The Sun.
London, England, 1805-06-26 00:00:00

LORD MELViLLE.

Mr: BOND 15iiid,. that though:the notice he bad
given'for moving an instruction to the Attorney
General relative to the Criminal Proceeding stood
first in order, a • notice had been since given by a
I.,earneit Friend of his (Mr. Leycester), 61 a Motion
for substituting an Impeachment in the. room of a
Criminal Prosecution. Under these circuinstancei
he thought it better that his lion. Friend's Motion
should nreCede his; for if it should be adopted, it
would be unnecessary to bring forward his Mtition.
He thought it right to r rvc a proceeding
*ould be rendered nugatory if rime House, after
agveing. to should adopt: k4ons,Etie.4*-Inv,
pt.)44106 -

• YeireLPTCESTER. agreed that. his Hottenrable
IFaiend's,ZMr. Bond) Motion Would he 'superfluous
if his•shohld be agreed to. Hie objeti- was to
bring under:the revision of the souse the Re°.
Lillian for a Criminal Proceeding. Perhaps it would
tend to • remove pr atjudicer. that may exist against
his Motion, •to state, at the outset, the terms
of it, The terms were, that the House .would
proceed against Lord 'Viscount Melville by lima
peachment, and that the .Attorney-General 'should
be direaed, to stay proceedings in the Criminal
Prosecution ordered., on the 13th June. When
the oreler for the Criminal .Prosecution was made,
he was one of those who were of opinion that no
further . proceedings should be had, because the
weight of all the Censure of the House, the conse-
quentrernovel from high office, the Resolution of the
House, that a Civil Suit, not a Criminal Prosecu-
Con, should be instituted, and t.e. striking off the
Noble Lord's name, out of the List of the Privy
Council, appeared ,to !rim such a • heavy chastise-,
inept, that to consign burn to further • prosecution
would be but to infli& a' second punishment fbr the
same offence. The House was of a .different opia,
mon. He acquieaced in the decision of the House;
and if it appeared to him that the House had de-
tided 'as deliberately that a Criminal , Prosecution
should be the form of the further proceeding, as it
evidently had in declaring that there should be some e
finther proceeding, he wotild be far from offer.,
ing any *thing •to disturb that ReaolUtion. Theugh •
,his Hon., Friend had prefaced his 'Amendment by
reasons, which hewas sure were deserving of tonsil
deration, he confessed he was not sufficiently aware •
of his Honourable Friend's
,intention, • nor had he
.sufficiently eompared which was the more eligible
of the two mode's of proceeding, at a time when he
thought. there ouglit to be no further proceeding
ati tat suever. Ile believed it was otily the. few •
to Nt'horn his Friend had previouly cOnniami-
sated hip; intuition . that had theeopporiunily of that- ~:•;;reaT.,e..aa
comparison. Oil this gromet, he eonsioered, that
theegle the ReeolUtion 'tor .eaele thriller proceeding .:,t7V414
NI"As fixed :is inannweble; the niodt... of that proceedlzi •
'astill Open to eonsi,leration , and if Impeachment
ahoulcialppear preferable: to a Critnin:il Prosecution, a ~aa;
thAlliLASe.. (4:WaS far from being precluded from adopta
ine it. •He confessed, that on the beat teensidera
tion be could, giVe, Impeechment ;swilled le him pre-
fteebie. It.. m aras 'ore 'consistent with the uaage of ia,11,41,
Pa!T•enent, more consistent With the dignity of the .
aeae4,4
}louse zind :he rank of the person to be preset ItCcl,;Anct eaaaaa:kalt
:,would lead with more certainty to equal justice bea.
tween. the Country arid the indivitlitel. - He had die
ligently examined the Journals, and the result of his
examination \yes, that Commoners were always pro-
ceeded against by Prosecution by the .A.ttorney-Gea
neral ; and that wheh'lmpeachment was reeeried to
against a Commoner, it -was son some very extra-
ordinary occasion.: When the House had to proceed •
against a Peer, • the praetice was, totally different.
All the instances of proceedings against Peers were
by. Impeachment, with the single exception of the . .
case of Lord Halifax. He,believed the reason why
Lord Halifax Was paosecuted in the Exchequer was,
that the office of Auditor of the Exchequer was un-
der theemthority of that Court, and the manner of
making up the accounts came most properly under •
its cognizance, But When the Attorney General
was called upon to report the proceedings, it itpp;:ar-
ed tbdtmm exception was taker by the Council, for
Lord Halifax, whirls. rendered •it impossible, togo
on with, the prosecution. This, iissuesof the single
' instance. of departure front the general, usage of
proceeding by linpeaelitnent in the ease of Petra
did not give aunt'!encouragement to' retort to it.
'Though 21 Peer nety be proceeded against before a
cottimon Jury, yet the proceading was .anomalous ;
impeachment befbre the'Peers was more cera,i,t-
cut With the Collgtitlitioll, of which trial by brie's
Pecrs.was a mint essential charaaeristica In this
case there' was no ground for deviating from the
, usage. The case was its itself ei the utmost.
portaziee : the general :meet:lto:nit lied engaged ren-
atill more important: • The pereon who eeaa
to-be peccteadael against was a' sulneet of hieh end:
aed Statiael cosine nt fer abilltes arel the ottieea
he had held; ,atel whatever Wa'i his situation now,.
the services li4 had before rendered should et. least
prociire hint the rights iind privileree; ealieh wane
allevaed to evary Bratish reer, and every prit'attl ill lii,
the first of Which. was the; right at a fair trial.---
lirs
tQVlbieilehlalea cita.)ynteilipectbliamt
omritt.),reisiii.,ib.iltgaratt,teiL.l.o.eittaistfiiievely'a
its
the eulogiitm pronounced by izis Right Hen.Triend
on, the tamirts of. Law.. It a Cripinal. Proseciltien
shoald be resorted :to, he meta reaTy to ailoe, thea
frern the eharaCter Of the Judges,.their leareine, ta-
lents, attention, and rectitude, the Tribunal before
which it was to be tried was the first in the world.
But this was a case that could not be se aatisfaaerilv,
prosecUted in a Court of Law. The striEtness of'
the forms of Courts of Law gaie rise,to
ties- and embarrassments which would not exist
under. the simple proceeding by' Impeachment,
If Lord Melvitle was prosecuted criminally on the
Asimple charge uf permitting Tretter to violate thee
.of Parliament, the Prosecutien in that in
be simple enough. The ten thousand pounds
confessed by Lord Melville to be owing by him
in 1786 , may also be distinffly made the subje4,
theotof-ap rdoCid%oecuctiruttii :so,nfic..Lt alf
Egeiirtnaal:e:srit:iieaPtstiintiede. titiffiTinefri:lai ittYes),%.lllllYlitTisi(l
money taken. • The most important 'matter
p
in
oothiltialilpralvaofiastoeslea,F;llpalertoitehoet rboyfl. aolaid this
MsTheorolu\ltdlls.reiw s y
formable, to the words of the ehage. It would
be necessary to enter into .an investigation of
the accounts of Trotter. • E.very one knew the
diicifcfiocturillttes', thatb hall
il)eto artiteitti(ileedc,:tohneirunitisrsai,‘),ll..;ern itstg of these
ofNaval
Inquiry and the Committee at the House of Corn.
mans ; how often it was necessary to examine,

Trotter,. and , to have lira up clay after day to ex-
How was: it possible all this could b done
Ina common trial in the CoartS of Law, which sel-
dom took up more than ten or twelve, or at most
94 hours Though the tO,OOOl. would be attend.-
ed with difficulty' in a Court of taw, it may easily
be ineluded in an Impeachment, under which every
part of `the criminal matter may be sifted to the
bottom. It. Would be :,severe to Lord .Melville
if he was guilty ;. it would be advantageous,
to,birn if. he was innocent. • It would do justice
More amply between himand the, Public, than the
other coure; It would be the. most effeaual means
cf discovering the trnth,• the' whole truth, and no.,
thing bit the 'truth. Another. important Consider-
anon •:was, the vast prejudice spread far and wide
against Lord Melville; with an industry never be-
fore.known. Papers, were circulated through the
whole'Peopld; stating, that the,Pablic had suffered
to 'the amount: of hundreds of thousands, that the
Seamen were defrauded,of their pay, and the Public:
burthened with additional millions rn consequence
.of the peculation' and embezzlement of Lord. Me-
lville. He asked, whither, with such a weight of
prejudice on the mind of almost every individual,
Lord IVlelvilla could he fairly tried by .a Jury ?
Ti:e Jurors in, Westminster Hall Were generally
• Composed of tradesmen and shopkeepers in West-
,. eninster, respe4able and upright men he was ready
to allow, but, most probably in this instance
Pressed with a prijudice. .•Widch they could not poS-
etiare On. the trial ; The noble persons' who
• would be judges on the Impeachment were least ac.
Cessible,to that prejudice, and the deliberation With
which the IMpeachment would preceed would enable
Omni to exclude every improper impulse. For these
resumes he preferred impeachment, and he trusted
they would confirm the reasons on which the Hon.
Oentlemen who preferred Impeachment on a former
night grounded-their preference. He relied, there-
fore, on the support of A considerable majority
Of the House, of which these Honourable,,Gen-
tlemen would form a great part. Whatever de-
, ference ire had for those who supported the Motion
for a Crithinal Pkosecutinn, he must say they were
more respeCtable fee'naines than for numbers ; for
mitt of 40 Members present on that occasion, no
More than so voted for a Criminal Prosecution as
estarasted Witji Itripeachment, . the remainder of.
those who voted for it, adopting it only in pre.
fees ce to the total cessation of all further Pro-
, 6ccution than that already had.— He would ask
trio =pricy of those who then iPoted foi the
Criminal • Prosecution, whether they knew. bf the
usage he had stated, whether they knew that the
case of Lord Halifax was tho Only instance of devia-
tion from that usage ? He wotiid then ask“
ther an' ilicidental decisionshoUld tie ennsidered final
in a else of so much importance to the Ifiteresti bf
the Public, to the charaeter and consistency of
Parliament, and to the.privileges of the Peers ? It
rnay be asked, how those who Voted against Jill;
petchtneot on the former night could vote for it
now? As an argument ad hontinem this was strong;
but when it was considered that this else involved
the interests of the Public, the privilegesof the Nett;
and the justice due to the a mere per=
-soual arg4unent shOuld not bee restraint from adopts.
ing the usage of the. House. He admitted, a Rests
luttoe of the House once formed should riot be light-
ly rescinded.. *it when it was proper to change a
Resolution, it would be very erroneous to adhere to it
against rivson ibr the sAltd of mere consistency..
lhose who. contended on the former night for a Cri-
minai Prosecution had prior Resolution to remove
they contended that that Resolution should he rescind-
ed for the cause which they'shewed. Cr*.stild there be
a stronger cause that) he had hewn fotrescinding the
Otetien for erosecating criminally, than that it was
formed without due deliberation ? He believed four-
s.
fittlis of the Hoese were now of opinion, that LW,
Nadel-tent was the: fittet mode of proceeding, the
• most becoming the charaaer of the House,' and the
best. calcialated for substantial juAice. 'Would it not
then be better to adopt. it than to persevere in a
course to be erroneous s He again stated,
that the only. motive why those who originally
wished for
..impeklanent voted for the Criminal
Proserao .was, a fear 'esti:here should otherwise
be no, Proseention at all. The Motion for, the .Cri-
minal Prosecution was a precedent for - offering a
V4ssoletiort opposite to a foriper one. He had little
knowledge of Lord Melville or his connexions, and
was induced to bring forwaid this Motion purely from
a regard to substantial justice. He toncluded by
trioviog, that the Heise should proceed against Lord
Melville, by Impeachment, for his several Offences,
and that the Attorney General be dire aad. to stay
proceedings in the Criinitud Presecotion.
,1108 08 U lV seconded 'the Motion.
Xle regr'etted that an Impeachment had net been
resorted to in the first instance. lie confessed, that
when he road the Tenth Bereirt be thought Lord
Melville ought to be impeadied, and he was sorry
the lion,. Gentleman Opposite (Mr. Whitbread) died
not moved that Measure in the first instance. He
'concurred in the first Resolutions because he
thousate Lord Melville deserved punisthiLene for
what appeared in the Tenth Report. - was
after.' ards one of those who -voted, for a CiVil Suit.
If consistency was the principal thing to be looked
to, why Was that departed frosts ? He voted for a
Civil Seit, considerieg the Censure efthe House a
crifoinal punishment. Here the Honourable Ba»
tenet road a passage from Blackstone, where the
proilriety of -Peers being judged by their Peers is
insisted on from their being- obnoxious to popular
odium, and: therefore likely to 'suffer by the pre
indices of Juries:l and from its being an essential
principle of the Constitution, that every should
• be tried by his Peers. It ever there wail i case in
which the Public was strongly, erejudiced - it was
this, Ho liked that • the -public jealousy should
he routed whee there wsss reason to think the public
monev had been oanbezzled or abused, . But he
thooeht it right that the persons accused of this crime
should have that fair trial which was the right of every
sefsje6t whatever Vl as charg;.el against liana On theSe
„ teels he preferred the Impeachment.
Mr BOND offered himself thus 'carly to the at-
tention of tile House, because his Hon. aid Learned
Friend iropc,iched the Resolution which he had the
honour of proposing.
ma) 'Whatever weaknes.s there
11311 C been in the arguments he had' offered to
the Muse in support of that Resolution, or in his
mode of urging those argumOts, there was now at
least one -irresistible argument for adhering to the
I.l.o‘xtitiings rtsiornmended by hint---that it was a.

Resolution of the House. He ecluld easily give
credit to his Honourable Friend' for the best tuOr
tives ; but with .every„respea -for him, he vas
at a loss to conceive that conld-be the particular
motives that induced his Honourable Friend te
bribg forward this Motion, after, the substance of it
had been decided upon by as large a meeting as
ever remembered; after his Honourable FrieneFfiad
himself voted against it .for it could not be de.
nied that it was in the -power of his Honourable
Friend, and those with whom he had' voted that
night to force the Impeachment if they had wished
it. lt was, therefore, matter .of sUrprise that any
of them should come forward to impeach deliberate
proceedings of the Hose, and to substitute for it
One which they themselves, had ,decidedly opposed.
He did net venture to' propose the Resolution for a
Criminal Proceeding till he; had, on the fullest de-
liberation, convinced himself that it was the best
adapted to the case. Every, consideration lie. had
been able to give the subjeCt since, and every thing
he had .heard in conversation upon it, Confirmed
him in that opinion ; yet he could give the
fullest assurance, that if the Meuse had - preferred
Impeachment, he, with all the conviCtion of the
propriety of 'a Criminal Prosecution, would think
that the Resolution for an Impeachment ought
to be Adhered to. He would now give some
,•reasons why he preferred a Criminal Prosecution
to an Impeachment. And . first, he conceived it
a clear principle of Parliamentary Law, that the
HoUse was at liberty to proceed either by Cri,
minal Information or, by Impeechmente as it saw
reason to prefer the one or the other. No Statute
interposed to prevent it, there was no analogy
arising from the Common LaW, no deduelloa,
from any legal principles, to render it improper.—
He, therefore, considered botleas completely open,
and held himself at liberty to'diresa his mind to
the investigation of which was to be pretisrred, He
admitted there had been no, in :stance Of, a Criniie
nal Proceeding against a Peer bet that. of Lord
Halifax ; and, therefore, his Honourable Friend
had, it: was true, but a solitary Case- to, argue
against. But he would ask, Whether there was
any thing wrong in that case ? Was there any Prie
vilege of the Peers violated ? The Peers were awake
then, and able toguard their privilege:sit they ehottglit
'them trenched upon; but that never occurred to them.
Was there now any violation of nriyilege ? Did even
the Noble Lord himself make any such ohjeCtion ?
There was nothing of the kind in the. proceedingS al-
luded to as the were entered on the Journals., It
appeared that 'there was merely some diflictilty'of
form arising out of the peculiar circumstances of the
case. The usage proved that Parliament geperally
.pteferred Impeachment ; but it did not she's,/ that
there was any thing improper in a proceeding by
Criminal Prosecution. The `usage did not prove
that this proceeding contravened any principle of
lxw. The grounds on which he proposed a Criminal
Weisecution were some of them greater, settle of
less importance. Heproposed it because the proMpt,
vigerow, and efficacious proceedings of a Court of
Crimieal Justiee was infinitely e superior to the
cumbrous, slow, and harassing process of lm-
peaehment. He was ready to allow that there were
many.oses in which Impeachment would afford a
remedy when no other course woidd. -„ But lie could
not hesitate to say, that wherever the case was fit
for a Jury, when the subjeet came within their grasp,
he would prole:eat trial by Jury to the more tedious
iiiid harasaing farce of Impeachment. All who
`knew any thing of Impeachment,ktiew the various
steps that it allowed, to be taken in vexation of the
person under prosecutiene. A greater lapse'of time
weekl bse necessary before we could arrive at Int..:
neacliment ; for though the Criminal 'Prosecution
eould not be put ie train bObre the Tetm in the
end of the year,' an Impeachment could not ptee.
sibly be prepared before the next Seision. Then it
would be. to be considered whether it could be
immediately proceeded on, consistently !with the
• public business, or whether the 7.oblic business
should give way to it. This would give riseto va-
rious discussions, involving the individual, anti 'rills-,
ins a ferment most disagreeable and injurious to
him, a thing Which nobody could wish to exist.
Impeachment was the mode of trial proper to be re-
sorted to by the Government, of the State, or of its
fcailonies, whertenerseerere charged with crimes in-
volving oppression and tyranny, and the great clues.
don of peace and war: ; it was impossible that com-
mon. Juries could be fit Arbitrators of such .important
cases.' But 'was this one of dime great and compile
cited cases that could not be comprehended by a
Jury His Learned Friend said, it would be neces-
sary to go bite Trotter's accounts. He alloWed that,
would be a 'matter of difficulty if it: was necessary.
But, in his, mind, it would net be
.necessary to esti-
;wile, in pouhde, shillings, and 'pence, the degree in
which Lord Melville ntay haee participated in the pro-
fits otMr. Trotter Was this ease agreet State aiffir,
which it was eeceskiry to' tell in the Peen; to form a
judgment upon? bid 'the defenceeof the Noble Lord
make it Matter of State, when he said. tie Would
give no account of the manner in which he had ape
plied the large stuns unaccounted for ? In his ript-
ides:l, instead of making it matter of State, that
deelaration Made: it snore fit 'foe CriMinal Pro:seen-
lion. The Hon.Gentleran sell, shopkeepers we
not fit persons to pronounce on a • case of this
kind The pergons ,who would compose the. jory
would rioebe of that description This would not
be a Common Jury cal(' it would be a 'Trial at. Bar,
before four Judges, at the head of whom was a Peer
of Parliament capable of incindieg the considera-
tiers such circumstances of State .as the thew. may
itisolve. The Jury would be in theneture of td Spe-
cl:ll Jury -composed of the Gentleinen of the County,
and if the Members of that Hou,4e w6.:,aclexplate to
form a judgment on
,the case,' tie did net see why
these Gentlemen were oot • equally qualified; not-
withstaieling ally- matter circulated to the prejudice
of Lord Melville, he would not Alma that any miss
relneatlltetiou or Calumny- thus spread abroad could
make such on irnprestion on a Jury so.constituted,
and before Judges of sited I:cliiiriutter, as that they
could not form a tamed perfee.kly-cometee at and
capable of a full fair investigation, correct
decision. If the con eerSion : the. 0,0001, were
carried back as far as it could probably be; it could
not be placed before the iACtasfs PediaMent. . Could
his Hots. Friend say.; Att• the sakiry had been in-
creased, there was impropriety us this conversipo
Fre tinsted that. would :hot- argtied before an
Enylish.fury and ti Court so constituted as theeCeere
4eugh, The buy would hays) to pro,
a

swum simply, eatheflier Istird Melville was revilty
arlnnocent ? if the trial should reach that stage,
he aruated he ' *mild have -credit for--aaaaalilit, as
match any friend of Lord Melville, that the vela
dia May be a verdict of acquittal. - litho trial should
teach that stage, much would rest with 1161-udkaa---
and would not the Judge, in that case, take into
consideration every thing that could alleviate ? He
could not say, he would take into consideration the
inerits of his former services, but he would.
take into his view `every consideration of State,
and allow every alleviation flowing from these
considerations. He considered a Criminal Pro-
sacution as a Mode of proceeding much more le-
nient, as more likely to suffer 'the accused to escape,
if guilty ; but on the • humane principles of the
Common Leal', which atipposes' every man inno-
cent till he is proved guilty, 'and therefore lenient in
submitting his case to a fair and expeditious trial.—
Every man knew that equal Law was the first prine
ciple ofjustice' in this Country. The beat Mode of
proceeding was to be decided on a comparison of
the circumstances of the existing. case with the, re-
medies each mode of proceeding afforded. - Oa this
comparison a Criminal Prosecution was, in his mind,
the' best in the present , instance. It was the best
from the consideration due to the state of the party,
and.from the nature Of the complaint. The excuses
that could he offered would all haVe tine weight in
apportioning thejudgnient,. a eonviaion should
take places' On all these consideratiOns; his mind
was still unchanged from the determination it had,
taken on the fornish. night. But this . was the least
part of the qiiestion. The greatest and most mate-
nal 'consideration was, whether a Resolution deliber
ataly agreed uppn by a great majority of the -House,
in the fullest Meeting ever known, was te be rescind-
, ed on a notice of 24 hours ? On this ground parti-
enlarly he called on Parliamentto assert its charaEter,
to take care not to exhibit the, Miserable speaaele of
changing inconsiderately its, most deliberate Resolu-
tions, and to leave it in the power of any one to,
overturn the most solemn decisions, on a notice of
aa hours.
Mr. LaveraTia, in explanation, stated that, .he
had represented the trial :by Impeachment only as
more analogous to the:Coostitutional and established
praait:e of Parliament; then the trial by Criminal'ln-
formation. '
Mr. Beam had not imputed aiiy other sentiments
to his Learned Friend.
The SO LICITO.Ii GENERAL observed,,that the
Right Hon. and Leitned Gentleman had expressed
his surprise that his Learned Friend. could have
brought his mind 'to entertain such a proposition as
that he had submitted to the House. If any shame
belonged to the opinion he was sorry for it, .because
he was equally liable, to a share in it from entertain-
ing the same Opinion with hiS Learned Friend. If the
Motion of his Learned -Mina were to rescind Rea
solution which the House had'' deliberately and di,
realy come to, he should agree with the argument
of the Right Dori, Gentleman, that it ought not to
be reacinded. But he could not help expressing his
aurprise at the grounds upon which the Motion of his
Learned Friend had been opposed. He should de-
tain the' House but very shortly, for reasons which
he should state on the qUestion, whether the Im-
peachment, or the trial by Criminal Information was
'the most desirable ; because, solar as he could, ascera
taint a great Majority of the House appeareetto have
declared in favour of the Impeachment. It had been
urged that the condnEt of Lord Melville had been de-
lerided as not being a violation 'of law, and that the
Learned cent. on the Bench below him (the Master
~of the, Rolls) had so argued; But that had not been
the case; neither the Right 'Hon.. and Learaed Gen-
tleinan, florally other Lawyer, taking the Resolutions
of the House of o)lntrions for granted, could deny
that
,the application of the public, money to purposes
of private profit was a violation of thelaw. It was a
different question how'far the lodging the money at'
a private Banker's for Navy Services only was or was
not a breach-of law; It had been assigned by his
Learned Friend as a reason for preferring the Irra-
peachmenta that the period of the advance 'of the
.tO,OOOl. ant being known the investigation of. that
faa might.create embarrassinents in the Prosecu-
tion in the King's &niche and the Right Hon. and
Learned Gentleman dontended, that no- man could
deny that that was a breach of law, since the ad-
vance had been' made after the IlesOlutions 'of
.the House in 1782. •He should not discuss that
question nows but would -rather rcier it for exami-
nation to a trial by
.Impeachment thanait a Court of
Law. AS to the question now before them, he should
' Make 'but a few observations upon 'it : The Majority
had declared' in favour of an Impeachment, and it
was only bra tisrm that the other mode of proceed-
ing had been .snperinduced. The Impeachment had.
been first moved by the Hon. Generalan opposite
(Mr, Whitbread), on which the Amendment was
preposed by the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman
sfor a Criminal Prosecution by the Attorney-General.
The forms of the Reuse required the question to bee
put, that the words proposed to be left' out remain
part of the Motion. All WhO preferred the Impeach-
ment of course voted in the affirmative, which
amounted to a diroCt judgment on their part in favour
of Impeachment. The number was 195, who find-
, itt themselves driven out of the Impeachment, and
thiolting that the Criminal Prosecution by the At-
torney General was better than none at, all, voted
for the Amendment with those: who, preferred the
Prosecution by Information. The: number that voted
fbr .this qneation was 238, from which deducting the
95 who had preferred the Impeachinent, there were
but 43 who preferred the Prdaedution by informa-
tion: - Still he admitted that the Impeachment had
been, in form, negatived. There Were many ques-
tions on which the sense of the House was coiled-
ed ; but this, whether -the Impeachment, •or the
Prosecetion by Information, was prciLT;tble, had ne-
ver been directly submitted to the consideration of
the nose, He allowed that the House had decided
that some Crimival Prosecution should take place,
though it hover had determined which was to be
preferred. The form alone stood in their way.
The Right_ Hon. and Learned Gentleman had argued
that- it would be a proof of 'wavering and' vacilla-
tion in their decisions, if they were.- to rescind a
Resolution - that had: been passed in so full a House
on the 13th of June. If. the Majority of that flail
HodSe 'hattdetidedi on the question, which mode of
Pteaectstiou .was to be preferred, he should' yield to
the paesaure. of such attargument e but no such do-
cument had yet been made, If they wee to take a
retXospeEt of the proctedinge and to go back to the

r a .11111C41. 11'4

, . .•
circumstances of the discussion, it would appeal'.
the majority t;f those who had delivered Any opilio
On the subjea had preferred the
for the Impeachment, IX
which reason he should vote Mution of hi'
Learned Friend..
Mr: .13ANKES appealed to the Speaker, la 1
first instance, and next to those whq had more Pa'
liameatary experience than himself, whether they
I not got into A line in which they could not pro-
Ceed consistently with the forms of :Parliament, kli
had always thought that it W 35 contrary to their
pra6tice to entertain two corm
roceolo
at the same time.. Accordiiigto this rale he voi 1.1
°Pillion, that the Motion of the Learned Gentieevi
could not be put till the former Resolution oftllc
House 'Should. be discharged. The pr.ecqd'it I.°
had been referred coin the proceedings ackipted the.
other night did not apply, because the qeeitinFil
that occasion was, whether a Civil Procesi' any 3
Criminal Prosecution could be carried on at the see
time. • The question now was, whether eke Criipi
nal forms of Prosecution could he proceeded.olP
together? This he took to be contrary to the,ro
lie
of Parliament, but he appealed to the aatli4
of the Chair.
Mr. Slid KER, from the appeal that luillfpil,
made to him, felt it to be his duty
.to state to th
House that from the manner hi which tli!Motio,l
was • framed it consisted of two parts, Elio, haterpti4
?f,which went to ao Away the Resolutions 0t11':,4
House on a former occasion. Those parts of
~,
Motion might undoubtedly be separated, 34.4:j'
,often the praaice, if it should be the pleasueiot::,l.
but
on. Gentleman to make a ,Metion to that h'
unquestionably until sUch - Motion sr
timade, it WoUld be his duty to put the irt.r
le Motion as it had been originally proP°4l% let
Mr. BA NK ES then resumed. '1 he flout 0
called upon without any reason llSSigoed, 'oll(`uria
a notice which he should call rather a urpri,eio,
rescind a soleMn Resolution on one .of the i')Qt.,ii
PPltsttoonhae.pal;tptafih'taoti°temsetilier.lglcg,olSiatluitil'ibendlisaetitear..SlCtUe3:::thilouantti°eilft‘l%;wl°licoccit'cilit:ill;ere:l.l4th°lelsaeltiti";eadnt:cr:ltitc:
dent slitin)eherldcii_ebeceisli established Of rescindieg a ilailit it
ocAeufnisttetsehirroetttai.Session, twenty-fouri;2nli)jil
eleoucaLSteonwObteiilc:dtiist‘ii:tellil.:l7i'lljc::
on a
° I.
isnli°( Otfu ltedhne.
of another House, by the proceeding th3t 14'1 kio
vot A by that House ; but if ally doubtg of 1101,0
night bad'
existed, he thought the • matter wall°, be bari,i:l7c
place, and
regularly before thorn, that ,cohfcreuces vvo
...1
relativeiad heard.tc,thetlBl, .iiii°lll:lltitglilgtil)elitrel'!v:iielliireieg'ilinctr,dr'plesillorl7;i:u7i,
demanded, and the question derarroined. ia.,,,3; d
manner as' would secure the hereditary Prirn'Y, fee
that House,. and: the ends of,public justice.
ti
01,.,;0
had been given of a Mojen to resehid a ,ori.
t
Resolution of the House. on one of tiler'. `)satitei'►:tiollt
yeelatpisedvisailr
oentillye
yttcoursitisloyn
liif et. 01104
ant questions that ,had ever ellgtlgO It_s•Ljj'er
hat could the People think,of their 1°,;'1,0,/t
they should, With such levity, and 'Y''''t,,a afte
ground alledged, rcseind a •Itesolution OLT ot
tits
Motion ? Odeitthey t
so c:viirocariearc:::tro4lil:l.
sl.l..'lcohusgertao.7loaoleocr.tiioloussodiscussion ? 911g.,J1toi tO
nspal ft
promoted
that
D ta et:lui
btfe
yr:,
aom
dr
opt:r
toe
incdegeleu
d.' el
it::
who brot4lit .ttir L, th 4
were following 'sufficientguide ? A tagj°,l',e sy'id!
House had voted certain lesolutions, sin,`oir
it)ettl:tialr:l"l jill'e' (A 111,116;;
new matter had 'come out hOth.before rho Sr_,Jbir
self. Was there not enough in this ridw ', ? lilc,
Learned Gentleman who had bruu:f,lit 0:00 to.
question, had said that substantial justic„,„t it 1,
thatrrater Giaeln,tooectnatainsideorn,
bwoilitiiha3tPethr;eidfP9thetls.rtre.::::).riblele;;lstil,‘ltet:olll;,'
that
they who supported it either t I lon•oCs;i1 opg'
concurrehee, or that of any of the Get? .'e'reld:;
whose auspices be biought forward 1'5,1)).d ail, .• ,
tion ? Did they not reprobate both ? - 11,.10 0, tfilej.•
represent the. steps that ' had be e° taker 0 111
mature ? Did they not say, that becati.•ll to ; .
lwiadhaatd,odpidtetdhoenie.l:e.asure, which they O''. ,coivi 1
punishment, it was.not jest to inthd il.;ill not! ' •
To be consistent, be3ollUdgillteltrti)l.l%aoQl'e°7ltll4e!lili!TV6l4'il''
should rescind all that it had before
,-i; fur:
hipnP)
rojisoolia,cilieet,
tec:l6cit(tic principle;nt.,
vwtr
.withoutab:cil
.a:si:e.
tint b.
fiotiut
icti,dtti:t. bit' ler:/,' , `,.
~,,:;,...: r,l%)e ;it;
ii.
I:6ltti,::,
tleman dire&ine. the 140tVe tO 01143 PlIS‘. Ottr
PP
he was not inclined 4O 1611(4 the Paw i„,o'l
Lord shotild tbleelslaeicn:ltilaillt.et'eglhilt°Cit.islnie. It
41elibisu;iiiit'Illit:f:' - jit',l,le:.''''l''' it.
former habit of acquaintance wita r decision „,e
most sincerely rejoice. The sPL'ec Y,roe 11061;••
Court of Law vas a great hart
Court of eeit a ,
c,,,,i
tnent was tedioUS, and the instaiiL.,?.
~,00,, of. ,;1i!,
Hastings, White!' was io the rect,l,l,‘"c2; to reso,tiv.
Gentleman, would make him enwlio'te 6, GI to
e•ent 0 V , .
that mode, of trial, if another sul'6.l ~1 to
ii
i an tia,4 ' -AP'
adopted. The Learned Gentwol a ten tO
1 rods, au 0,.
the solitary preeedent.on the o oar , _it. .13ut, foe
ed it as inauspicious from the re.',,i•
oo tip; 0d
niunerous.instances of liripcachol.'''' ,I bon lqoilt
nals, there were few cases 1.c.,.,11,,,;it to ,3151),f
at le.,ngth, or that had. been 0r(7,,0 jetL,:tr,
_Ol
decision. So . that he should
,I 1 ±0 "'fro) i•V's;-.4f,i)
the rose of the solitary. insPil'lor.b h 0,73: toi
the Prosecution 'by inforrnaticd,',._:eit, girth}. d oitll
inett6tuat instanees Of 1111Peacil:".1.0„enibe4,;,00
Mr. Histiugs, which lie alw4) 3
~, „ot, 0,.- ,oh
ea us to " OOP'. -4
regret, beCallSe, it rOlOll
trial. otf. 631,
jear;,,siacclP;;:
from that 'eonatitUtienal
from adopting the Impeachrhenh o,oiiia eites,,,
would have to decide the que°).:l4t„,i tho ,e,T3 ,i,e'
p;,..tent as themselves: Pl,' 'awll.e,goo.3 ii:icial
of popular prejudices and 111°." , but Pr tbereP)
,interwoi7eu 'with otir LiberitY,.24o.. Ws! 0,0'0,4
was . not the only sufferer r.2_,. was noer 3,OP'
remedy. for these prejudice. ,
the plioii. 00 Pad
right of challenge QII the part °L well o$ °! iity '., ,
the members of his Jury, as „ , „ti, a,l, ,f,„,0%,
He had telt 'a pho
of - the Prosecution ?- . A ban 1' 100
f ula ' rto ~..4F,
to
the Prosecution out ° coot Oi le:4
to be cornmitte.d to the tonvg, foe At tori_cori
able wind Learned Qeetleinon„.,,.k.itlea to 4
V.
ral), who, however, :cr-3$ rotjililit t° w00,1:,,,e1
and confidence. 1:1)0 Il°lltsbii Motieo, WlO t
ly cautious, in agreeing tc) _ A 4 tioc
feund that it was pro
poW4

i

~,.~-~