IMPEACHMENT OF LORD MELVILLE.

HC Deb 25 June 1805 vol 5 cc567-615

Mr. Bond stated, that the motion of which he had given notice stood next in order. It was a motion which related to a proceeding decided upon by the house, and grew out of that proceeding. Since his notice, he was apprised that an hon. and learned friend of his (Mr. Leycester) had given notice of his intention to move to substitute an impeachment of lord Melville for the criminal prosecution. It appeared to him that the motion of his hon. and learned friend ought to have precedence, for if it was possible the house could be persuaded to adopt such a motion, any discussion upon his would be nugatory.

Mr. Leycester agreed that it would be better for his motion to be first decided. The object of the motion of which he gave notice yesterday was, that the question relative to the mode of prosecution should again be brought under the consideration of the house. Perhaps it might be more convenient, and tend to remove some prejudices, which otherwise would arise as to the form in which the motion was made, if he stated what his motion would be. The motion he proposed was, that the house should proceed by impeachment against Henry lord viscount Melville, for the several offences charged in the 10th report, and that the attorney-general should be directed to stay the proceedings directed by the house on the thirteenth of June, when the subject was agitated. He was one of those who was of opinion that no further criminal prosecution should be carried on against the noble lord. He was of that opinion, because he considered that the resolutions passed by the house of commons contained in themselves a heavy censure and severe punishment; that he had been removed from an high and important office; that he had been degraded, and his name struck out of the privy council. He was of opinion, that to direct a further criminal prosecution would be to send him to a trial, which would have the effect of punishing him a second time for the same identical offence. The house had been of a different opinion, and nothing therefore was further from his intention, than to bring that question again under consideration. It had been decided, that a criminal prosecution should be carried on, and the house was bound to act on the principle it had adopted. If it had occurred to him, that the house had as deliberately decided with regard to the mode of prosecution—if it had occurred to him, that the house had formed a deliberative determination, he should readily have acqui- esced, and should not have given the house a moment's trouble; but he confessed, that, although his right hon. friend's amendment had brought forward the mode of prosecution, yet he was persuaded it did not occur to any, except those to whom he had communicated his intention, what the precise object of the prosecutor was. Upon a determination to be collaterally formed, and without much discussion, it appeared to him, that it would be highly improper to come to a final judgment, especially in a case which was to form a precedent. Upon this principle, he submitted the propriety of bringing the question again before the house. He should beg leave to consider how this would have stood if it had been res nova, how far the house would think it expedient to abide by its determination, and how far it was excluded from reviving the subject. As to the first question, supposing it to be a new proceeding, whether it would be better to proceed by impeachment, he confessed it did appear to him that an impeachment was the preferable mode. It was consistent with parliamentary usage, with the dignity of the house, with the rank and situation of the defendant, and led with greater certainty to substantial justice. Upon looking into the journals he found, that with respect to commoners, the usual mode of proceeding had been by an information filed by the attorney general. With respect to a peer of the realm, the usage was directly the reverse; for there were numerous instances of parliamentary impeachments, but no diligence he had used in searching into the journals had enabled him to discover an instance of a proceeding otherwise than by impeachment, except one, and that was the case of lord Halifax in 1702. It was to be found in the 14th volume of the journals, page 143. It appeared that the auditors of the exchequer had not examined certain accounts according to the directions of the 8th and 9th of William III. and an address was voted to his majesty, that he would be pleased to give instructions to the attorney general to prosecute. Afterwards a motion was made for the attorney general to state what proceedings had taken place. There was an entry in the journals to this effect: "The attorney general, in obedience to the order of the house, certified, that the exception taken by the defendant's counsel had been allowed by the court of exchequer." The exception was, that the words, as laid in the information, were in the affirmative, that he did examine the accounts, instead of being in the negative, that he did not. How the prosecution came to be in the court of exchequer he knew not, unless it was on account of the noble lord having been an auditor of the exchequer. With this single exception, the precedents the other way were uniform; there was not an instance of a single proceeding against a peer except by way of impeachment. When usage had so long established a mode of proceeding, it was extremely dangerous to depart from it, except on solid and substantial grounds. In the present case, there were many reasons why it should not be departed from:—the rank and station of the defendant; the respect due to the high order of which he was a member; and the consideration that the trial of an accused person before his peers, was more consistent with the spirit of the constitution. He therefore thought the usage should not be abandoned, except on extraordinary grounds. It was rendered more important that it should not, by the general curiosity and attention which this case had excited. In the next place, the noble person had not only filled the highest offices of government, but he had eminently distinguished himself by his abilities: every one must consequently agree, that he was entitled to all the privileges he could claim in a case in which every thing dear and valuable to him was at stake. For these reasons he conceived an impeachment preferable, and was convinced it would be productive of more substantial justice. He was ready to admit the exertions, the talents, and industry of those who administered justice in the court in which the criminal prosecution was to be instituted. If he had a suit, that would be the court in which he would wish to have it carried on; but there might be cases in which a court of common law was not the proper place to institute a criminal proceeding. There was a strictness in the proceedings of a court of law, and certainly in a case perfectly new, and of this nature, it was very probable there might be considerable embarrassment: undoubtedly a proceeding might be instituted, in which only some small part of the charge in the tenth report should be the subject of prosecution; for instance, the charge of permitting Mr. Trotter to Violate the act of parliament. In that case there would be no difficulty as to the proof—what the result would be it was difficult to state—perhaps there might be no difficulty as to the 10,000l. or in short any distinct charge; but when the house considered that it was not the ob- ject of the prosecution to enter into a part of the subject only, but into the whole, it must be evident that a proceeding in a court of law could not embrace the question at large. He thought the principal part of the charge would be the participation of lord Melville in the profits of Mr. Trotter. On that subject considerable difficulty must necessarily occur in a court of law. All the difficulties were entirely got rid of by an impeachment. There would be no embarrassment as to form. The articles of impeachment might be framed more loosely than an information. In the course of a parliamentary impeachment every thing would be probed to the very bottom, and there would be time to examine into every part of the subject. The proceeding by impeachment might be injurious to lord Melville, but it would only be injurious to where it ought. It would be injurious to him where he was guilty, and advantageous to him where he was innocent. For all these reasons, he thought it a more eligible proceeding, as it would afford a more ample opportunity of discussing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.—There was another consideration. Reports had been spread amongst all ranks with a degree of industry perfectly new, Papers had been dispersed from one end of the kingdom to the other. Prejudices had taken possession of the minds of the people of all descriptions; it was generally supposed that the country had been defrauded by lord Melville and Mr. Trotter of millions; that seamen had been defrauded of their wages; and that the public taxes had increased in consequence of their peculations. When he looked to the addresses which had been moved in every part of the country, he found abundant reason for thinking that they proceeded on the principle of the public having been grossly defrauded by lord Melville and Mr. Trotter. Now, he would beg leave to ask, whether the noble lord could be safe against the effect of these prejudices? If he was tried upon a criminal information, could justice be expected? Who were the persons by whom by would be tried? They were the tradesmen and shopkeepers of Westminster, doubtless very respectable characters, but men who would find great difficulty in getting over the prejudices excited in their minds in the short and narrow compass of a trial in a court of law. As far as he could collect the sense of the house when the question was agitated before, he flattered himself he should have the opinion of a great majority in his favour. He should not have presumed to have come forward with a proposition to cancel or alter a resolution of the house, if that resolution had been entered into after an ample discussion; if the whole of the subject had been adverted to, nothing should have induced him to have disturbed the decision. But how did the question stand? The principal question was not as to the particular mode by which the prosecution should be carried on, but whether there should be any criminal prosecution; and although the mode recommended by the amendment might have occurred to some, yet he would venture to say the generality of the house did not advert to it. He would ask those who voted against the impeachment, whether they had considered the comparative merits of the two prosecutions? Were they apprised of the long usage of parliament? That there had been no one instance of a proceeding otherwise than by impeachment, except in the solitary case of lord Halifax? If they had not so considered the question, he would ask them, whether, upon one hasty determination, they would wish it to be final, and that too, when it was to have all the effect and authority of a precedent, and establish the practice for ever? It might be said, how could those who had voted against an impeachment, now vote for it? This, as an argument ad hominem might be attended to: if the party accused was only to be considered, there might be some ground for such an argument; but there was a third party whose interests were concerned—the public, and the whole body of the peerage. He agreed that a resolution once adopted, ought not to be rescinded lightly; but in this instance he had the example of the house for what he proposed. On a former night, after a resolution had passed for a criminal prosecution, it was proposed to rescind that resolution, in order to substitute another for a criminal prosecution. He would ask, whether a more adequate cause could be assigned for rescinding a resolution, than that it had been adopted without the due consideration of the house, and when four-fifths of the house wished to substitute another? He hoped it was consistent with every view of substantial justice and the dignity of the house, to correct an error, rather than persevere in it. In bringing forward the question, he had discharged his duty: he had no personal acquaintance with lord; he hardly knew any of his relatives; he had but one interest, justice to the party and to the public, and that the guilt or innocence of the accused might be manifested according to the established rules of parliament. Actuated by no other motives than those he bad expressed, he should leave the question to be disposed of as the house should think fit.—The hon. and learned gent. then moved, "That the house proceed by impeachment against Henry lord viscount Melville for the several offences which appear, from the said reports, to have been committed by the 'said Henry lord viscount Melville; and that the attorney general be directed to stay proceedings in the prosecution which he was directed by an order of this house, 13th June, to institute against him."

Sir Robert Buxton rose to second the motion. He regretted that an impeachment had not been resorted to in the first instance. He confessed that when he read the tenth report he thought lord Melville ought to be impeached, and he was sorry the hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Whitbread) had not moved that measure in the first instance. He concurred in the first resolutions because he thought lord Melville deserved punishment for what appeared in the tenth report. He was afterwards one of those who voted for a civil suit. If consistency was the principal thing to be looked to, why was that departed from? He voted for a civil suit, considering the censure of the house a criminal punishment. Here the hon. baronet read a passage from Blackstone,where the propriety of peers being judged by their peers, is insisted on from their being obnoxious to popular odium, and therefore likely to suffer by the prejudices of juries; and from its being an essential principle of the constitution, that every man should be tried by his peers. If ever there was a case in which the public was strongly prejudiced it was this. He liked that the public jealousy should be roused when there was reason to think the public money had been embezzled or abused. But he thoupht it right that the persons accused of this crime, should have that fair trial which was the right of every subject whatever was charged against him. On these, grounds he preferred impeachment.

Mr. Bond said, he offered himself thus early to the attention of the house, because his hon. and learned friend had impeached the resolution which he had the honour of proposing. Whatever weakness there might have been in the arguments he had offered to the house in support of that resolution, or in his mode of urging those arguments, there was now at least one irresistible argument for adhering to the proceeding recommended by him—that it was a resolution of the house. He could easily give credit to his, hon. friend, for the best motives; but with every respect for him, he was at a loss to conceive what could be the particular motives that induced, his hon. friend to bring forward this motion, after the substance of it had been decided upon by as large a meeting as was ever remembered, and after his hon. friend had himself voted against it; for it could not be denied, that it was in the power of his hon. friend, and those with whom he had voted that night, to force the impeachment if they had, wished it. It was therefore matter of surprise, that any of them should come forward to impeach a deliberate proceeding of the house, and to substitute for it one which they themselves had decidedly opposed. He did not venture to propose the resolution for a criminal proceeding till he had, on the fullest deliberation, convinced himself that it was the best adapted to the case. Every consideration he 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 house had preferred impeachment, he, with all that 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 criminal information or, by impeachment, 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 deduction from any legal principles to render it improper. He therefore considered both as completely open, and held himself at liberty to direct his mind to the investigation of which was to be preferred. He admitted, there had been no instance of a criminal proceeding against a peer, but that of lord Halifax, and therefore his hon. 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 privilege of the peers violated? The peers were awake then to guard their privileges if they thought them trenched upon, but that never occurred to them. Was there now any violation of privilege? Did even the noble lord himself make any such objection? There, was nothing of the kind in the proceedings alluded to as they were entered on the journals. It appeared that was merely some difficulty of from arising out of the peculiar circumstances of the case. The usage proved that parliament generally preferred impeachment, but it did not shew that there was any thing improper in a proceeding by criminal prosecution. The usage did not prove that this proceeding contravened any principle of law. The grounds on which he proposed a criminal prosecution, were some of them of greater, some of less importance. He proposed it because the prompt, vigorous, and efficacious proceedings of a court of criminal justice, were infinitely superior to the cumbrous, slow, and harassing process of impeachment. He was ready to allow that there were many cases in which impeachment would afford a remedy when no other would. But he would not hesitate to say, that wherever the case was fit for a jury, when the subject came within their grasp, he would prefer a trial by jury to the more tedious and harassing form of impeachment. All who knew any thing of impeachment, knew the various steps that it allowed to be taken in vexation of the person under prosecution. A greater lapse of time would be necessary before we could arrive at impeachment; for though the criminal prosecution could not be put in train before the term in the end of the year, an impeachment could not possibly be prepared before the next session. Then it would be to be considered whether it could be immediately proceeded on, consistently with the public business, or whether the public business should give way to it. This would give rise to various to him, a thing which nobody could wish to exist. Impeachment was the mode of trial proper to be resorted to in cases respecting the government of the state, or of its colonies, where men were charged with crimes involving oppression or tyranny, and the great question of peace or war; for it was impossible that common juries could be fit arbitrators of such important cases. But was this one of those great and complicated cases that could not be comprehended by a jury? His learned friend said, it would be necessary to go into Trotter's accounts. He allowed that would be a matter of difficultly, if it was necessary. But, in his mind, it would not be necessary to estimate, in pounds, shillings, and pence, the degree in which lord Melville may have participated in the profits of Mr. Trotter. Was this case a great state affair, which it was necessary to call in the peers to form a judgment upon? Did the defence of the noble lord make it a matter of state, when he said he would give no account of the large sums unaccounted for? In his opinion, instead of making it a matter of state, that declaration made it more fit for criminal prosecution. The hon. gent. had said, that shopkeepers were not fit persons to pronounce on a case of this kind. The persons who would compose the jury would not be of that description. This would not be a common jury case; it would be a trial at bar before four judges, at the head of whom was a peer of parliament capable of including the consideration of such circumstances of state as the case may involve. The jury would be in the nature of a special jury composed of the gentlemen of the country, and if the members of that house were adequate to form a judgement on the case, he did not see why those gentlemen were not equally qualified; notwithstanding any matter circulated to the prejudice of lord Melville, he would not allow that any misrepresentation or calumny thus spread abroad, could make such an impression on a jury so constituted, and before judges of such a character, as that they could not form a tribunal perfectly competent, and capable of a full and fair investigation, and a correct decision. If the conversion of the 10,000l. were carried back as far as it could probably be, it could not be placed before the act of parliament. Could his hon. friend say, after the salary had been increased, there was no impropriety in this conversion? He trusted that would not be argued before an English jury and a court so constituted as the court of king's bench. The jury would have to pronounce simply, whether lord Melville was guilty or innocent. If the trial should reach that stage, much rest with should reach that stage, much would rest with the judge; and would not the judge, in that case, take into consideration every thing that could alleviate: he would not say he would take into consideration every thing that that could alleviate: he would not say he would take into consideration the merits 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 prosecution as a mode of proceeding much more lenient, as more likely to suffer the accused to escape if guilty; on the humane principles of the common law, which supposes every man innocent 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 principle of proceeding was to be decided on a comparison of the circumstances of the existing case, with the remedies each mode of proceeding afforded. On 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 be offered would have all due weight in apportioning the judgment, if a conviction should take place. On all these considerations, his mind was still unchanged from the determination it had taken on the former night. But this was the least part of the question. The greatest and most material consideration was, whether a resolution deliberately agreed upon by a great majority of the house, in the fullest meeting ever known, was to be rescinded on a notice of twenty he called on take not to exhibit the miserable spectacle of changing inconsiderately its most deliberative resolutions, and to leave it in the power of any one to overturn the most solemn decisions on a notice of twenty-four hours.

Mr. Leycester, in explanation, said he had not argued that the proceeding by criminal information was unconstitutional; but that the mode of impeachment was more consistent with our parliamentary proceedings.

Mr. Bond said he had not attributed to his hon. and learned friend any such doctrine, but had answered the vague ideas of others.

The Solicitor-General observed, that the right hon. and learned gent. had expressed his surprise that his learned friend could have brought his hon. 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 entertaining the same opinion with his hon. and learned friend. If the motion of his hon. and learned friend went to rescind a resolution which the house had deliberately and directly come to, he should agree with the argument of the right hon. gent, that it ought not to be rescinded; but he could not help expressing his surprise at the grounds upon which the motion of his learned friend had been opposed. He detain should the house but very shortly, for reasons which he should state on the question, whether the impeachment or the prosecution by criminal information was the most desirable; because, so far as he could ascertain, a great majority of the house appeared to have declared in favour of the impeachment. It had been urged that the conduct of lord Melville had been defended as not being a violation of law, and that the learned gent. on the bench below him(the master of the rolls) had so argued. But that had not been case; neither that right hon. and learned gent., nor any other lawyer, taking the resolutions of the house of commons for granted, could deny that the application of public money to purposes of private profit was a violation of the law. It was a different question how far the lodging the money at 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 impeachment, that the period of the advance of 10,000l. not being known, the investigation of that fact might create embarrassments in the prosecution in the king's bench, and the right hon. and learned gent. contended, that no man could deny that that was a breach of law, since the advance had been made after the resolutions of the house in 1782. He should not discuss that question now, but would rather refer it for examination to a trial by impeachment than in 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 by a form that the other mode of proceeding had been superinduced. The impeachment had been first moved by the hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Whitbread), on which the amendment was proposed by the right hon. and learned gent. for a criminal prosecution by the attorney-general. he forms of the house required the question to be put, that the words proposed to be left out remain part of the motion. All who preferred the impeachment of course voted in the affirmative, which amounted to a direct judgment on their part in favour of the impeachment. The number was 195, who finding themselves driven out of the impeachment, and thinking that the criminal prosecution by the attorney-general was better than none at all, voted for the amend- ment with those who preferred the prosecution by information. The number that voted for this question was 238, from which deducting the 195 who had preferred the impeachment, there were but 43 who preferred the prosecution by information. Still he admitted that the impeachment had been, in form, negatived. There were many questions on which the sense of the house was collected, but this, whether the impeachment or the prosecution by information was preferable, had never been directly submitted to the consideration of the house. He allowed that the house had decided, that some criminal prosecution should take place, though it never had determined which was to be preferred. The form alone stood in their way. The right hon. and learned gent. had argued that it would be a proof of wavering and vacillation in their decisons, if they were to rescind a resolution that had been passed in so full a house, on the 13th of junco. If the majority of that full house had decided on the question, which mode of procecution was to be preferred, he should yield to the pressure of such an argument; but no such decision had yet been made. If they were to take a retrospect of the proceeding, and to go back to circumstances of the discussion, it would appear that the majority of those who had delivered any opinion on the subject, had preferred the impeachment, for which reason he should vote for the motion of his learned friend.

Mr. Bankes said, that before he should come to discuss the question of impeachment, he should first submit to the chair such ideas as occurred to him on the point of proceeding, and as to whether the house was now in the proper, line. He always understood it a matter of parliamentary order that two different proceedings on the same subject, and contrary to each other, could not be entertained at the same time. This he always understood to be the general rule; and therefore he thought, in the present case, the house could not come to the adoption,of a new proceeding, nor entertain a question upon it, until it had fully disposed of the first. On a full view of question, in one of the fullest assemblies of members that had ever met within those and one of the fullest discussions that ever took place, the house had decided to suspend a civil prosecution in order to adopt a criminal one; and saw it was proposed to proceed by im- peachment, contrary to so recent and solemn a decision. He begged, therefore, to appeal to the chair, whether it was consistent with parliamentary usage to entertain at the same time two opposite proceedings on the same subject.

The Speaker, from the appeal that had been made to him, felt it to be his duty to state to the house that from the manner in which the motion was framed it consisted of two parts, the latter part of which went to do away the resolutions of the house on a former occasion. Those parts of the motion might undoubtedly be separated, as was often the practice, if it should be the pleasure of any hon. gent. to make a motion to that effect; but unquestionably until such motion should he made, it would be his duty to put the question on the motion as it had been originally proposed.

Mr. Bankes resumed, and declared his own opinion, founded upon all the experience and observation of which he was master, that two different criminal proceedings against the same individual, upon one and the same subject, could not, consistently with legal justice, or parliamentary order, be carried on at the same time. The house had already, after the most solemn deliberation, and fullest discussion, in one of the fullest meetings ever witnessed, come to a solemn decision upon this subject and now, upon the short notice of twenty-four hours, or rather surprise, the house was called upon to rescind that decision, and to adopt the mode of proceeding Which it had already rejected. He could not have conceived it possible, that the hon. and learned gent. who brought forward this motion, could reconcile to his own hon. feeling such a proceeding as, after what had already passed, at this late period of the session, and after half the members had left town on their private concerns, to bring forward a motion of this nature at twenty-four hours notice. If the house could suffer itself to be induced to adopt such a motion, he should not he at all surprised if, in twenty-four hours more, it should be again called on to rescind that motion also, and to abandon the proceedings against, the noble lord altogether. He had understood, from rumours out of doors, and some hints dropped within, that some attempt would be made, from another house of parliament to revise the proceedings against the noble lord; and that something in the nature of a conference would be solicited with that house, touching some of the hereditary privileges of the peerage being involved in the proceedings of the house against lord Melville. But without any previous intimation of any ground whatever, save the short intimation yesterday, for the house to be called upon to rescind its solemn decision, founded upon so many successive discussions upon the conduct of the noble lord, was the most indecent attempt he had ever heard of. What, he would ask, would the people of England say of such a, proceeding, a the house should be induced to adopt it? What sort of respect or estimation would the people of England attach a parliament thus wavering and capricious in its decisions? What opinion would the world form of its wisdom? Besides, it behoved the house to look with a jealous eye to the quarter whence the proposal came, and see how far the pure ends of justice were actually the motives of those who urged it forward. The hon. and learned member who spoke last, and was now so warm an advocate for impeachment, had ever until now spoke and voted against any resolution the house had adopted, either for the censure or crimination of the noble lord and this night justified his aversion both to impeachment and criminal process, upon the ground that the censure of the house was sufficient punishment. But did nothing new against the noble lord come out in the subsequent proceedings? Were there no new facts brought to light in evidence before the select committee? Did no new instances of criminality and aggravation come out even in that house? Let the house look a little at the conduct of the hon. gent. who was this night so urgent for impeachment? Did not he, and those who acted with him, uniformly oppose every proposal, from the beginning, for enquiry into the misapplication of public money, and the criminal conduct of the noble lord? Did they then propose impeachment for the pure ends of substantial justice? Did they not say, the first resolution of the house on this subject was quite enough? and did they not assert that it was unjust and cruel to proceed further? The case stood just the same, and what said they now? Why, that criminal prosecution was not the way to obtain substantial justice, and that, by impeachment, the guilt of the noble lord, if supported, would be more amply punished. But when he reflected on the principles of action, which had heretofore guided the hon. and learned gent. on this subject, he was not disposed to quit his path to follow him into new and intricate ways. He had no wish to violate the privileges of the peerage, but he was not afraid of any of those impeachments to justice, in the court of king's bench, that were not likely to occur before the higher tribunal. He had no fault to find with the mode of administering criminal justice in the courts of this country; and if the noble lord should he acquitted by a jury in his majesty's court of king's bench, his former friends and acquaintance might as fairly consider his character vindicated, and his innocence proved, as if his acquittal, should take place before the house of lords. But as to the proceeding by impeachment, the only instance at which the house was enabled to look within its own time (the trial of Mr. Hastings), presented no very favourable expectation that such a mode was best calculated to promote speedy and certain justice, or encourage him to prefer that mode of proceeding, there was another tribunal in the country which presented, in his mind, a more fair and effectual road to justice. Upon the journals of parliament there was but that one:solitary case in which impeachment had been followed up to any effectual issue; in every other case, parliament had failed on this head, and abandoned the proceedings from some cause or other. It was said against the trial by jury, that popular prejudices had been excited by clamour without doors: he admitted, and lamented the fact; but upon such subjects popular clamour was too closely connected with the liberty of the country to be effectually restrained. Lord Melville, however, was not the only delinquent exposed to such a misfortune; and it should be remembered, that if he was open to such inconveniencie, he had the valuable privilege of challenging the pannel, which every prisoner enjoys upon his trial; or of putting off that trial on account of the ferment existing in the public mind, as fats happened in a thousand instances, upon trials where challenges are made against jurors, either as supposed to be favourable to the prisoner, or who may have uttered opinions unfavourable to him. In the other case, those persons who are the friends and intimates of Lord Melville, may be the persons to sit in judgment upon him; while his political enemies, if any such he had, cannot be prevented from delivering their verdicts against him, without any power of challenge on either side; and therefore be thought the proceeding in the king's bench the most likely to lead to speedy and impartisl justice. But what opinion could the house form of the motives and principles of those who first vote against impeachment, then against proceeding by criminal prosecution, and now again come forward, and strenuously cry out for impeachment? Would the house suppose they were actuated by any wish for justice, or that they had any other motive than, some how or other, to attain their original object of screening the noble lord from any degree of punishment? If the house were induced to abandon their own decision, to adopt the mode now proposed, another occurrence might take place, which would effectually be a bar to justice, in the way of impeachment, but which would not be likely to have such effect on proceedings in a court of criminal justice. He, therefore, earnestly conjured the house not to rescind its own solemn decision, to adopt a proposition thus attempt by surprise, of which the house not only had not any timely intimation, but was completely thrown off its guard four days since by the right hon. and learned gent. opposite to him (the attorney-general) coming down to the house, and claiming instructions how to proceed; a question rather extraordinary, as coming from that learned gent. to the house as his clients; as it must be presumed his professional knowledge was sufficient to direct him in shaping an information upon the merits of the case laid before him. No instance of such conduct was to be found on the journals of parliament. The proposition, therefore, as it now came forward, was obviously a trick upon the house. In the absence of above half the members who voted for the measure, it was now proposed to rescind it, and no doubt those members would have attended in their places, had they had any idea of such a proposition coming forward. If the house was to countenance such a procedure, and create such a precedent, it was impossible to say what resolutions might not be rescinded in a similar way.

Mr. Leycester stated, that when his learned friend had gent. below him (the chancellor of the exchequer) had intimated that the question as to the mode of prosecution would then be brought under consideration and that alone without any other motive would have warranted his motion.

Mr. Bankes admitted the intimation or the chancellor of the exchequer, but appealed to the recollection of the house, whe- ther that had been considered as a notice; and if it had been a notice, why had the hon. and learned gent. thought it necessary to renew it the preceding day?

Lord Henry Petty, having been one of those who had felt it their duty to vote for the impeachment in the first instance, and afterwards for the prosecution by criminal information on the former occasion, felt it equally his duty now to give a decided negative to the motion. If he could assent to the motion. If he could assent to the arguments that had been used by the learned gent. opposite (the solicitor general), that they were now for the first time to decide upon the question, whether an impeachment or a criminal prosecution by the attorney-general were more desirable, he should vote for the impeachment. This however, was not case, and he begged to remind the house, that this motion was brought forward in consequence of a notice, which appeared only the preceding day on the books, the object of which was to do away a resolution that had been adopted by the house after a consideration of two months, and a discussion of two days previous to the decision upon it. This resolution had been adopted with every circumstance of the most formal solemnity of the proceedings of that house, with such peculiar circumstance of solemnity, as had attracted the attendance of the greatest number of members perhaps ever known, and fixed their attention to the discussion of the subject. These were the circumstance under which the resolution had been adopted, and that was the decision which the learned member now stated not to have been deliberately formed. He had with his feeble talents supported the motion for the impeachment, which had been urged with the whole weight of the talents and eloquence of his hon. friends near him, and yet the learned gent. had said, that the question relating to the mode of prosecution had not been that day discussed. He did not think the learned gent. stated this for the purpose of misleading the house, but certainly he could not think that the gentlemen opposite were ignorant of the question then under discussion, when he, a young and inexperienced member of the house, was perfectly aware of it. But there was another proof that the could not be ignorant of it. Had they not a warning concerning the vote they were about to give? Did not his hon. friend (Mr. Sheridan) call upon the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer to consider what might be the effect of the vote he was to give; that it might lead to a consequence he did not wish? was not this before the right hon. gent. had spoken? Had he spoken after? No: and yet he ought to have stated his reasons for having pursued the line which he followed.—The amendment had been to expunge the words of the original motion for the impeachment, and those who wished that no criminal prosecution Should take place, voted against the original motion with a view to get rid of both; and after the lapse of a fortnight, when from the state of the house it did not appear that the members present were half the members that had voted on that question, a motion was brought forward for rescinding it. He had voted originally for the impeachment as the most constitutional mode of proceeding, and on giving his vote for the prosecution by the attorney-general, he had not been influenced by any preference for it, but by a consideration that beneficial might result from it to the public. He trusted, therefore, that the house would, adhere to its decision, and that the decision of this year would hereafter be considered as a precedent.

Sir William Burroughs declared, that if the motion were to rescind a solemn resolution of the house, he should be the first to oppose it. In rising to support the motion of his learned friend, he supported what was the deliberate sense of the majority of that house. He asked the gent. opposite, and the noble lord, whether the resolution had been concurred in by the majority of the house? He appealed to the only evidence they could have, except the votes of the house, whether every gent. who spoke on the opposite side, not preferred the impeachment; he appealed to the chair and to the house, whether every gent. who had spoken on his side of the house, had not expressed a preference for the impeachment, if they were to choose? Had not the noble lord, who had so much distinguished himself by his talents, pronounced a most eloquent speech in support of impeachment, and had that speech yet been answered? could the noble lord, with all his ingenuity, answer it himself? The noble lord had stated, consistently, that he still preferred the impeachment. In the whole records of parliament there was but one instance of a prosecution by the attorney general against a peer, and was that an argument for adhering to a resolution, he might say, inadvertently taken, when such resolution was contrary to the practice of parliament from the earliest periods of its history? If they were to adherer to the form and not to the sense of the house, they, should decide against what was the opinion of a majority of near five hundred members. This motion was not to rescind a resolutions the house, as to carry into effect the sense of the vast majority of the members. By adopting the impeachment, they should get rid of the embarrassments that Would attend the other course. They all knew the ferment that existed, the mistakes and misrepresentations that had taken place, and if the trial by impeachment would not be so expeditions as that in the king's bench, was it not desirable that the trial should be put the ferment should be allayed? If the hon. gent. would consent to prosecute on the evidence and not to include the charge of participation, which would involve the investigation of accounts the matter might go to a jury. Any lawyer would admit that if any other mode of trial could be discovered, it would be preferable to that by jury, if the jury was to be adjourned, which must be the case if complicated accounts were to be submitted to their consideration. Impeachment was more consistent with the,dignity of the house, and with the rank and station of the delinquent. He called on the house to follow the sense of the majority, and adopt a course which, if they had come to the discussion unentangled by forms they would have adopted, that which was the sense of 400 members, in opposition to 43.

Mr. Charles Wynne rose and spoke as follows:—It is with feelings of the deepest regret that I rise to express my difference in opinion upon this very important subject from all those with whom I am connected; from those with whom it has hitherto always been my pleasure and pride to act from those who so much to their own credit and to the satisfaction of the whole country, have carried forward this great and momentous enquiry to the stage in which we now find it. I feel deep regret for the situation in which the house is placed called upon either to rescind a determination the most solemn, agreed to it perhaps the fullest house that can be remembered for many years, to rescind it in a comparatively thin house, upon a notice of twenty four hours, or to persist in a course which I cannot consider but as wrong, equally detrimental to the accused individual, and to the public who are the prosecutors. Between these difficulties are we placed, and it does not lessen my regret to find myself obliged to concur with those whose inconsistence in Voting contrary to what they have now declared to have been their opinion has so placed us.—It may be asked, why entertaining the objections to the mode of proceeding by information which I do, I voted for it on a former night? I certainly gave that vote with more reluctance and more completely on compulsion than any which I have given since I sat in this house; but I am satisfied that I did right, and upon a similar occasion should again give a similar vote: for great as are the evils of a proceeding by information, the evils of no proceeding at all are still greater.—I object to the precedent of a proceeding by information, as being equally unjust to the public and to the person accused. It must be carried on by the attorney-general, an officer appointed at the pleasure of the administration, over whom, from the moment we have directed the prosecution we lose all controul whatever; to the crown, and to the crown only is he responsible; it has already been determined that a pardon is not pleadable to a parliamentary impeachment; but what is to preserve us from the attorney general's being directed at any time to enter a nolle prosequi which would completely stop the proceedings now pending? Will gentlemen think after what we have seen, that in the present case such directions are wholly impossible? For the house of commons directing an information to be filed by the attorney general in a case of similar magnitude with the present, there is but one precedent, that of lord Halifax, and that certainly a most inauspicious one. At that period, the two houses were in a state of the utmost hostility, particularly upon the subject of impeachment, and at such a period only could such a measure be justified, and yet what was then the issue of it? Lord Halifax escaped by technical flaw in the information; a flaw which could not have vitiated articles of impeachment, and which it is not impossible was designedly introduced. It has been urged, that this proceeding is preferable to impeachment, as being less dilatory -and less expensive, and to prove this, the example of Mr. Hastings's impeachment is quoted. But that was a case perfectly anomalous from all others: an accusation comprehending the whole of the government of India for so many years. The number of witnesses which it was necessary to call, entailed a delay which could not in any other instance have taken place. But, is this only referable to the proceeding by impeachment? Would it have been pos- sible to have tried that case by an ordinary jury? We might as well object to the trial by jury in all future cases, because Hardy's trial lasted six days, as to the trial by impeachment because Mr. Hasting's lasted seven years, when in no former instance has any inconvenient delay taken place. But in the present instance I do not scruple to say, that it is probable that a greater delay would intervene before the proceeding by information could be brought to a conclusion than that by impeachment. The term is now nearly concluded, and the information not yet filed; with the utmost dispatch therefore that can he used it cannot be expected to be brought to trial before the month of February next, or, that in case of conviction, sentence could be passed before the month of May.—I prefer the trial by impeachment, because it is infinitely more solemn, more suitable, to the dignity both of the accusers and the accused; because it will bring him before a court composed of persons above all prejudice, capable of duly appreciating the importance of this case, and of every thing which tends either to aggravate or to alleviate the offence. But, says my learned friend, who originally recommended the proceeding by information (Mr. Bond), lord Melville will be tried, not by a common jury, but a special jury, composed of country gentlemen, of such men as sit in this house. Had such an idea come front any other member I should not have been surprised, but that it should proceed from my learned friend, who has seen what is the composition of the special juries of Middlesex, that he should talk of the tradesmen of Bond-street and the Strand as country gentlemen does, I confess, astonish me.—For the trial by jury I have as high a respect as any man; but there are cases to which it is wholly inapplicable, and this appears to me to be one of them. With the degree of popular ferment which always will exist, and which I am not afraid to say, ought to exist in a government so framed as ours, upon a charge of peculation, brought forward by the house of commons against a minister, to send him to trial by a jury, is to send him to a certain conviction. But in the present instance, the objections are infinitely increased. Besides the dangers which I apprehend in all cases from allowing prosecutions of this kind to be conducted by the servant of the crown, appointed by the crown, removable at the will of the crown, bound by oath to obey such directions as he receives from the crown, I feel particular objection to entrusting my learned friend, the present attorney general, with the management of this great and momentous prosecution. Holding the opinion which he honourably and conscientiously does, it seems to me impossible that he should conduct it in a manner satisfactory to me, or to the majority of this house, or the public. I know him too well; I know too well the high idea which he entertains of the duties of his office, to believe that any thing could induce him to aggravate an offence which he is directed to prosecute beyond what he believes to be its true colour and complexion. His opinion upon this subject has not been concealed; he has appeared as the open and avowed apologist of lord Melville. He has declared, that in this case he sees only legal guilt; beyond that point therefore, he will not, he cannot urge this offence. My opinion upon this subject most widely differs, and believing the guilt of the noble person accused to be of a much more heinous nature, I object to the trial being conducted by one who will understate the offence.—Such, sir, are the reasons which induce me to concur in the object of this motion. In many of them I have no doubt that most of my friends who will to-night vote against it concur; but they say, that the house having once adopted another mode of proceeding in preference to this, it must not now be changed. If this were only a question of convenience between two courses, either of which would lead to the same end, I should certainly feel that we ought to submit to considerable inconvenience rather than infringe upon the consistency of this house; but feeling as I do, that the former vote of this house has adopted a method of proceeding which is not likely to answer the substantial ends of justice, which may at any moment be stopped at the pleasure of the crown, which is likely to the sanction a precedent the most dangerous, and which is only preferable to no proceeding at all, I think it allowable, nay, even necessary, that the house should retread its own footsteps, and correct the error into which it has fallen. I do think, however, that this motion has been introduced with a very insufficient notice, and that it is most dangerous to permit the resolutions of this house, agreed to upon long consideration, to be rescinded without such a notice as may enable every gentleman to give his attendance. If this rule is not adhered to, the most fatal consequences are to be apprehended. It is not sufficient for the right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt) to state the reasons which induce him to think that the majority of the house, though they voted in favour of this mode of proceeding, yet were decidedly of opinion against it. In the validity of those reasons, I may not much differ from him; but if we once open a door of this nature, particular circumstances will be found in every case that can be stated, and the most solemn resolutions may be rescinded by surprise. Upon this ground, wishing that the present motion may be carried in a manner most decorous to this house, and most satisfactory to the public, I shall, although I do not know that any gentleman will concur sufficiently in opinion with me to second the motion, move, "that this debate be adjourned until Monday next."—The motion not being seconded, tell to the ground.

Mr. R. Williams said if he had been in the house when the first resolutions had been proposed, he would have voted for them. He afterwards voted against the impeachment and the criminal information, as he thought the punishment had been sufficient but as the house had come to resolution favour of the latter, he should certainly vote against rescinding that resolution.

Mr. Windham spoke at some length in favour of the resolution of the house for the criminal prosecution lord Melville. He reviewed the arguments on both sides, and expressed his opinion in favour of the impeachment, on the grounds which he had originally stated as a matter of preference, until the house had decided, by its vote, in favour of the other mode of criminal proceeding. No person would take upon him to assert that to proceed against the noble lord in the courts of law, was illegal or unconstitutional. The precedents for the prosecution of peers were very numerous in our history; and he Could see no argument that could be made out against the present mode successfully grounded on the objection of there being but a single case in precedent. He did not see that many precedents were necessary; and if the law were clear, certainly no objection cold be taken to the mode adopted, in point of efficacy unless there was a suspicion of mala fides in the party which was to carry on the prosecution. If it were said, in favour of impeachment, that less technical law was requisite for carrying it forward, it might, on the other hand, be objected, that there was, and would always be, no common law employed in the defence so that on the score of technical difficulty the difference between the two modes was less than might be supposed. With respect to other matters, such as the character and competency of the tribunal, he was rather inclined to think, that the learned gent. (Mr. Bond) pushed his approbation rather too far. He did not think that its fitness for cases of all sorts was quite so great as the learned gent. supposed; still, for much of what was connected with the present business, it might be sufficient. In fact, the offence of which lord Melville was accused, might rather be said to be the crime of a statesman, than a state crime. Though he should prefer the tribunal of the house of peers to a common jury, there might be nothing but what a jury might understand and decide upon. He could not however but think, that a tribunal which was not compelled to decide at one sitting, but might take its full time, would be the best to try the case of the noble lord. In this view of the case his opinion was decidedly for the house of lords. There was more dignity in that mode for all parties; and besides, though he meant no disrespect to the attorney-general, yet, individually considered, he could not think him the most proper person to Conduct such a transaction. He was very ready to admit all that had been said in praise of that learned gent.; but When it was said of him, that notwithstanding own opinion, he would conduct the business just as well and as conformably to the wishes of the house, as if his opinion had been the other way, he could not help thinking that it was rather equivocal praise. The learned, gent. certainly knew his own profession best, but to him it seemed an odd commendation of any one, to say, that in the conduct of a cause his own conviction went for nothing, and that he could argue just as ably and as strenuously in favour of the wrong side, as of that which be conceived to be supported by truth and justice. If such was the force of professional habits, it might be a reason with some for not belonging to the profession. Hoping however that that was not the fact, the known sentiments of the attorney general would be a reason with him for wishing to avoid a course of proceeding, when the cause must necessarily rest upon his exertions. Parties were allowed to challenge jurors who had delivered opinions of such a description as to proclaim their sentiments, and almost to anticipate their decisions upon questions ultimately to be brought before them; and really he thought it would be, at least, equally just to challenge and disqualify a prosecutor who had shewn a disposition adverse to the prosecution he was officially to conduct. The question seemed, however, not to rest upon these considerations, but to be reduced to the single point: is the house now at liberty to make the change in their proceedings which was proposed by the motion of to-night? It had been contended, that in doing so, there would be no contravention of the judgment of the house. An hon. gent. had contended, that the change now proposed was in conformity with the sense of the majority of the house. He did not think it necessary to deny this; but he would ask low the hon. gent. knew it? Was it from the proceedings of the house? What parliamentary ground had the hon. gent. for saying so? It might be collected possibly or inferred from matter thrown out in debate, from conversation, or from knowledge of parties; but certainly not from the proceedings of the house of commons. All questions could not be decided by the mere answer of yes and no, though that was the only mode in which the forms of the house allowed of their being put. It would happen in consequence, as it did in the present instance, that the choice of the house between the opposite sides of an alternative, was not declared, and therefore could not be assumed. Nobody was at liberty to assert that the house had a preference to this or that, unless such preference had been declared, which assuredly had not happened in the case in question. All that they knew by the acts of the house was that in determining the form of putting the question a majority had decided; that the measure of criminal prosecution by the attorney general should be proposed first; and that another majority had decided for the adoption of that measure. How did it appear from thence that the opinion of the house was in favour of impeachment? The house as respecting the present question, might be distributed into five classes. I Those who were against any criminal proceeding at all. 2. Those who would vote for impeachment, but for impeachment only. 3. Those Who would vote for prosecution by the attorney general, but for that only. 4. Those who preferred impeachment, but, failing of that, would vote for prosecution by the attorney general. 5. Those who preferred prosecution by the attorney general; but sooner than have no criminal proceeding, would be content to vote for impeachment. By neither of the divisions which had taken place, nor by the two combined, did it appear what the proportion was of those who wished for impeachment, compared with those who preferred the proceeding at present adopted; and therefore, no ground existed for saying, that this or that was the judgment of the house. He should, therefore, protest against all that sort of refinement of reasoning, founded upon the supposed or alleged difference of opinion with respect to the precise description of punishment. He would not allow gentlemen on the opposite side to play fast and loose with the house. The course was plain. The house had said, there shall be a criminal proceeding, and that by the attorney-general. He had originally voted that the question of impeachment should be first put, with a view of adopting that measure; and this for two reasons: first, that there might be some criminal proceeding; and secondly, because he thought impeachment the best mode. But when after so much deliberation, and so remarkably full an attendance, he could not yield to a proposal for changing that decision, founded upon a sort of comparison of the votes of different gentlemen. All that could be inferred from the votes , for the purpose of the hon. gent. was, that the mode adopted was considered to be better than no prosecution at all. A fortnight had now passed since the decision was taken, and the house was now called upon, at a short notice; with the attendance of such members as were upon the spot, to reverse its proceedings. From the loose and vague idea of revision thrown out, it could not be inferred that the learned gentleman's own mind was made up on the subject. No proper and timely notice had been given of the intention to reverse the proceedings. Gentlemen had now left town in great numbers, and it was only necessary to let the session run down a little longer; and upon this principle of change, the whole proceedings might be reversed that had been already taken, when there were just members enough to make up a house. The force of such a precedent would be an extreme scandal to the country. Gentlemen must think of the character of that house. His complaint against lord Melville was not merely that suffer the public money to be misapplied but that he had thereby brought all public men, and that house into suspicion, in circumstances which required that the public suspicion, so excited, should be satisfied. He had never said, nor could any thing but the strongest evidence ever bring him to say that the noble lord guilty of the grosser part of the offence laid to his charge but he was guilty of having brought himself into suspicion, and of having thus placed the house in a situation in which it was necessary for them to do whatever was consistent with justice, for the vindication of their own character. It was not necessary to suppose lord Melville guilty: he for one protested against that interpretation; it was sufficient that he had been in a great and culpable degree imprudent: and that this his imprudence had placed the house in the alternative of either sacrificing their own character, or of instituting such inquiries as those now proposed. The same considerations which urged them at first to engage in such an inquiry, must determine them to persevere in the mode now adopted, rather than to change it in a manner so irregular, so unprecedented, and exposed to such violent suspicion.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer rose and spoke in substance as follows: Sir, from the arguments that have been urged against the motion of my hon. friend behind me, it appears that the great ground of objection is that the house cannot consistently rescind its own resolution: there is something that puts it out of your power to attend to it. Now, sir, to come at once to the examination of these arguments, there is one point which has been rested upon grounds contrary to the fact; I mean the notice. In adverting to that notice, I would desire gentlemen to attend to the dates. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the 11th and 12th, the original question was debated in the house, and it came to a vote on the morning of Thursday the 13th. On that day there was no house, and on Friday it sat again, and entered upon that discussion in which I was particularly concerned. In the next week there were only three sitting days before the right hon. gent. behind me gave notice that he meant to apply to the house respecting some directions as to the matters referred to the attorney general to prosecute. When this was proposed, I would ask the house whether I did not distinctly say that the more I considered the circumstances of the case, the more my attention had been directed to it, the more I thought and the more I conversed upon it, I was the more convinced that an impeachment was a mode preferable to a criminal information. When the discussion took place on this subject, I ask whether it is not in the recollection of the house that I desired the hon. gent. to put off his motion till this day, in order to have an opportunity of considering whether the impeachment might not be thought the most advisable manner of proceeding? This indeed went to such particularity, that I distinctly stated to him that he must be aware that we could not agree to give any fresh directions to the attorney general relative to this prosecution, while we were of opinion that the mode of impeachment was preferable. I stated this with a view to assure the house that a motion was in contemplation for rescinding the resolution of the house for a criminal information, and substituting an impeachment, which the house, with a few exceptions, has already declared to be the mode most consistent with the privileges of the house of lords, and better calculated to attain the ends of public justice. This, sir, I have taken upon me to state to the house, in order to show that if it has not been forewarned of the present motion, that it is no fault of mine. It rests with gentlemen themselves to account for this subject having come upon them by surprise; if, as they say, it has in fact come upon them in this manner. This I am sure of, that they had the fullest opportunity to know, that it was proposed to revise the resolution which was passed for a criminal information. How then do we stand? Why, five days ago a notice was in reality given, that this motion was to be submitted to the notice given? Was it when circumstances was reason to conclude that the house would be thinly attended? No. So far was this from being the case, that a notice stood in your books for an inquiry into the state of the army, a subject which gentlemen have stated to be of the last importance, and which it might reasonably be presumed would command a full attendance of the house. What, then, becomes of the assertions of those who cry out against the preposition now before us, on the grounds that a great many members have gone to the country, who ought to he present at this discussion? But this is not all: the house was in fact in possess on of the notice on Thursday and Friday, at the moment whew the house was engaged in discussion the vote of credit and other points connected with it, points of the last in importance to the empire and even to Europe, and to which they attached so much consequence, that they proposed that parliament should sit all summer, in order to be ready to receive information concerning them. These were surely things that called for a full attendance of the house, and there was a full attendance. Upon what ground then do they complain that they are taken by surprise? Upon a mature consideration of the case. I trust the house will be of opinion that this is a complaint without a foundation. Why then, sir, this is the situation in which we stood, and these are the circumstances under which the notice, though not perhaps formally, was in reality given. If you are determined to insist upon the point of notice, let us see whether it ought to be considered as extremely necessary in this case from what has already passed upon it. (Cries of hear! hear! from the opposition.) Really, sir, I should be glad to know what there is ridiculous in that. Do gentlemen mean to assert that no measure is to be carried without a specific notice long before? Let us look to what has been done on the resolution of impeachment. On the very day when that resolution was moved, an amendment for this criminal prosecution in the king's bench was proposed, without the smallest previous notice to the house to give gentlemen time to consider the point, without the smallest information that ought to be allowed in courtesy to the person accused, without any intimation that such a thing was to be brought forward, and this amendment was moved too as a matter of lenity to lord Melville. I am not at all questioning the right of the house to adopt such a mode of proceeding, far front it; but I must at time same time he allowed to express my surprise when I hear them loudly proclaiming that the proposition now submitted to their consideration is contrary to parliamentary usage. With this example before us, can we admit the justice of these complaints? I am sure we cannot, if we pay any regard to our own proceedings on various occasions.—Now, sir, having disposed of the short notice, about which we have heard so much, I come to another point, on which no less stress has been laid. This is the monstrous inconsistency of rescinding a resolution of the house in the same session, and the danger that would result from such a precedent. But what resolution is it proposed to rescind? Is it not true that we had rescinded a previous resolution of the house? A civil prosecution had been before ordered by the house, when the hon. gent. opposite came down to this house, and proposed that the proceedings in the criminal suit should be suspended, and a criminal prosecution substituted in its stead. That proposition was agreed to by the house, and where, them, is the inconsistency, or the dan- gerous precedent arising from the proposal now before the house? But, if there is any inconsistency, if there is any dangerous precedent, the practice has already prevailed, and this is surely not the moment when the house would be anxious to adopt a different mode of proceeding. If the object of the resolution now proposed had been by any sort of management to destroy the effect of the votes of the house, or to leave it doubtful whether, after the criminal prosecution was set aside, any thing was to be moved in its stead, then indeed there might be a fair ground for the arguments urged by the gentlemen on the other side of the house. But when the very resolution which proposes to lay aside the one mode substitutes the other, then surely I may be allowed to say, that there is great reason to be astonished at the opposition given by gentlemen on the present occasion, contrary to their own declared opinions. Such, then, being the notice, and such the point of rescinding the previous resolution of the house, we now come to another part of the case that deserves a considerable degree of attention. We are told that though they are still of opinion that the mode of impeachment ought to be preferred, yet that this seems to be a sort of stratagem to defeat the object which the house has in view, viz. the ends of public justice; and besides, that it will be thought by others, that the house of commons in agreeing to such a resolution as the present would compromise its character for steadiness, deliberation, and consistency. Now, in what manner do they oppose us? One would think, from the course pursued in their arguments, that they really thought, as I before,intimated, that the intention was to rescind the resolution for the criminal prosecution, leaving it to chance whether any other was to be proposed; and to set aside all criminal prosecution entirely. In this case there would he some reason in their arguments. But it is impossible that they can understand the object which we have in view, since that very resolution that rescinds the criminal information retains the motion for an impeachment. Which of the two proceedings is really Most consistent the opinions of a majority of the house? What do we propose to put in the place of a criminal information? An impeachment, that very mode of proceeding for which the hon. gentlemen on the opposite side argued so strenuously at first; that mode which they have contended to be best calculated to answer the ends of public justice; that mode which they have said to be most consistent with parliamentary usage, most agreeable to the dignity of the house, and most consonant to the principles of the constitution. On these fundamental broad grounds, they have been loud in their preference of an impeachment. What then do I ask of them? It is to confirm their own sentiments. If they agree to our motion, they have only to adopt that mode of proceeding for which they were before so urgent. They have, from the beginning, preferred an impeachment, and if that opinion remain the same as before, I only wish them not to impute any improper motives to those who furnish them with an opportunity of acting according to their opinion. But then they say,that they cannot now accede to this proposition, because the consistency of the proceedings of the house of commons is involved upon this occasion. If there be any inconsistency in this case, it rests with themselves. If this argument availed any thing, it ought to have prevented any criminal prosecution at all in this case. We said, that after the civil suit had commenced, there was no room for the other proceeding. The house, however, rescinded its resolution on that head, and having once determined on a criminal prosecution, we are not now disposed to find fault with that decision. But we do say, there still remains an option respecting the mode of conducting the criminal prosecution Which was not before called for. It remains still for us to adopt the preferable mode; and certainly no objection of form ought to weigh against the decided opinion of the majority of the house, especially when, in fact, there is no ground of inconsistency or precedent that can at all be urged as applicable to the present circumstances of the case. Why, then, sir, taking all these circumstances into consideration; finding that these very persons who before urged the impeachment so strenuously, still retain their sentiments on that head, and still agree, that it is the preferable mode of proceeding; surely the house cannot refuse, on any grounds that have been as yet stated, to adopt that mode which is allowed by a vast majority of the house to be most proper. It is possible perhaps to come to the justice of the case, by the criminal information before the king's bench court; but supposing this to be the case, it still remains to be considered, which, under all the circumstances, is the most proper mode of trial. An impeachment, as it has been justly argued, is most consonant to the principles of the constitution. This is allowed. I am sure that every one who hears would also wish, since a trial of this nature has been found necessary, that it should be such an one as would be most satisfactory to the feelings of the accused, even upon the admission that both were, in every other respect, equally eligible. This, however, they are not; for it is confessed that the mode of impeachment possesses important and decided advantages. The house surely cannot, on a mere point of form,refuse to grant that sort of trial which is allowed on all hands to be the best, and resort to one which the accused thinks the most objectionable, as the least likely to procure him justice, as the most degrading to his rank, and the most hurtful to his feelings. Now, sir, as to the grounds on which the impeachment is the most preferable mode of trial, they have been already so very fully stated, that I am in a great measure relieved from the necessity of dwelling upon that point. The right hon. gent. over the way (Mr. Windham), declaimed against refinements, and attributed a refining disposition to us on this occasion. He has said, that the only way of collecting the sense of the commons is by their votes, and there is not a more satisfactory way, even though the majority, of the house should upon the whole have preferred another mode than that which, from the manner of putting the question, they happened to adopt. Now, much the greater part of the house, undoubtedly, prefer an impeachment in this instance. Is there any thing then that prevents the adoption of that mode of proceeding? The noble lord on the opposite side, (lord Henry Petty) who speaks in a manner that always entitles him to the attention of the house, has declared, that he still thinks the mode of impeachment preferable. He still admits it as the most constitutional, the best calculated to promote the great ends of public justice, the most consistent with the dignity of the house, and the privileges of the other house, as well as the best mode for the accused, who will then be tried by his peers. If this be still his opinion, and the opinion of those who sit near him, shall a point of form prevent them from adopting the mode which they think the best? What do they admit? They admit that the trial by impeachment is more suitable to the constitution, best calculated to obtain justice, more consistent with the character of the object, better adapted to the nature of the crime. All these are great and broad points superior to any question of form and with these views of the matter, are they now to retract, their opinions, and vote for a criminal information? A right hon. gent. said, that he was not satisfied that the crime was of a nature that called for an impeachment. In that opinion he will not, I believe, find many members of this house disposed to join him, But at all events he has admitted that the character of the object is such, that in that view at least an impeachment would be the preferable mode of proceeding. But he will recollect that one of the grounds on which the accusation rests is the improper application of the public money, which is admitted by the noble lord himself. Let it be observed, however, that if the noble lord's words are to be taken hold of in this manner, the effect of the whole of them together ought to he stated. He has not allowed that he made any use of the money which he obtained for his own advantage; but he has expressly declared, that he will not disclose what he has done with one part of it This, surely; comes under the description of a state crime. He has told you, that the money has been expended in secret services; which he does not feel himself at liberty to disclose. That indubitably a question more fit for the decision of the lords on an impeachment than for an ordinary court of law. Why, then, upon a consideration of all these circumstances, I must again express my surprise, that any opposition should he made to this motion, the object of which is to give effect to that mode of proceeding which is really and substantially preferable. If they are of opinion that an impeachment is the most proper mode of trial, I am at a loss to conceive how they can counteract their own principles, and oppose that which, by their own admission, is upon the whole by far the most desirable. But it is urged by an hon. gent. against an impeachment, that the time necessary to bring it to a conclusion is so long that the ends of justice may be defeated. Here he will not be countenanced by many of the gentlemen of this house. He has mentioned the case of an impeachment which required two years to bring it forward. However, there is no reason to suppose that the matter can meet with any greater delay than it would do in a court of law. It will be begun immediately after the assembling of parliament. But, to prove the delay that generally takes place in impeachments, we have been told of the case of Mr. Hastings. Can any man really suppose that the present case is to be compared with that which required such a voluminous mass of evidence, parole and written; so Many documents from the other side of the globe, which involved such a variety of complicated matter? If this doctrine was to be pushed to its utmost extent, what would be the effect of it? It is an argument that, if allowed to weigh with the house, would prevent it from ever exercising the right of impeachment. This right, however, the house will not be disposed to give up; and yet the argument, if pushed to its utmost extent, would go this length. No case would ever occur, in which it would not upon this principle be better to have recourse to a criminal information rather than an impeachment. One gentleman did contend that the criminal information would in all cases be preferable; but few of those who now hear me will be disposed to allow that, on constitutional grounds; a criminal information can, in such a case as the present, be preferable to an impeachment. But while I contend that there is no reason to suppose that this prosecution can occupy any great length of time, I must state, that the case is so complicated that there are great doubts whether it could be possible that in ordinary courts of law it should receive that discussion which will be absolutely necessary for the purposes of real justice. We know the variety of matter that the reports contain, and the long discussions that took place in this house. But if we were so long in coming to a decision, and found so much discussion necessary, what chance is there that, within the time to which the attention of a jury must be limited, the case should undergo that, full investigation which justice calls for? This proves the superiority of the mode of impeachment, in which the fear of delay appears to be groundless. Well then, sir, these are the arguments brought, forward against this motion, and these are the answers which certainly appear to me to be satisfactory. Conceiving that the motion was given in full time, and upon proper grounds; considering that points of the utmost magnitude call loudly for an impeachment, instead of the criminal information; considering that several days have been allowed to the house to reflect again on the matter; considering that there is only one case in which an information has been resorted to in preference to an impeachment; considering that every constitutional principle, and every circumstance connected with the justice of the case and the dignity of parliament, call for an impeachment, I trust that no strict adherence to empty forms will drive the house from the usual mode of its proceeding. The ends of justice will not be defeated, nor is it any intention of ours to do away the effect of the vote of the house, as far as a criminal prosecution in some sort is concerned. But it is our object to proceed in that matter which is most consonant to the usual forms of the house, best calculated to promote the ends of justice, and, at the same time, most satisfactory to the feelings of the individuals, in that manner which is allowed to be preferable by the house, with the exception of a very small number. Those, sir, are the grounds on which it appears to me that the house will not allow the comparatively trifling consideration of forms to prevent the attainment of an object on many accounts so very desirable.

Mr. Whitbread made a very animated reply to the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose conduct, he said, reminded him of that of famous orator of antiquity, who sent to an unfortunate client of his, driven into exile, a copy of a most argumentative and deliver in defence of him at his trial. "Alas!" said the miserable Milo, "if Cicero had now be eating erawfish at Marseilles!" So he had no doubt, if the right hon. gent. had expressed the sentiments which he had just done, on the evening when the question of impeachment was formerly unsuccessfully agitated, the noble lord would have been placed in a situation more agreeable to his feelings, and the country would have been assured of complete and impartial justice. But it came now too late, and the advantages which might have been derived from his speech were lost. Why did he not before agree to the impeachment, and prevent the necessity of his having recourse to these subterfuges? He, indeed, preferred the mode of impeachment, undoubtedly, as he had before stated to the house, but the consideration of the inconsistency that would be fixed upon the character of the house, and the bad precedent that might be formed by agreeing to this motion, induced him to forego all the advantages that would be derived from an impeachment, in preference to a criminal information. The gentlemen who voted with him, however, notwithstanding all these inconsistencies how urged upon them, would ************* feel a great satisfaction in reflecting that those who opposed them, were now obliged to come down, and say that after all they were right; but they ought not to be misled by this gratification from doing their duty to the house by preserving its consistency. The vote of the house was given, not by surprise, but, after a long debate in one of the fullest houses that was ever recollected, and the main object was to come to a decision on the question, whether there should, or should not be a criminal process at all. Who began with proposing an impeachment? It was obtruded by the person now speaking. Who followed? The right hon. gent. with his amendment, Can any one forget that the right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt) was warned what the effect of his vote would be on the question as it stood? Might he not have preferred the impeachment if he had chosen? He now talked of the sense of the majority of the house being in his favour. How was that sense to be collected but by the vote? He opposed all criminal prosecution, and therefore put it out of his power to give a preference to one mode above another. Did he not, along with the treasurer of the navy, (Mr. Canning) who said that he preferred our enmity to the friendship of the right hon. gent. (Mr. Bond) over the way, vote against the impeachment? The country gentlemen from diffidence, and not from want of ability, frequently did not explain the exact grounds on which their votes were given; but the right hon. gent., who wanted neither confidence nor ability, chose to sit silent. He was not accustomed to a minority, though even his cabinet now was divided against itself. Many members had gone out of town who wished to be present at this discussion. This motion came by surprise. He himself did not know of it till yesterday, though there had been some rumours of something of this sort, but nothing like a regular notice. The right hon. gent. might have procured the impeachment before, but he wished to carry every thing with a high hand, and to bring off lord Melville without any criminal prosecution. The situation in which he now stood was the proper reward of his own conduct, and if nobody but himself had been affected by it, it would be no great matter; but he had involved the character of the house. When the right hon. gent. desired him to put his hand upon his heart, and ask himself this question, whether he thought those who voted against any prosecution did not mean to prefer, by way of punishment on lord Melville, an impeachment, to the mode proposed of a criminal proceeding by information by the attorney-general? he must answer, that he believed all those gentlemen wished in their hearts at this moment there should be no proceeding whatever had against that noble lord; and he was much afraid of the precedent which this motion, if carried, would establish; for any hon. member, interested in saving lord Melville from the inconvenience of any prosecution, might hereafter come, when the house was thinner than at present, and say, we have rescinded one resolution already, why should we not now rescind the other? and so they might en-endeavour to persuade the house of commons they ought not to go on with any trial at all against lord Melville. But the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer had observed, that the house had already rescinded the resolution which had been entered into on a former occasion for a civil suit against lord Melville. The obvious answer to that was, that new facts had appeared since that suit was instituted, and the house on those facts had changed its opinion, as upon a change of facts any body of men, as well as the house of commons, might change their opinion; and this the house had done, notwithstanding the endeavours of the right hon. gent. to persuade the members that no criminal proceeding whatever ought to be adopted. As to the subject of what was called the notice to the house that this measure would be proposed, he thought it in substance, whatever it might be in form, so unparliamentary, so unsatisfactory, and really so indecorous to the house of commons, that he hardly knew how to speak of it as it merited with decorum to the house. He called the attention of the house to the manner in which he had brought forward his motion for the impeachment, and to the mode in which the amendment was moved by the right hon. gent. (Mr. Bond.) It was said that this amendment was as much without notice as the motion, and more so, and yet there was no complaint made against it on that account; which was very true but it was an amendment growing naturally out of the subject, and could be no surprise to the house; for every person having any measure to propose must be prepared to meet an amendment to that motion, especially if it should happen to partake of the character of the motion itself, which was the case of that amendment. And here he must observe, that it was to be collected from the speech of the noble lord himself who the object, of these proceedings, while he stood on the floor and addressed the house, that he preferred the mode of a criminal proceeding in a court of justice to an impeachment, if he must encounter either, although he certainly objected to both; for he had stated, among other things, that it was impossible the house could with justice impeach him, when so many peers had already,spoken so decidedly against him, and before they had heard any thing of his case, but that which was founded on no better authority than rumour; and believed, that if he was brought before a jury, which he seemed to expect, that he had been placed in a situation which the meanest cottager in this country would have a right to complain of, if it were his own case; for that all those who were likely to sit as jurymen upon his trial had been prejudiced against him, by what had been already published on the subject. The noble lord had evidently preferred the trial by jury to that of impeachment, in the event of his being compelled to encounter either. He seemed now, if the conduct of his friends was an indication of his wishes, to have changed his mind, and to wish for an impeachment as the lesser evil of the two. He could have wished to adopt the mode most agreeable to the feelings and the wishes of the noble lord, provided they Were consistent with justice but the conduct of the friends of the noble lord had put that compliance out of his power. The right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt) had observed, that impeachment was the bulwark of the constitution, and that he hoped the house would not decide against that mode on account of the delay which took place. Certainly, he should not suffer any thing to interrupt the right of the house of commons to impeach any person on a fit, occasion; but he apprehended the question upon that point to be decided, and it was the fault of ministers if wrongly decided; for they were warned of it over and over again before they voted against the impeachment, and afterwards before the house came to the resolution it adopted. As to the difficulties which were felt by the law officer of the crown, he must observe, that there were other men of great eminence in the profession of the law who did not see the same difficulties in this case as the attorney-general had stated; and although he should be sorry the public should sustain the loss of that learned gentleman's services, yet he had too much spirit to wish to continue in a situation the duties of which would be painful to him, and where the public had so direct interest in their performance. He ought not to come to his clients for instructions how to conduct their cause; they ought rather to ask him, that he them, which way the cause was to be carried on; he ought either to conduct the cause, or give up his brief. The learned gent. had said on a former occasion, that it was improper to vote a trial of lord Melville by information in a court of justice, because there was no doubt of his legal guilt, and. there was therefore a certainty of his conviction; now he (Mr. W.) had often heard it assigned as a reason that a man should not be put on his trial because there was a certainty of his acquittal, but this was the first time he ever heard that a person should not be put on his trial because there was a certainty of his conviction.ߞWith regard to the subject of the 10,000l. received by lord Melville, some difficulties had been started on account of its having been received before the act of parliament passed which the noble lord was charged with having offended against. That was very true, but the difficulty stated appeared to him easily surmounted; for though the noble lord received the money before the act of parliament, yet he continued to possess it after the act, which was equally criminal.— He then took notice of the difference which had taken place on this occasion between the different parts of the house, and what had been said of the 43 who were supposed to have constituted the majority of the house, by whose votes the present prosecution had been determined, Which, he said conveyed to the public this anomaly, that one part of the king's cabinet voted directly against the other.—But, supposing this impeachment to be carried, he should like to know who were to be the managers of it? Were they to be chosen from those who had already said so much, and divided so steadily against all prosecution of lord Melville? in which case, if it ultimately failed, the public would doubt the sincerity of its conduct: or were they to be as committees, having the majority on the side of the minister, and a few, to save appearances, taken from those who were adverse to lord Melville; if so, he desired the house to consider the effect of such a course of proceeding. Should the lot fall upon him to be one of the managers of such an impeachment, he should regret being put into that situation; but such was his determination to purse this measure with a view of coming ultimately at the ends of justice, that he would use his utmost exertions for that purpose, in whatever company he might be placed he earnestly wished the house however to consider what it was doing, and to avoid establishing a precedent by which its former proceedings might be overturned altogether, than which he know of nothing more fraught with danger; and therefore, to avoid that danger, and to preserve the consistency of the house, he should adhere to its original resolution.

General Lenov thought that, according to the dignity of the subject, the nature of the charge, the rank of the defendant, the current of precedent, and the analogy of reason upon the principles of the constitution, the noble viscount ought to be tried by his peers by impeachment, and not by any inferior tribunal, however respectable; for which reason he should vote for an impeachment.

The Attorney-General said, he should lay aside all consideration of himself, or any other individual who might happen to attorney-general, when a question of his nature came to be discussed, and proceed to lay before the house some of the difficulties which would unavoidably attend the prosecution by criminal information, and which might be avoided if an impeachment was adopted. He had before said, what he now repeated, that on the legal guilt of my lord Melville, that of his connivance in the misapplication by Mr. Trotter of the public money, there was no question; there was evidence competent to prove that fact, as it appeared before the commissioners of naval enquiry, from the declarations made before them. That was established out of the mouth of lord Melville himself; but that was not the difficulty of the case, and he had stated formerly, the difficulties which occurred to him on this subject, not as to the topics to be selected on which to found the information. His right hon. friend (Mr. Bond) had stated that one part, namely, that which related to Mr. Jellicoe, should be omitted, on which gentlemen, on the other side of the house, did not seem to have made up their minds; but that on have wanted instruction from the house was, not on the legal course he should take as to the topics he should select for prosecution; but whether, while he proceeded against lord Melville criminally, he was to proceed civilly against Mr. Trotter? Whether, if he did so, he should notwith- standing, make use of the testimony of Mr. Trotter against lord Melville? Whether he could, without an infringement on the privileges of the house of commons, call on any one of its members, or any other person, to be a witness on the trial, and give testimony of what was said by lord Melville in his own behalf in that house on the night of the debate previous to the vote for his prosecution? These were points on which he owned he should wish for the direction of the house if this prosecution was to be carried on. Another point worthy of consideration, although not much thought of by a great part of the house, was, where the venue should be laid, because nothing was better established in Westminster Hall than this; that if the venue was laid in London, he could not give evidence of any thing that was done in Middlesex, he could not give evidence of any thing that was done in London; and yet there might be actions partly done in one, and partly in the other, the difficulties of which would be much more serious impediments to the trial in a court of justice than gentlemen not accustomed to legal process might imagine; and they were unavoidable in legal process in any court of justice inferior to the high court of parliament, none of which would be felt there upon impeachment. He then took notice of the case of lord Halifax, and thought it was a very uninviting precedent even for superior expedition, for it lasted two years and a half, of which he gave the history, and considered it as a precedent quite unworthy of being followed. With reference to what the hon. gent. had stated on the subject of the management of the impeachment, if the house should agree to it, his idea was, that in that event the hon. gent. who first brought this subject forward, should stand precisely in the same situation as if he had succeeded in his motion for the impeachment, in which he himself would, of course, be nominated as the first manager of the impeachment; that he should draw up the articles of impeachment, and that he and his friends should nominate all the other managers of that impeachment. As to what had been called the consistency of the house, and so much pressed into the service of this debate, he must be allowed to observe, that the vote now standing on the journals of the house was the effect of inadvertency, and there was no form by which the house was no form by which the house was restrained from rescinding it, or the house would have been informed to that effect from the chair and the present question could not be put It was, in short, an error, and those who called so loudly on the house to preserve its consistency, called only for that species of the other side of the house took delight in telling ministers: "If it be an error, the error is your own; you brought the house into it, and you shall not call on the house to correct your own error." Now, supposing that to be true, what was the conclusion? What was the consequence to the house, if it had fallen into an error, who led them into it? Suppose the error originated with ministers; on whom did their opponents propose to be revenged? not on house of commons, on the constitution and the people of the British empire, whose interests in the grand inquest of the nation were to be sacrificed, because ministers happened to have fallen into a mistake. He maintained that on the subject of notice in this case it was abundant, and was by no means a proper matter of complaint, and therefore there was no ground for saying that the house was in any degree precluded from proceeding by way of impeachment; on the contrary, it had now an opportunity of preferring that as the most constitutional, and in every sense the best adapted mode to be pursed upon this occasion, and he hoped that house would never, for the sake of a nominal consistency, persist in an opinion that was clearly erroneous.

Mr. Fox complimented the talents and the perserverance which his hon. friend (Mr. Whitbread) had displayed on this occasion, which had been so highly honourable to himself, and of such signal advantage to the country. He maintained that this error, which the friends of lord Melville were now of a sudden so ready to confess they had fallen into, was not on account of any negligence in them, for they had been very active in every stage of the proceeding, although they now appeared so much to lament their error, as they called it. The truth was, they had opposed every measure for the prosecution, and expected to carry their object in protecting lord Melville with a high hand; but being disappointed in that mind that an impeachment would be more favourable to lord Melville than a criminal information in a court of justice, and therefore did they propose that course to be now taken, although at one time they had laboured most strenuously to persuade the house that lord Melville ought not to be impeachment at all. As to notice of his motion, he thought it impossible to consider any thing that had been said on that subject to deserve that title. He asked why the right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt), when his own case had been discussed, did not take the opportunity of giving notice then that this subject was to be brought forward, when there was a full house to hear it? But no notice whatever was taken for a week, and on the very first division which took place after that on the prosecution of lord Melville, there were present not so many by an hundred member as on that division; for the truth was, that a great number of members who did not equally mix in the concerns of the house were present at the division on the subject of the prosecution of lord Melville, and they had gone away under a perfect conviction that the affair was over; and they would be astonished to hear, if, indeed, they should hear, that their resolution had been rescinded; a thing which could not be done while there was such a thing as shame left in that house, until not only due notice should be given, so as to enable every individual member who had already voted on this subject to be present, (because, if there was to he any revision, it should be a revision by all those whose act it was,) but also until the house should be called over, for otherwise a minority of the house, (as it was now evidently much thinner than when the resolution passed) would rescind the act of the majority; a thing most alarming in point of precedent. because it would establish this point, that whenever a minister, was prosecuted for any thing, and a full house had decided on the mode of that prosecution, he would have nothing more to do than to keep his friends together, to wait for a comparatively thin house, and then proceed to rescind the resolution. It had been said, that the present resolution was the act of the minority of the house, that it was the act of only forty-three members, and that the present motion was conformable to the real wishes of the majority of the house. This species of defence was very suspicious, when it came from the friends of lord Melville, who professed a direct hostility to every measure that had for its object the prosecution of lord Melville, and was a deference paid not to the majority, as appeared by the vote of the house, but to an imaginary majority against that vote; that was to say, a deference to the imaginary sense, and a contempt for the expressed sense of the house of commons; for although it was clear that some members who voted against the impeachment, did openly declare they preferred that mode to that of a criminal prosecution by the attorney general, if either the one or the other must be adopted, yet he knew no way of making that inference with regard to all those who gave silent votes on that night. He might admit a man to insist on his expressions against his actions in some cases, when he might have acted with a view which was not answered, and where he was put to a choice between two evils, which he did not foresee; but how he was to infer, that a man who said nothing, and acted in one decisive way, meant the reverse of his action, he was at a loss to comprehend; and yet that was precisely the situation of the mass of the house, on the division on the prosecution of lord Melville. As to the forty-three members who were supposed to have turned the scale, it must be observed, that the house was so full, and the other two sides were so near each other, forty-three was a very considerable number, considering who and what description of persons they were; for although all members of that house were justly considered equal, yet there was nothing irregular in paying respect to gentlemen on account of circumstances besides that of mere numerical importance. Why, then, did he prefer the mode which the house had already adopted, to the other which he had formerly been so desirous of obtaining; namely, that of impeachment? for he confessed that, on the whole of the matter, he should, if this case had not been decided, prefer an impeachment to a prosecution by the attorney-general, although that was not a point unworthy of consideration, for it was not to be disguised, that during the period lord Melville had been in administration, no less than between seventy and eighty members of the upper house had been created, and which must naturally be supposed to have some possible influence on the decision of this question: but why did he, preferring as he did an impeachment to any other on the whole of the matter, now prefer the mode of prosecution already voted? He preferred it because it was the vote of the house of commons, in as full a house, with the exception of three divisions, as ever he had the honour of attending; because it was essential to such prosecution that the great mass of the house should be in its favour, which could not be the case if the resolution should be rescinded. There was no question upon the legality of the present vote. The house of lords made no complaint on the point of privilege; nor could they, for the case of lord Halifax, if good for nothing else, was conclusive as a precedent as to the mode of proceeding, for no objection was made to it, and it was most clear that the privilege of a peer did not extend to any thing in the way of privilege on his trial, except when conviction might affect either life or limb, as was manifest in the case of lord Abingdon, and a noble friend of his, lord Thanet, both of whom were tried in the court of king's bench, and imprisoned by order of that court: nor was the hardship of such mode of trial such as some gentlemen would suggest, for the challenge to the jury was very extensive, and as to the impeachment there was no challenge, although in point of fact many peers must naturally be the object of challenge with the prosecutors of lord Melville, if there existed any such right in them, on account of the partiality they must have for that noble lord. This prosecution had been most gloriously conducted hitherto; the house of commons stood high in the estimation of its constituents for its conduct on this occasion; its decision ought to be regarded as sacred, at least by any house of commons, or rather the same house of commons with an inferior number of members in it to those who had come to the resolution now in force; nothing short of the very same number could with any thing of decency think of rescinding that resolution. He resisted this motion, therefore, on the general and broad principle, that the house ought to respect its own proceedings, that the constitution required the house to shew that respect in all cases, except where any thing which it had done was manifestly erroneous; which could not be the case here, for it was not disputed, nor was there any difficulty to he found in the course of the proceeding insuperable, for the attorney-general might have the aid of many learned members in the house, as to the mode of framing the information. Considering all these matters, considering the character of the house of commons, considering the interest the public had taken in that character, and how essential to the public it was to preserve that character; but, above all, considering the most alarming danger of establishing a precedent by which any minister of state, against whom any prosecution was ordered by a full house, might totally defeat that proceeding by a thinner house afterwards under the pretence of a revision, (for if this vote was rescinded now, there was nothing to hinder any other member from moving to rescind the impeachment altogether,) he felt himself called upon to support the present resolution of the house and to resist any attack made upon it under any pretence whatever, and the more especially by those who had always professed an hostility towards every measure that tended to the punishment of lord Melville, and therefore he moved that the other orders of the day be now read.

Mr. Hiley Addington said, he could not content himself with giving a silent vote on this occasion. Having formerly given an opinion, he was anxious now also to deliver his sentiments, that it might not be supposed he meant to shrink from that line of conduct which he felt it his duty to adopt. It was not his intention to detain the house, but there was one single point which had been adverted to, which he was sorry to have heard from a right hon. friend of his (Mr. Pitt), and upon which he would say a few words. He had thought the mode of a criminal prosecution the best, because the most lenient: but his right hon. friend preferred the other mode, as considering that the most lenient. For his part, when he considered how impeachments had been protracted; when he reflected on the embarrassments that had been occasioned by that mode of proceeding, he could not help thinking that it might eventually occasion the noble lord's ruin, even if he were acquitted, at which event no man would be more glad than himself. He could not but coincide in an observation which fell from a noble lord during the debate, that this was not the time to consider the merits of the case. He thought with him, that the time for such a discussion was past, and that the most considerate reflexion had already been given to this important subject. The present question was, whether the house should act a consistent part? He did not contend but that occasions might arise when the house of commons might think it necessary to rescind its proceedings An hon. baronet contended that the civil process had been determined on by the house and adopted, but had afterwards been laid aside for a criminal prosecution, and that this was a precedent for reversing the criminal process, and substituting the other mode in its place. It was stated, in reply, by another hon. gent., that more new matter had arisen, which rendered the civil suit nugatory. What new parliamentary matter had arisen to oc- casion them to rescind their former determination, he professed he was at a loss to find out. The only question was a matter of choice as to which mode of proceeding should be adopted; neither of them was unconstitutional.—The right hon. gent. next remarked upon the singular conduct of his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Leycester), to whom, at the same time, he was far from imputing any improper motives: he contended, however, that he ought to have taken the opportunity of giving notice of his motion, when his right hon. friend (Mr. Bond) expressed his intention of making his proposition. He thought it incumbent on the house, for its own dignity, not to rescind its former determination. It was with pain he had heard it stated by his right hon. friend the chancellor of the exchequer, that no intimation had beets given of he intention to propose the amendment on the 11th. He believed his right hon. friend, on farther consideration, would think otherwise, at least if he did not, he (Mr. Addington) must say that he had understood the matter otherwise.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said a few words, but in so low a tone that we could not gather distinctly what he said; we, however, understood him to have observed, that he only meant to state, that no public notice had been given of the intention to propose the amendment.

Mr. Robert Dundas (son of lord Melville), for one, had thought, and still did think, the mode of prosecution by impeachment was that which should have been preferred: because, although, it was so tedious, yet it was one most befitting the situation and rank of the person to be tried, and best calculated to promote the ends of justice. It was the mode lord Melville himself wished for. With respect to notice having been given of another mode of prosecution being about to be moved for, he could assure gentlemen that lord Melville had been completely ignorant of such a thing being about to take place, until two hours before he entered the house on the day when the impeachment was moved. As to the lenity of that species of prosecution ordered by the house, the gentleman who moved it might be actuated by such a motive; but for his own part he could not feel that there was any lenity in a proceeding that took lord Melville to a species of trial which was inconsistent with propriety, and with the rank which belonged to him. He was not bound to say that all the gentlemen who were for prosecuting, by means of the attorney-general, voted for this as the most lenient mode; although he believed some voted with such views. He did not wish, unaccustomed as he was to speak in public, to trouble the house with any more observations; but he should conclude with voting for the motion.

Mr. Ker, said, that as 229 could not be made out to be more than 238, he should, for the sake of consistency, vote for the criminal prosecution.

The house then divided on the motion for proceeding to the other orders of the day:

Ayes	143
Noes	166
Majority for the impeachment	23

The question for the impeachment was then carried without a division. After which it was ordered, That Mr. Whitbread do go to the lord's and at their bar, in the name of the house of commons, and of all the commons of the United Kingdom of Great-Britain and Ireland, impeach Henry lord viscount Melville of high crimes and misdemeanours; and acquaint them, that this house will, in due time, exhibit particular articles against him, and make good the same."—At two o'clock on Wednesday morning the house adjourned.