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

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:GA 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 asparty 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 aXiis
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 .this 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 trouble 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

~!

L 0 N D ON,

\\\*\

.

DIARCII 9,7, 1806.

:r---- - -_~ --~-~~....

. • • •
Was protnised to the Managers .te:he *.ere to Conde&
the Impeachment :, he had no doubt of the sincerity
of that promise ; .and as little did 'lie doubt that the
present opposition of the Hon. Gentlemen pro-
,seeded from their conviaion that they could con-
4,u& the business, much better than the Managers
Who had been appointed for that purpose. But
then be may he afraid of such friends. • They had
Votbd against all criminal.. proceedings whatever, and
certainly the -bias therefore ought to be against
them. •' He Was surprised at the Hon. Gentleman
under the Gallery (Mikes), who had, said so much
about the old mode of proceeding, for which he
drily mentiened'one solitary instance. With regard.,
'to the length of time, his Hon. -Friend had given
sufficient-reasontnuppose that the difference would
not be material e, and as to the argument of the
;Hon. 'Gentleman opposite (Mr. Rose), who Maine
tamed that a Trial at the Bar of the House of Lords
would be as public as one in Westminster,Hall-
-he supposed that 'his reasoning would have very
little influence on the House, • Now why should
-We resort .pe'rpetually for direr ions to those who
had opposed all criminal proceedings in this case ?
It was an old rule •Of the House, which Was now
dropped, perhaps properly, but which was,not with-
Out some grounds to support it, that no persons
should be allowed to speak in a Committee on a Bill
who Opposed the principle, because it was thought
that such persons would not make any alterations
in the detail which would promote the object of the
-Bill. As to the policy ofthecondua of these Gen-
tlemen with regard to •themselve,s, that:. was. their
I:itiness—but in a public view -it would be the worst:
policy iii the would to raise even a suspicion of a
collusion with those who opposed the bringing of
-Lord 'Melville to trial in any way. Could any man
doubt, with regard to theiptiblicity of this affair,
that all the arguments which went. to .shesst the ad-
vantege.of an Impeachment!' over a Critninal In-
,f termations went also to prove the advantage of a
trial in Westetiinster Hall.above one in" the House
of Lords- ?. Were they not aware that all the argu-
ments in favour of selemnity and publicity, which
'had Once been urged in favour of an Impeachment,
.might_ poly _be turned acrainst themselves ?—" A
Public Speaacle,7 said an Hon„Gentleman opposite
'to him ! Why, he hoped that every Trial of this
kind would. beerendered a Public Spectacle, and that
as many as possible would be admitted'to them :
note indeed, with a view to influence them, but that
these who were concerned in such-Trials Might feel
the responsibility of their situations and charaaers ;
that the Public might 'be satisfied that every thing
was fairly conduaed; and that. the decision, whe-
ther one way or the other, was given with that de-
liberation and impartiality which the circumstances
'of the ease required.
CANA"-a.'G observed, that from the warmth
N‘ith which the Right Honourable Secretary spoke
it relight be suspated that the strong arm of power
was to he. lifted against Lord, Melville, and if this
vas to be 'the case 'they miklit as well hold their
tongues, foe it would be in vain. to hope that any
thing they could say would have any effea. He
had said that they had been inconsistent, and that
their arguments were to be heard with suspicion.
'That conclusion, however, 'might apply to the One
Side es well as to the other. When it was said that
they never had it its contemplation before to have
the Trial at the Bar of the House of Lords,' they
had only to refer to the. Hon. Gentleman's speech,
where he then adverted to the precedent of Lord
Macclesfield's case. The Right Hone Gentleman's
speech had not 'furnished the thing which was
wonted, and that was, a sufficient reason why
'Westminster Hall shosld be chosen in preference
-to the House of Lords. The reason why they had
referred to the -case of Lord Macclesfield in prefere
ence to that of Mr. Hastings was, that an Mt of
Parliament had passed. dieseling e different mode of
Proceeding in cases similar to the letter, which
stamped the course adopted with regard to the lat-
ter with some disgrace. He asserted that he had
the trial at the Bar of the House of Lords in con-
templation 'before; The Right Hon. Gentleman
tad said, that the authority, ef..those.who were con-
neaed with Lord Melville was to be regarded with
suspicion. was that of those who' were ho_ stile
Ito him.• The,. Noble Lord (Petty) had said that
the Hon, Gentleman (Mr. Dundes) spoke with the
feelings of a child, but that hi-s feelings were the
feelings of cACe. Which of these deserved most •
'regard he left to the House to decide.
Mr. Fox and Mr. CANNING mutually explained,
• Mt. WHITBREAD said, that he had had sa conver-
.sation with Me. Pitt on thisiSebjea,:and had proposed
that the Trial should be- in Westminster Hall; to
which he'had made no Objeai.ein:
W.A • ' •
Mr. /rl. supported
~tne 'Motion on con-:
stittiticnal grounds. Iropeathenent was the best
mode of proceeding,- and 'it was proper to have
it as open as poSsible 'The House' of Lords
might be thrown open, but few could get in.
expressed his surprise at-the logic of some Hoti.
Gentletnen. BeCause Mr. liastings's trial had lasted
eight Sessions, did it follow that all Trials'condutted
in the same way. were to last an equal time ?:
In the case of Hastings a Court and Jury had no
jurisdiaion—but he did not see how the delay:could
be disgraceful to this House,Tince the Lords bad the: , •
power of adjourning is long as they pleased. In An interesting Debete.took'place last night in the
every point of view he wished' to have the. Trial in, House of OC.mmous, on the Motion of Mr. Wner-
. Westminster Hall.
aftEAD, purporting that the House. ShOuld attend the
Mr. IYALLACE.said that he was one-of those,'
Trial of Lord MELVILLE, as a Committee of the
who thought no sufficient grounds had been laid 'for
any criminal proceeding against Lord Melville, and whole House. It was urged on the one hand,
must endure all the imputations that Might lie Cast , that a Trial iti Westminster Hall would be more
on him on that account. But 'he was still of the
augnst, solemn, and suitable to the importance
seine opinion. He contended that the penalties of
guilt ought not to attach to a person who had not i of the occasion, and that indeed it was-, what
- been proved to be guilty; and that, with regard to the PUblic expeted. On 'the other hand, it was
the essential points of justice, the Trial might be contended,- that :a Trial at the Bar of the House
conduaed as:well in the HouSe of Lords as in West- •
minster-Hiill. Having it in the Hall would only of Lords . would be sufficient to answer the ends
gratify an idle crowd, and the vanity of some Gen- of public justice, without entailing a ruinous ex-.
tlemen, and produce an irritation in the public mind. fpence upon ' a person who might be acquitted,
His strongest objection to the present Motion was,
-and who, according to the mild principles of British
that impeachment, from the difficulties attending
them, would fall into disuse: He-also adverted to jurisprudence,. is presumed to be innocent till there
the singular situation in which the Chief Justice is -a legal demonstration of guilt. The cases of Lord
se,ould be placed in the trial of a Minister,' from his ,
MACCLIZhELD and Mr. H ST 'adduced
eomiection with the Government. He would be a A I Zs.
,were;
party man, and would be tempted to judge as a de- i the trial of the former, at the Bar 'of the House of
cided friend or a decided crony. Lords, having lasted only twenty-five days, and that
Mr. GREY contended, that -with regard to the
of the- letter,. in WestminSter-liall tied
Lord Chief Justice it was equally the same whether iaving
,oece
the Teal 7.4-as, in one pi= or anothei4. But the - nearly I"e"en The ~debate. closed .with an

purpose 'of his. -rising was to •set the -.Right Bun.
Gentleman opposite (Mr. Canning)' -right' as to a
fad. said, that after the Trial of Mt. Hastiugs,
a Law had beeh.passed which marked it with some
degree. of • censure. • Admitting the fa& in the fit'At
place, the cases of Mr. Hastings and: Lord Melville
were very_ different their circumstances ; but his
arguinent went' to a general Lang, and not to one
merely relating ,to • Indian Judicature. This.-Law
might be very proper in .Indian cases, but could not
have the ,smallest connection with any cases 'that
' occurred at home. Unfortunately, however, for the
Right Hon. Gentleman's argumept, the Trial of
Mr. Hastings commenced: in 1788„and theindian
Judicature Law passed in 1784. He adverted to
what had been said respecting; the strong arm of
power. The Right Hon,. c'Tentleman• had a different
opinion now, it appeared, of the sensibilities of:Of--
Lee—Hear ! Hear ! Suppose they (the present
Ministry and their adherents) had said while' he ,N.yas
Office that he wished to screen the guilty. This
might be his sensibility while in Office. Would he
have them now chuse a different condud from that
which they bad formerly adopted ? The strong arm
of power ! What was the-best defence against this
strong atm.! Why, publicity, certainly; And this
wasthe.vry thing for which those who, had 'that
power were. contending.
Mr. WALL.A•c, Lord HENRY PETTY and Mr.
Fox explained. ,
Mr. STUART WORTLEY said ft:few words against
the Motion, after which itrwas put, and carried with-
.out a division..,:

Masage ordered..to. be sent to. the'
Lords, to. acquaint them with. the passing: of this
Resolution, and. requesting that accommodation
.tnight be provided
,for the. Commons accordingly.
111 T. WHITBREAD was ordered to carry this. Mes,
.sage.

No further intelligence has -reached.this ilt
from the,-West Indies, but we entertain very
sanguine hopes that • the next accounts :from that'
quarter will be of a most favourable nature. We
mentioned yesterday, that private Letters -had been .
received from France, stating, that intelligence had ,
been received.of\eight Sail of the Line having been
captured in' the West Indies, in two aaions. The
same 'account was brought by a Vessel 'which ar-
iived• on Tuesday,- at Dover, from France.. We
do not think -that these reports are entitled to
implicit 'credit, b'eCaLfie neither thd time when
.the A6.lions are siapposeil to have taken place, nor
any particulars, are mentioned. It is, however, to:
be observed on the otherhand, that no unfavourable
intelligence is ever suffered to appear in' the French
Papers—that not one of them has yet dared to pre
any account of the Battle of Trafalgar 4 and ilftit
'.the only•information the PeOple of France have had
respeOing that A.(tion was that giVen 'by BONA-
PARTE 'himself,- viz. that some Ships
,were lost hi
consequence -of a storm !"

THE Resolution§ of the Patriotic Fund, which our
Readers will. seein THE. SCN of this day, will, we
doubt not, be read with•pride and pleasure by every
roan who has a British -heart. The promptuest;
With which the benevolence of that Noble lostitu-

tion is exerted on every occasion, as well as the
liberal'extent of that benevolence, demand the re- •
spea and gratitnde Of all who are friends of Heroism,
of their Country, and of Humanity.