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

I I

tice full sufficient for the Ilnute to turn their at-
tention to the subjen, and make the same discottrt.
I.l next p .int to which I mean to advo•rt is dile
cliderence bets+ ern C:t. Members now present, and
those who vntrd 0:1 the motion fur a criminal pro-
secutinn. So far from nu: having a right to eape/
as full an attendance TIOW as then, I ask the Hnn.
Gentleman vhet;.cr it has not alpeitied• frOnl
sequent divisions in this House, that they have fent
off 100 since the trah, the night of the vote now

moved tube rescinded ? Besides, Sir, this is a ques •
tion of a peculiar nature, and it h well known that
many Members attended it who are not in the habit
of attending the House. If then, the motion be
adopted, we shall be placed in this strange and ex•
traordinaty situation, that whenever any measure is
carried contrary to the wishes of the Minister, by a
majority, he may lay by. and afterwards bring it
forth for revision by a smaller number ; the come-

quence of which will bc, that unless every Member

remains from day to Jay fixed in his seat, he can
never be sure that any measure, previously adopted,
no matter by how large a majmity, will not be re-
versed in some subsequent part of the Session.
say, then, Sir, that there has been no notice in the
present case; but, in answer to this objedlion. it has
been said, neither was there any notice in the case
of the order for the criminal prosecution of Vis•
count Melville, for that was adopted upon an
amendment of an lion. and Learned Gentleman,
of which there was no previous intimation whatever.
I admit there was no notice oleic amendment upon
tha: occasion, but, Sir, there weskitl notice of the sub-
let ; there was full notice of a criminal charge and
proceeding against Viscount Melville on that par-
ticular day, and it was open to every Member of the
House to propose, by way of amendment, any pro-
position to that effea which lie might think
fit. This ohjeaion, that al amendment requires
no notice, as applicable to the present question, is,
indeed, curious. There is no simile' ity whatever
between the two cases. fio far fir the notice : now,
Sir, for the thing to be done. It has been insisted
that the sense of the efejarity AV.4a aaually in fa-
vour of the impeachment, in preference to the cri-
minal prosecution by the Attorney General. That,
Sir, is not the case. 'lle ipiestion could nut be pot
so es to decide that point,notwithstendin.g this attempt
of the Gentlemen opposite to stultify themselves.
Do they mean to say, they thought impeachment so
good, and prosecution so bad, they voted for that
which was bad in preference to what was good ? or
are we to suppose that, wishing there should be no
proceeding at all, they voted against impeach-
ment, conceiving that the criminal prosecution
WAS so bad we could not adopt it ? If they have
discovered that impeachment, which they open-
ed, is so much preferable, why did they not give
US some applause, who proposed it? But, ito ;
not one word of that kind will they afford us.
For my part, I always thought impeachment the
more eligible mode. Upon the ground of expedi-
ency, I thought it preferable, though I never doubt-
ed that the House might adopt either course at
pleasure ; in short, I had so little doubt upon the
subje3, that I never turned it in my mind ; but. Sir,
thuagh I may dank impeachment preferable, on the
versed of expediency, when I consider that there
are hem 70 to SO Peers in the other liouae, all
created in the Administration of Viscount Melville,
I coaf:ss -eat I center. be sure that it is so. We
have been told that we had 40 Members of a par-
le. -tria.on with VI. in the vote for a criminal
•, n The number has been sine, stated
4' ; I do not know upon what ground. or
AY eer correlly or not, and I dare say we
play now have 200 with US for the Impeachment ;
bat I prefer the forty-three (age Addington party)
so e 2(X), because I k ow they are friendly to the
principle. and sincerely wish to bring Viscount Mel-
-yille to justice, whereas I dread the concurrence of
the 250 r knowing them to be adverse to the princi-
ple. Ido not know how to trust these 200. IJo
pot mean to insinuate that as Gentlemen and indi-
vi.luals I would not take their words. I mean no-
thine disrespeaful of the kind. I only mean
that I wo* not trusf to their votes as Mem-
bers of Parliament upon this question. The
Honourable Member says, he bows to the opi-
nion of the House. It is a singular way of bow-
ing to the opieion of the House, by opposing its
sense, as expressed by its positive vote for a criminal
prosecution, and maintaining that which he chutes
to consider the implied sense of d:e House ; I mean
Impeachment. Supposing the Impeachment to
be carried by majority, no matter whether great
or small; according to this principle, the Hon.
Member may come down next week, and say the
majority, looking to former vote., were for a criminal
prosecution, and, therefore, the resolution for an
Impeachment ought to be rescinded. At the pie-
sent moment, I prefer prosecution by the At-
torney-General, because the House has voted it,
and because I know that I have in it the con-
currence of those who really voted upon principle.
When I consider the manner in wlech Viscount
Melville has been defended ; wleet I consider the
proceedings upon this question have been fought,
inch by inch, and that they pertinaciously endee-
sour to carry their point; whether the parties
ore to be considered as political adversaries, or
political coileagnes. it is not my business to de-
cide ; hut I will not assist them in either ease.
When you come to appoint managers for the im-
peachment, will you ehuse these Gentlemen as suck
managers ? One at the fullest Houses that I ever
witnessed, after a full consideration of the sub-
jeft, did decide upon it on the 12th and 13th
of June; will you now rescind that vote? will
you now revise that decision in such a house as this ?
It is virtually iesipsnWe, if there be such a thing
as shame within.* walls of this House. if this
question is to he further agitated, I shell move
for a call of the House, in order that every
Member of the House sli.dl have an oportu.
say of deliberating upon it. This has been an
untortunete mistake made by His Majesty's Mi-
nisters. respea to difficulties which have
(arisen in this case, I shall say but few words : as to
-the Privilege of Peerage, that is now completely
got over. A popular notion prevailed that a man was
to be tried by his Peers. but as far as I can
understand the Lv, Peers are to be tried in
cases of misdemeanors by a jury as well as
any other petsons ; and though I do not
pretend to the legal knowledge cf the Learned
Gm/exude (the Attorney General). but such a case

4