Friend, and those with whom he had' voted that night to force the Impeachment if they had wished it. lt was, therefore, matter .of sUrprise that any of them should come forward to impeach deliberate proceedings of the Hose, and to substitute for it One which they themselves , had ,decidedly opposed. He did net venture to' propose the Resolution for a Criminal Proceeding till he; had, on the fullest de liberation, convinced himself that it was the best adapted to the case. Every, consideration lie. had been able to give the subjeCt since, and every thing he had .heard in conversation upon it, Confirmed him in that opinion ; yet he could give the fullest assurance, that if the Meuse had - preferred Impeachment, he, with all the conviCtion of the propriety of 'a Criminal Prosecution, would think that the Resolution for an Impeachment ought to be Adhered to. He would now give some , • reasons why he preferred a Criminal Prosecution to an Impeachment. And . first, he conceived it a clear principle of Parliamentary Law, that the HoUse was at liberty to proceed either by Cri, minal Information or, by Impeechmente as it saw reason to prefer the one or the other. No Statute interposed to prevent it, there was no analogy arising from the Common LaW, no deduelloa , from any legal principles, to render it improper.— He, therefore, considered botleas completely open, and held himself at liberty to'diresa his mind to the investigation of which was to be pretisrred, He admitted there had been no, in :stance Of, a Criniie nal Proceeding against a Peer bet that . of Lord Halifax ; and, therefore, his Honourable Friend had, it: was true, but a solitary Case- to, argue against. But he would ask, Whether there was any thing wrong in that case ? Was there any Prie vilege of the Peers violated ? The Peers were awake then, and able toguard their privilege:sit they ehottglit 'them trenched upon; but that never occurred to them. Was there now any violation of nriyilege ? Did even the Noble Lord himself make any such ohjeCtion ? There was nothing of the kind in the. proceedingS al luded to as the were entered on the Journals., It appeared that 'there was merely some diflictilty'of form arising out of the peculiar circumstances of the case. The usage proved that Parliament geperally .pteferred Impeachment ; but it did not she's , / that there was any thing improper in a proceeding by Criminal Prosecution. The `usage did not prove that this proceeding contravened any principle of lxw. The grounds on which he proposed a Criminal Weisecution were some of them greater, settle of less importance. Heproposed it because the proMpt, vigerow, and efficacious proceedings of a Court of Crimieal Justiee was infinitely e superior to the cumbrous, slow, and harassing process of lm- peaehment. He was ready to allow that there were many.oses in which Impeachment would afford a remedy when no other course woidd. -„ But lie could not hesitate to say, that wherever the case was fit for a Jury, when the subjeet came within their grasp, he would prole:eat trial by Jury to the more tedious iiiid harasaing farce of Impeachment. All who `knew any thing of Impeachment,ktiew the various steps that it allowed, to be taken in vexation of the person under prosecutiene . A greater lapse'of time weekl bse necessary before we could arrive at Int..: neacliment ; for though the Criminal 'Prosecution eould not be put ie train bObre the Tetm in the end of the year,' an Impeachment could not ptee. sibly be prepared before the next Seision. Then it would be. to be considered whether it could be immediately proceeded on, consistently !with the • public business, or whether the 7 . oblic business should give way to it. This would give riseto va rious discussions, involving the individual, anti 'rills-, ins a ferment most disagreeable and injurious to him, a thing Which nobody could wish to exist. Impeachment was the mode of trial proper to be re sorted to by the Government, of the State, or of its fcailonies, whertenerseerere charged with crimes in volving oppression and tyranny, and the great clues. don of peace and war: ; it was impossible that com mon. Juries could be fit Arbitrators of such .important cases.' But 'was this one of dime great and compile cited cases that could not be comprehended by a Jury His Learned Friend said, it would be neces sary to go bite Trotter's accounts. He alloWed that, would be a 'matter of difficulty if it: was necessary. But, in his, mind, it would net be . necessary to esti ;wile, in pouhde, shillings, and 'pence, the degree in which Lord Melville ntay haee participated in the pro fits otMr. Trotter Was this ease agreet State aiffir, which it was eeceskiry to' tell in the Peen; to form a judgment upon? bid 'the defenceeof the Noble Lord make it Matter of State, when he said. tie Would give no account of the manner in which he had ape plied the large stuns unaccounted for ? In his ript ides:l, instead of making it matter of State, that deelaration Made : it snore fit 'foe CriMinal Pro:seen lion. The Hon.Gentleran sell, shopkeepers we not fit persons to pronounce on a • case of this kind The pergons ,who would compose the. jory would rioebe of that description This would not be a Common Jury cal(' it would be a 'Trial at. Bar, before four Judges, at the head of whom was a Peer of Parliament capable of incindieg the considera tiers such circumstances of State .as the thew. may itisolve. The Jury would be in theneture of td Spe cl:ll Jury - composed of the Gentleinen of the County, and if the Members of that Hou,4e w6.:,aclexplate to form a judgment on ,the case,' tie did net see why these Gentlemen were oot • equally qualified; not withstaieling ally - matter circulated to the prejudice of Lord Melville, he would not Alma that any miss relneatlltetiou or Calumny- thus spread ab ro ad co uld make such on irnprestion on a Jury so.constituted, and before Judges of sited I:cliiiriutter, as that they could not form a tamed perfee.kly-cometee at and capable of a full fair investigation, correct decision. If the con eerSion : the . 0,0001, were carried back as far as it could probably be; it could not be placed before the iACtasfs PediaMent. . Could his Hots. Friend say.; Att• the sakiry had been in creased, there was impropriety us this conversipo Fre tinsted that . would :hot- argtied before an Enylish.fury and ti Court so constituted as theeCeere 4eugh, The buy would hays) to pro , a swum simply, eatheflier Istird Melville was revilty arlnnocent ? if the trial should reach that stage, he aruated he ' *mild have - credit for -- aaaaalilit, as match any friend of Lord Melville, that the vela dia May be a verdict of acquittal. - litho trial should teach that stage, much would rest with 1161-udkaa--- and would not the Judge, in that case, take into consideration every thing that could alleviate ? He could not say, he would take into consideration the inerits of his former services, but he would . take into his view `every consideration of State, and allow every alleviation flowing from these considerations. He considered a Criminal Pro sacution as a Mode of proceeding much more le nient, as more likely to suffer 'the accused to escape, if guilty ; but on the • humane principles of the Common Leal', which atipposes' every man inno cent till he is proved guilty, 'and therefore lenient in submitting his case to a fair and expeditious trial.— Every man knew that equal Law was the first prine ciple ofjustice' in this Country. The beat Mode of proceeding was to be decided on a comparison of the circumstances of the existing. case with the, re medies each mode of proceeding afforded. - Oa this comparison a Criminal Prosecution was, in his mind, the' best in the present , instance. It was the best from the consideration due to the state of the party, and.from the nature Of the complaint. The excuses that could he offered would all haVe tine weight in apportioning thejudgnient,. a eonviaion should take places' On all these consideratiOns; his mind was still unchanged from the determination it had, taken on the fornish. night. But this . was the least part of the qiiestion. The greatest and most mate nal 'consideration was, whether a Resolution deliber ataly agreed uppn by a great majority of the - House, in the fullest Meeting ever known, was te be rescind , ed on a notice of 24 hours ? On this ground parti enlarly he called on Parliamentto assert its charaEter, to take care not to exhibit the, Miserable speaaele of changing inconsiderately its, most deliberate Resolu tions, and to leave it in the power of any one to, overturn the most solemn decisions, on a notice of aa hours. Mr. LaveraTia, in explanation, stated that, .he had represented the trial :by Impeachment only as more analogous to the:Coostitutional and established praait:e of Parliament ; then the trial by Criminal'ln formation. ' Mr. Beam had not imputed aiiy other sentiments to his Learned Friend. The SO LICITO.Ii GENERAL observed,,that the Right Hon. and Leitned Gentleman had expressed his surprise that his Learned Friend. could have brought his mind 'to entertain such a proposition as that he had submitted to the House. If any shame belonged to the opinion he was sorry for it, .because he was equally liable, to a share in it from entertain ing the same Opinion with hiS Learned Friend. If the Motion of his Learned -Mina were to rescind Re a solution which the House had'' deliberately and di , realy come to, he should agree with the argument of the Right Dori, Gentleman, that it ought not to be reacinded. But he could not help expressing his aurprise at the grounds upon which the Motion of his Learned Friend had been opposed. He should de tain the' House but very shortly, for reasons which he should state on the qUestion, whether the Im peachment, or the trial by Criminal Information was 'the most desirable ; because, solar as he could, ascera tain t a great Majority of the House appeareetto have declared in favour of the Impeachment. It had been urged that the condnEt of Lord Melville had been de lerided as not being a violation 'of law, and that the Learned cent. on the Bench below him (the Master ~of the, Rolls) had so argued; But that had not been the case; neither the Right 'Hon.. and Learaed Gen tleinan, florally other Lawyer, taking the Resolutions of the House of o)lntrions for granted, could deny that ,the application of the public, money to purposes of private profit was a violation of thelaw. It was a different question how'far the lodging the money at' a private Banker's for Navy Services only was or was not a breach - of law ; It had been assigned by his Learned Friend as a reason for preferring the Irra peachmenta that the period of the advance 'of the .tO,OOOl. ant being known the investigation of. that faa might.create embarrassinents in the Prosecu tion in the King's &niche and the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman dontended, that no - man could deny that that was a breach of law, since the ad vance had been' made after the IlesOlutions 'of .the House in 178 2 . •He should not discuss that question nows but would -rather rcier it for exami nation to a trial by . Impeachment thanait a Court of Law. AS to the question now before them, he should ' Make 'but a few observations upon 'it : The Majority had declared' in favour of an Impeachment, and it was only bra tisrm that the other mode of proceed ing had been . snperinduced. The Impeachment had. been first moved by the Hon. Generalan opposite (Mr, Whitbread), on which the Amendment was preposed by the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman sfor a Criminal Prosecution by the Attorney-General. The forms of the Reuse required the question to bee put, that the words proposed to be left' out remain part of the Motion. All WhO preferred the Impeach ment of course voted in the affirmative, which amounted to a diroCt judgment on their part in favour of Impeachment. The number was 195, who find , itt themselves driven out of the Impeachment, and thiolting that the Criminal Prosecution by the At torney General was better than none at, all, voted for the Amendment with those: who, preferred the Prosecution by Information. The: number that voted fbr .this qneation was 238, from which deducting the 95 who had preferred the Impeachinent, there were but 43 who preferred the Prdaedution by informa tion: - Still he admitted that the Impeachment had been, in form, negatived. There Were many ques tions on which the sense of the House was coiled ed ; but this, whether - the Impeachment, •or the Prosecetion by Information, was prciL T ;tble, had ne ver been directly submitted to the consideration of the nose, He allowed that the House had decided that some Crimival Prosecution should take place, though it hover had determined which was to be preferred. The form alone stood in their way. The Right_ Hon. and Learned Gentleman had argued that - it would be a proof of 'wavering and' vacilla tion in their decisions, if they were.- to rescind a Resolution - that had: been passed in so full a House on the 13th of June. If. the Majority of that flail HodSe 'hattdetidedi on the question, which mode of Pteaectstiou .was to be preferred, he should' yield to the paesaure . of such attargument e but no such do cument had yet been made, If they wee to take a retXospeEt of the proctedinge and to go back to the r a .11111C41. 11'4 , . .• circumstances of the discussion, it would appeal'. the majority t;f those who had delivered Any opilio On the subjea had preferred the for the Impeachment, IX which reason he should vote M ut ion of hi' Learned Friend.. Mr: .13ANKES appealed to the Speaker, la 1 first instance, and next to those whq had more Pa' liameatary experience than himself, whether they I not got into A line in which they could not pro- Ceed consistently with the forms of :Parliament, kli had always thought that it W 35 contrary to their pra6tice to entertain two cor m roceo lo at the same time.. Accordiiigto this rale he voi 1.1 °Pillion, that the Motion of the Learned Gentieevi could not be put till the former Resolution oftllc House 'Should . be discharged. The pr.ecq d ' it I. ° had been referred coin the proceedings ackipted the. other night did not apply, because the qeeitinFil that occasion was, whether a Civil Procesi' any 3 Criminal Prosecution could be carried on at the see time. • The question now was, whether eke Criipi nal forms of Prosecution could he proceeded.olP together? This he took to be contrary to the,ro lie of Parliament, but he appealed to the aatli4 of the Chair. Mr. Slid KER, from the appeal that luillfpil, made to him, felt it to be his duty .to state to th House that from the manner hi which tli!Motio,l was • framed it consisted of two parts, Elio, haterpti4 ?f,which went to ao Away the Resolutions 0t11':,4 House on a former occasion. Those parts of ~, Motion might undoubtedly be separated, 34.4:j' ,often the praaice, if it should be the pleasueiot::,l. but on. Gentleman to make a ,Metion to that h' unquestionably until sUch - Motion sr ti made, it WoUld be his duty to put the irt.r le Motion as it had been originally proP °4l % l et Mr. BA NK ES then resumed. '1 he flout 0 called upon without any reason llSSigoed, 'oll(`uria a notice which he should call rather a urpri,eio, rescind a soleMn Resolution on one .of th e i' )Qt .,ii PPl t sttoonh ae . pa l; tpt af i h 'ta oti ° t e m s e t il i e r .lg lcg,o lS i a tl uiti l' i b en d l i s a et i t ea r.. S l C t U e3 ::: th i l o ua n tti°eilft‘l%;wl°licoccit'cilit:ill;ere:l.l4th°lelsaeltiti";eadnt:cr:ltitc: dent sl i t in ) e h er ld cii_e b ec e isli established Of rescindieg a i lailit it ocAeufnisttetseh irroetttai.Session, twenty-fouri;2nli)jil eleoucaLSteonwObteiilc:dtiist‘ii:tellil.:l7i'lljc:: on a ° I. i s n li °( O tf u l te d hne. of another House, by the proceeding th 3t 14 ' 1 kio vot A by that House ; but if ally doubtg of 11 01 ,0 night bad' existed, he thought the • matter wall°, be b a r i,i:l7c place, and regularly before thorn, that ,cohfcreuces vvo ...1 relativeiad heard.tc,thetlBl, .iiii°lll:lltitglilgtil)elitrel'!v:iielliireieg'ilinctr,dr'plesillorl7;i:u7i, demanded, and the question derarroined. ia .,,, 3 ; d manner as' would secure the hereditary Prir n 'Y, f ee that House,. and: the ends of,public justice. t i 01 ,., ;0 had been given of a Mojen to resehid a , or i. t Resolution of the House . on one of tiler'. ` )s at i te i'►:tiol l t yeelatpisedvisailr oentillye yttcoursitisloyn liif et. 01104 ant questions that ,had ever ellgtlgO It_s•Ljj'er hat could the People think,of their 1°,;'1,0,/t they should, With such levity, and ' Y '''' t , , a afte ground alledged, rcseind a •Itesolution OLT ot tits Motion ? Odeitthey t so c:viirocariearc:::tro4lil:l. sl.l..'lcohusgertao.7loaoleocr.tiioloussodiscussion ? 911g.,J 1t o i tO n spa l ft promoted that D t a e t:l ui bt f e y r: , ao m dr op t: r to e inc d eg el e u d .' e l i t :: who brot4lit .tti r L , t h 4 were following 'sufficientguide ? A tagj°,l',e sy'id! House had voted certain lesolutions, sin,`oir it)ettl:tialr:l"l jill'e' (A 111,116;; new matter had 'come out hOth.before rho Sr_, J bir self. Was there not enough in thi s ridw ', ? l ilc , Learned Gentleman who had bruu:f,lit 0:00 to. question, had said that substantial justic„,„t it 1, thatrrater Giaeln,tooectnatainsideorn, bwoilitiiha3tPethr;eidfP9thetls.rtre.::::).riblele;;lstil,‘ltet:olll;,' that they who supporte d it either t I lon•oCs;i1 opg' concurrehee, or that of any of the Get? . ' e ' re ld:; whose auspices be biought forward 1'5,1)).d ail, .• , tion ? Did they not reprobate both ? - 1 1,. 1 0 0, tfil e j .• represent the. steps that ' had be e° taker 0 111 mature ? Did they not say, that becati.•ll to ; . lwiadhaatd,odpidtetdhoenie.l:e.asure, which they O''. ,coivi 1 punishment, it was.not jest to inthd i l .;i ll no t ! ' • To be consistent, be3ollUdgillteltrti)l.l%aoQl'e°7ltll4e!lili!TV6l4'il'' should rescind all that it had before , - i ; f u r: hipn P ) roj i so o lia , c i lie e t, tec:l6cit(tic principle;nt., vwtr .withoutab:cil .a:si:e. tint b . f i o ti u t i ct i,d t t i: t. bit ' l er : /, ' , `,. ~,,:;,...: r , l%) e ;it; i i . I: 6 lt ti,: : , tleman dire&ine. the 140tVe tO 01143 PlIS‘. Ottr PP he was not inclined 4O 1611(4 the Paw i„,o'l Lord shotild tbleelslaeicn:ltilaillt.et'eglhilt°Cit.islnie. It 41elibisu;i i i i t' I lli t :f:' - j it' , l , le : . '' ' ' l''' i t. former habit of acquaintance wi ta r decision „,e most sincerely rejoice. The sPL' ec Y,roe 11061;•• Court of Law vas a great hart Court of eeit a , c ,,,,i tnent was tedioUS, and the instaiiL.,?. ~,00,, of . ,; 1i !, Hastings, Whi t e!' was io the rect,l,l,‘"c2; to re so, ti v. Gentleman, would make him enwlio'te 6 , G I to e•ent 0 V , . that mode, of trial, if another sul'6. l ~1 to i i i a n tia , 4 ' -AP' adopted. The Learned Gentwol a ten t O 1 rods, au 0,. the solitary preeedent.on the o oar , _ it. .13ut, fo e ed it as inauspicious from the re.',,i • oo t ip; 0d niunerous.instances of liripcachol.'''' , I bon lqoilt nals, there were few cases 1 . c . ,., 11 ,,,;it to ,3151),f at le.,ngth, or that had. been 0r(7,,0 jetL , :tr, _Ol decision. So . that he should , I 1 ± 0 "'fro) i•V's;-.4f,i) the rose of the solitary. insPil'lor.b h 0 , 7 3: t oi the Prosecution 'by inforrnaticd,',._:eit, gi r th} . d o itl l inett6tuat instanees Of 1111Peacil:".1.0„enibe4,;,00 Mr. Histiugs, which lie alw4) 3 ~, „ o t, 0 , .- , oh e a us to " OO P '. -4 regret, beCallSe, it rOlOll trial . otf. 631, jear;,,siacclP;;: from that 'eonatitUtienal from adopting the Impeachrhenh o,oiiia eites,,, would have to decide the que°).:l4t„,i tho ,e,T 3 , i , e' p;,..tent as themselves: Pl,' 'awl l.e,goo.3 ii:icial of popular prejudices and 1 11 °." , b u t P r t bere P ) ,interwoi7eu 'with otir LiberitY,.24o.. Ws! 0 ,0' 0 , 4 was . not the only sufferer r.2_,. w a s no er 3, OP' remedy . for these prejudice. , the plioii. 00 Pad right of challenge QII the part ° L we ll o$ °! i ity '., , the members of his Jury, as „ , „ ti , a , l , ,f,„,0%, He had telt ' a p ho of - the Prosecution ?- . A ban 1 ' 10 0 f ula ' r t o ~..4F, to the Prosecution out ° coot Oi l e:4 to be cornmitte.d to the tonvg, foe At tori_cori able wind Learned Qeetleinon„.,,.k.itlea to 4 V. ral), who, however, :c r -3 $ r o t j il ilit t° w00,1:,,,e1 and confidence. 1:1)0 Il°lltsbii Motieo, WlO t ly cautious, in agreeing t c) _ A 4 tioc feund that it was pro poW4 i ~,.~-~