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lightly rescinded I but.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