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

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' •
andern won./rig t
c l
.he
eredflaat°e forsguc t i i4raelkofrceldniniss.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 cc as these, he must ask where such tracts' c.
werecz
dteon
t stop
th:
why,nists.ei
oorrnc owuihf .di
whent ilbisiyi
tbi and
precedent,
.eggsll ,IllittetreraeniyldreosfilatitS:.
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, as
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. Notwithstandiri;
this, the Right Hon. Gentleman 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 was a single, 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 should
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