The Sun. — London, England, 1806-03-27 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMEIVT. HOUSE OF PEERS. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26. .11) au Appeal from Scotland, Johnstone and Others • - 1/. Stott and Another, Mr: Perceval and Mr: Alex aner were heard on. benodf..of the Appellants. The further hearing was deferred till to-morrow. - The 10,500,0001. and 1,500,0001. Exchequer fills Bills, the Spirit Excise Duties Bill; and the Fe lons' Transportation were: read, is second time and committed for to-morrow: Mr. Johnson, from the 'Office of the Secretary for Ireland, prep'ented s evveial Accounts and Papers pursuant to the A& of the 44th Geo. 3. which ,Were "ordered to lie On the Table'. LASCELLES, Mr. HARRISON,' Mr.' CAVENDISH, and several othe s i Meinbers of the House of CCM ?MS; brought tip three Private Bills;,\Vhich•were leverally read a'first tithe. . • • Aej ournedtill . tolmorrow (this 'day).' • • HOUSE''OF 'COMMONS • A • AEDN . SD . • . KINt took the wills and,his seat as Member for Enniskillen. _ 'Mr. Heil'oan . brought in a Bill for Ereaing the Phiranthropia SoietY, fdr thWEducation of Children otTelons, into a Corporation; which was read a first, and ordered tube read a , second time. r , -Mr. Johnson, from' the Office of the Chief Secre tary tOr Ireland, presented an Account of all Offices granted' in reversion iii that Country: Also of all Offices granted to two or more Persons for concur re nt_Lives. 7 -Ordered to be.pointed. A Person from the Excise Office presented, an Account of the Didies on Malt for two years ending tide sth January, 1806.--Ordered'to be printed. • "Mr. BiTiIDON brought in a Bill for the better -Re gulating-the Adtheasurernent 'of Coals .seabarne.— *ad a first and ordered to be read a second time. Mr. I . 7 4INIsITTART obtained leave to bring in a*Bill for enabling _he Government of Ireland to issue Treasury Bills on the credit of such Aids and Sup plies as already have or may be granted 'for the ser vice of the Year 1805-6. .; The Estimates for New South Wales and . the Plantations, and the Estimate of the Sums neces sary for-paying off the Interest of the three Millions . due to the Bank, were referred to the Committee of Supply: -- ' - And the House having gone into said Committee,-these Estimates were voted. After a conversation between Mr. Tierney and Mr: Vansitfart, in which the latter Gentleman hav ing. complimented the Bank of England on the liberality, with which they had- a6ted in prolonging the term of payment of the three millions due to it by Government, and that at a reduced interest of three per cent, Mr. TIERNEY maintained that nothing. could have been more illiberal than the manner in which tat Bank had a&ed from the beginning, and to talk or their liberality now, when they were charging Government with three per cent. interest on a sum clue to, them, was highly` ridiculous,. when it was considered that this acconintodation did not cost the . one ilirthing beyond the paper on which the liieltti... - loitttlefils were r nen ag ecu co, auu ►lle Report.orderedto he received to-morrow.. _Lord OS3III..STON acquainted the House_ that His l'ilajesty had been waited on with the Address of the House, and had been graciously pleased to order, that, agreeably to their desire, the proper Officer . do lay before them a Return of all Grants not provided for by Parliament. - • CAPE OF GOOD HOPE. .I\fr. VANSITTART moved the third reading of the Cape of Good Hope Trade Aegula.tion Bill ; which, after a few words from Mr. Whitshed Keene, was read a third time. On the question being put that ihe Bill do pass, Lord adRLIES rose, and took the opportunity of inquiring of the Ministers if, while the House was availinv itself of every opportunity to express its 4: senS . of the bravery and meritorious services of our sralla;it Defenders, no notice was to be taken of the Iyeliliant achievements in that quarter. He was the score inclined to wish that some step might be adopted, as he found 'the principal credit of the business belonged to the Military. Lord HENRY PETTY had no hesitation in say ing,_thatno such measure was then in agitation, nor did he see how it properly could till the conquest of the Settlement was completed. The Bill was then passed. °tithe question that this be the title of the Bill, - _ _ Lord CASTLERE/IGH observed, that the thanks :of that House for the successes in Egypt were not delayed till the final issue of the campaign., It was for Ministers to judge on this subject, but he thought the success already such as justified them in .taking the sense of the House as to its propriety. Lord, HENRY PETTY explained. Oc rte ral TAPLBTON tlought the issue of the campaign. could have no effe& on the question whe ther the Troops engaged on this service were or were . not entitled to thanks for the services already per formed, by them. If a larger force of the Enemy were: to land on the Island, and to force them to abandon the advantages they had already gained, still this could not tarnish the honour they had ac quired by 'their past display of bravery. Lori" HENRY PETTY was sorry to call the Hon. General to order. General TARLETON persisting, The -SPEAKER said that the House would observe, the question before them was, " That this be the ' Title of the Bill." When after a few words farther from General TARLETON, the Title was agreed to, and the Bill ordered to be sent to the Lords. The SECRETARY AT WAR presented the Rctwns of the different Volunteer Corps.,---Ordered to be printed. . On the Motion of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, the • Order of the Day for the House going into a Com : initte.e on the Witnesses' Bill, wai discharged, and ord: red to stand , for Tuesday, .the - ' I . sth ,of next month. Toe Learned Gentlemay hiatini.that it Was his intention to put the House in:possession Of 'some InforMation on the subject. , The .A.r.;roatiWGE:.;ERAL then bane notice of his intent . loll tO .!Ilov; for a tnnm.iittee,:tp:sakch the jonmals of the Lords on this subjea. 1-4.) ILA - , - seeing tne rt;grat',utir.. rue - z)eeretarv . of State , in his place, wisheA to ask if there' I.vvofcl be any objection to 14.yjag I le f o re t A t e o , ll ,Ab_ strata of the iteturni from tic cliffe4nt Counties ;of the nutiiber or men 'raised under 66 . Levy erkilVlase Aa ra2rsaicfi Wrs - impos§ible for him at pre sent,to say whether or riot there might be. any ob jelion to the Motion. Yank theii - gave notice-VMS - PrOildb - far ttr; — morrow. r _ , 'General TARLE'TpN gave Otice of his intention on the day previous to tiro House adjourning for the Easter. Holidays to subtuit to the:House a... Motion on the State of the. Military Defenc.e - of the Country, particularly on the Defence .A.a, provided-this.sub je&•was not in the mean tinie•taken up in another quarter. He then fixed to-morrow Se'rmight for this pdrpose. LORD VISCOUNT MELVILLE. • On the Motion of Mr. WHITER BAD "the Orders of the House of=yesterdaY, on the subjea of Lord Meb vill&s Impeachment, were read. The Honourable Gentleman then said, that the Motion Of which lie had given notice foe the House being present at the Trial in a Committee of the whole House, he considered to.be so much a rattdr of course that it was with extreme surprise he first learned that any opposition. was meant to be made to it. It . was so Completely incomprehensible to him What could'be urged-against his present Motion that he should not think it necessary now to endeavour to anticipate what,moit be said, 'hut hoped. the House would 'indulge him with a few words in answer to ay) , thing•which might be advanCed on the other side. 'He then moved That the House be present at the Trial of -Lord Viscount Melville, as a Committee of the whole House. Mr. ROBERT. DUNDAS said, the Honourable Gentleman in making his' present Motion might not perhaps be aware that its 6'1 . 0 would:be, to neces sitate the House of Lords to address His Majesty-for -having Westminster Hall fitted up fin- the purpose of their proceeding 'to the trial. That, however, being the case, he hoped he might be entitled tp say a few words on the subje&, by which he hoped to be able to make it appear, not only that such a step would lead to the highest inconvenience, :but would, perhaps, be. the source of gross injustice and oppres sion, by the delay and expence that such a proceed- • ing would create. Whenever any question oc- . curred in which, it might be necessary for the House' of Lords to deliberate, all that would be required, if. the trial proceeded in their own ,house, would be; for the Managers, to retire till the question was discussed.. But if the trial proceeded in Westminster Hall, the Lords would be obliged, on every such occasion, to retire to their own House, and if they continued' debating till near the usual hour of adjournment, there would be little chance of their returning to the Hall that day. In this way it was a fad, :that not less than two or three days of delay would take place in the One case, for one in the other. He trusted he did not ask too much of the House in hoping, that in the pursuit of justice they would not be guilty I of oppresSionthat thev Would not adOpt a mode of trial which would be vexatious in point of time, and ruinous in point , of expence. He thought the case of Mr, ifaitings would have been sufficient to, wit), - n the House against the adoption of a propositiin like the present. He had no doubt the Managers would power ; but it would not be in Lleir power, or in that of the accused, to do so ill Westminster Hall. The Right Hon. Gentleman ;::imself (Mr. Whitbread) unquestionably, in his ol)ening speech against Lord Melville, alluded to Nn Impeachment to be tried in the House of Lords, and his referring to the case of Lord Macciestl!eld was a sufficient proof of this.' He trusted the •2on. Gentleman would, not now depart fiom the t idea; and revert 'to the other more severe, iticakn'enient,. and oppre:;sive mode. The case of Macclesfield, on which the Hon. Gentleman himself had dwelt, was tried at the Bar of the House of Lords it occupied only (25 day ; and the case of Mr. Hastings,. which was tried in Westminster Hall, lasted for eight Sessions. ThOugh ,the accused had here preferred Impeachment to Criminal pre secntion, • he hoped the Honourable Gentleman would no now turn round On him and deny to him the mode of trial which he himself had once pointed at, and insist on one much_ more oppressiVe in ; its nature 'and effe&. The matter might occur to him (Mr. Dundas) more forcibly than to other Members of the House, but be hoped the House Would excuse him in stating it. The HonOurable Gentleman was in possession of ample documents to ihstruCt, that the private fortune of the individual here accused was not adequate to the support of an expensive trial ; and when equal justice, and before the same tribunal, might be procured at a smaller expellee, he 'submitted that it could never be the wish of the House, or of the Honourable Gentleman, to pur chase it at a greater expence to the party accused.— The Honourable Member declared that be should not press the matter to a division, if the sense of the House seemed to be against him, as the matter might strike him differently from what it might occur to others. He concluded by cautioning the ouse, in their search after substantial justice, not to go into the extreme of. substantial injustice. • . Mr. TIERNEY, after complimenting the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down on the uniform propriety of condu& observed by him during the whole ofthebiasiness, and stating, that it was with re luaance that lie did any thing which could injure the feelings of the Hon. Gentleman, declared that he had always been a friend. to proceeding by Impeach 'wilt. in thi4 case, because he thought that it alone Was applicable to the situation of the Noble Vis count, as it went to chew that however high a man might be he was not to be regarded as aboVe the law. .That substantial justice might not be attained at the bar of the House of Lords he was fir from deny ing; but this' he would assert, that such would not prove satisfactory to the Public. It would be supposed, if the 'trial were to he condud ed in that manner, that the House had, enter ed into a compromise of the public rights. If the , argument, however, was good ' at all, it went the length of saying, that the mode of Impeach ment .in Westminster Hall ought to be entirely abandoned. Not Lord Melville alone must be .tried at the Bar of the House of Lords, but every other person must in like manner be tried there, and the old constitutional mode of trial be for ever relin quished.. Such an.idr,.a, however, had been discoun tenanced in the os4 of Mr. HaStingS, awl there Wcfq surely ecraa4 strpLig reaSQ;:s for reja.'tir.g it in tbec.4:e Lora - memne. - As, "to the eehri,i.aiiit - or &Tay, hint cotild not be the fault of this House, and any j apiili4itjon on th 4 he,:d had,btter be made to toe. Huse-of Lords He; was petsuaded nothing., could satisfy; file Public but the co - ndu6ting of the intended trial in -the most :public and solemn manner. Mr. BANKES' thought 'that - the - trial - of 'Mr. Hastings, so far from being adduced as a precedent, ought to serve as a warning to the House to avoid aop inf` i Fin — fa Cute. -He - thought iv was disgracefuiTti) this House, to the House of Lords, and to the Country. It-had taught him never to take impeachment, when justice, could be otherwise obtained, and never to send a culprit into Westrninsi6- Hall while'another Tribunal .retnained before'l;kihich . lie night be tried: As to the Public expeEtation, requiring a trial in Westminster Hall, he was convinced the Public required no such thing. They had been' . sufficiently - disgusted with a trial of eight: Sessions already and .a trial of twenty-five days before the House Lords; while more consistent With the due attainment of the ends of public justice. Would be more gratifying to the feelings of the people: :• - Lord FOLKSTONE supported the Motion. He maintained that it by no means followed because Mr. Hastings's trial had lasted for eight Sessions, that such was attributable to the place where the trial was held, and not to the nature. of the accusation preferred against him. Here the accusation all look ed to a particular fa&, anda speedy conclusion was nat~trally_to be expeaed. Lord HENRY PETTY expressed his surprise at 'seeing Gentlemen who had overturned the decision of the House on a criminal prosecution, on the ground that it was -not sufficiently dignified and so leinn for the situation and diameter of the Noble Viscount, now joining in,an attempt, as much as 'possible, to - deprive the trial of that solemnity and importance which they formerly thought so much. suited to it. The case of Mr. Hastings, be. con tended, could not be held out as one from which, 'the tiine to be employed in this trial could in the . smallest degree he inferred, They were completely different in their nature, and in the evidence quired to substantiate each. The . argument of those who opposed' the Motion, however, went to this, that this usage of our ancestors, of Trial by Im peadliment iii Westtninsterifill, was impraaicable,. and ought no longer to be continued. As to expense,' we had heard' enough on that subjea: When the expenditure of millions, conne&ed with our Pos sessions abroad, wag proposed- to be inquired into, we were attempted to he deterred by the expellee of paper and printing. When our abuses at 'home were sought to, beicha.stied, then the expense of scaffiAdino-and of wooden benches -was tb be -held up as an til - )sta - cle - to' the investigation. Such, how ever, .he hoped should never operate in this. Cou ntry, but that it would-always be found that the.best mode of avoiding Min and 'of insdring,prosnerity would•be .to spate_ neither trouble nor_ expellee .in investigating and bringing to justice every species of delinqUeney. As to the - expense to the Noble Lord he hoped:it would be small. He knew nothing of the :: - tuation of "the Noble- Lord's affairs, but, whe t`oer acquitted - or condemned, that might be the ; sul?- jeat of after-inquiry And consideration. This was not here the,question. The only ohje& at present was the attainment of substantial Justice. Mr:G A W.),4§lnaintained that a Trial at the )3ar 11v4 r s 1/1,- , 1,1 111,,,,* would not prove the same impediment which -a Trial in Westminster Hall would do to public business.-- It would, besides, possess as much, if not more pub licity, as the doors of the House were always open, whereas none would be admitted into Westthinster .Hall but by a Peer's order. Lord H. PETTY explained. , Mr. WHITBREAD hoped that he was as, far as any man could be from wishing to vex or oppress the Noble Lord... That, unquestionably, was not the intention of his Motion, btt_ Xo carry on the cause with that solemnity and publicity which its import ance deserved. If be could etfeCl it he would wish the whole Nation to be of the audience to witness the prosecution,and to be convinced either of the guilt or innocence of the person accused. It was said that the Trial at the Bar of the House of Lig& Was the preferable_ mode. Would it be denied that every Member of that House had a right to attend— and yet must it not be confes,scd that the House could not accommodate the one-fifth part of them ? As to . greater publicity too, was it not clear, if a ticket by 'a Peer was a requisite of admittance to Westminster Hall, that the same rule must equally hold in the Lords' Private Chamber ?-- , He denied having any view to such a Trial when he alluded to Lord Macclesfield, who, he was, not at the time aware, had been tried out of the common way.— There was, however, on record a very strong Pro test on that occasion, in which it is treated as con trary to the custom, usage, and derogatory to the dignity of the Crown, and of the Parliament, and inconsistent with (he public interest. It was not parade he sought fig, but he wished nothing to be omitted which could add to the solemnity and dig nity of the occasion.. The information the Mana gers had got on : the private, afars of the Noble Lord was not of their seeking, but naturally pre sented itself in the multiplicity of money transac tions which they were called on to examine.' He hoped, however, the Hon. Gentleman was well assured that such information was confined to their breasts alone. The Hon. Member concluded by stating, that he thought this a case in which every man in the Country, from the highest to the loweSt; was interested. He could wish that every :person, by being present, should' be able to judge for him self, that if innocent the Noble Lord might be uni versally known to be so, and if guilty that he should be convialed before the face of that Nation by whom he had been brought to Trial. Mr. WILLIAM DUNDAS said that he had listened in vain with a view to hear any essential reason of justice or. expediency urged why the Trial should take place in Westminster-Hall rather than at the Bar of the House of Lords. As to the Chan cellor of the Exchequer, he only argued in favour of the Impeachment generally. He (Mr; Dundas) did not say that thAtre ought to be no Impeach ment; but he contended tint it was the essence of justice that it should not be dilatory. • Every person, as an Iron: Friend of his had observed, Was to be presumed innocent till he was found guilty. He therefore, for the present, presumed that Lord,Mel ville was innocent ; ~and in this view the mode of proceeding now propOsed . wonid bting the punish. - nsent of guilt on an innocent persona He did not consider this as a s party quest on, but asked, whether ' it was just or generous that a . person who, setting the present affair aside, had rendered 'esSential ser vice to the Country, ,and was therefore intitled tos its gratitude; should, - the enormous expence to which he would be exposed, be consigned for the remainder of his life to want and poverty'? The Noble Lord (Henry Petty), and the Hon. Geetle -niali-Siihii-spoke. last, bad . adVeifed to the old' Mod - e of proceeding, and to the Trial of. Mr. Hastingsi. but was there a Lawyer in Westminster-Hallswho did not consider that : Trial as an abominable dis grace.? The Judge-Advocate, in proposing aXii s urinal Information, had argued against this aboinina.s tion, this foul. stigma ) with the greatest eloquence: Why was die riot here to-day to support . t his argu ment ? He concluded by again asking, whether it was consistent with justice or generosity to bring . a. load fof expence on the .shoulders of the accused, which, whether itinoCent or guilty, would Weigh him down to the earth ? Mr. PEReEviii, would not detain the House many minute's ; but he had a public duty to perforth in saying 'something upon this question. If one circumstance had been mentioned which could proVe that the. Trial should take place in Westminster- Hall rather than at the Bar of the House of Lords, then indeed he might perhaps have been silent; but as none - such bad been mentioned, he trusted the House Would be open to receive- any impres sions that might be expefted to be made by the ar guments of his. Hone-Friends: - It was said that-le-- and his friends were inconsistent in having first wished for the Impeachment and then endeavouring to have it conducted at the Bar of the House of Lords. Where was the inconsistency ? They wished for Impeachment still in preference to information; but they wished, at the same time, that it should be carried on in a manner least oppressive to the in dividual accused. Was there any novelty in'havins , the Impeachment at the Bar of the House of Lords ? No-4or the Trial of Lord .Macclesfield was conduCted in this manner. Dist even if there had been no instance of this kind he would have been desirons of introducing that novelty, because he thought that course the most proper which united the essential attainmentof justice with the least op pression to the individual. As to the point of in consistency, he, as the person who, in case the mode . of Information had been adopted, would have had the business to manage, had felt the difficulties that would attend this course of proceeding. The Ma nagers had better means of acquiring important inn formation by Impeachment; and in fa& it was not until of late that thq had discovered what to them appeared matter of great consequence. , Now. what would have been,the situation of the. case, if, instead of having an additional article, as now, he should have had so, make this additional count, in his War mation ? they talked of the inconsistency on hiS - side of the House ; now was there no inconsistency on the other ? They first voted for an Impeachment indeed, but . they subsequently voted for a Criminal Infor illation. Why did they do so ? Would the Trial have less publicity at the Bar of the House of Lords than in the Court of King's.. Bench ? The privaey thn was no.objeCition. It was strange that they should now insist so much on publicity. An Hon. Friend of his (Mr. Tierney) had asked whether she aument against this solemn Impeaohroent would not go to 44 cases t .t;ven it it had, that would riot, have deterred him from prefcn - ing the Trial at the Bar of the House of Lords. He certainly valued the privilege of Impeachment highly; and this was the very reason why he wished it shbuld be eon dueled in the least oppressive mode, as otherwise it would be- in danger of falling Hon. Friend under the Gallery into disuse. His (Mr. Banker) had been so impressed with the inconveniencies attend leg the Trial of Mr. Hastings, that he bad formed, a resolution to oppose Impeachment when any other • Course could be adopted. Rut at all events it was . desirable we should have the henefits withetu the inconveniencies of it. He then adverted to the great difference it would make in point of time; and contended that the great object ought to be - to remove from the mode of Trial by Impeachment every thing oppressive and embarrassing. Mr. Secretary FOX rose to tr ou bl e the House only with a few words : but something which. fell from the Hon. Gentleman who spoke last induced him to trespass on their attention for a moment. That Hon. Gentleman had cicr7ed him, and those who agreed with. him in thinking that Lord Mel: e , ville ought to be brought to trial with inconsistency, in voting first for an inipeachment, and then for a Criminal Information. They had done so un. doubtedly; 'but under what circumstances ? The House would keep in mind, that the - question then was between them and those who opposed all cri .minal proceedings whatever, and who strained every nerve in order to prevent any sort of Trial. He had then stated the reasons which induced him to at as he had done. But as the Hon. Gentleman had thought proper to say nothing about them, and poestbly might hare forgot them, - he - woiild state them again now. If the pure question had been, whether there was to be an Impeachment, or a Cri minal Information, he !would have preferred an Im peachment. But when he saw that the Motion for an Impeachment was lost by a majority, hollow as it was, he had no alternative but to adopt a less eli gible mode of proceeding rather than have none at all. But how was that majority procured ? Why, by the union of two parties, one of which endea voured to stop all proceedings. The two Gentle men, relations of Lord Melville, who brought fot ward and supported this proposition, were certainly justifiable in what they did. Nobody / could be more alive to the sympathy of relationship, or, even of friendship,,than.he was—but at the same he Must say, that they were not exaaly the persons whose :direaions ,were to be followed in this instance.--. How'did the case stand ? A Motion was made for a Criminal Information ; and at ,the Same time it was pretty plainly insinuated, that this was the mode which, on account of the comparative sinallness of the expence, the accused would prefer; but after wards it appeared that Lord Melville, upon recon sideration, with all the disadvantage of the additional expellee, preferred the mode of Impeachment. But was it ever said .or insinuated that the. Impeachment Was not to be concluded in the most solemn man, her ? Not an,. idea was entertained that the Trial would not be allowed to proceed in the way best cal culated to answer the ends of public justice. On the contrary, the cordial support of the Hon. Gentleniaa ~,~