Commons Sitting of 26 March 1806

MINUTES.
Mr. Holfordbrought in a bill for forming the Philanthropic Society into a Corporation, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a 2d time. Mr. Johnson, from the office of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, presented an account of all Offices granted in reversion in Ireland, with the periods for which granted, and the dates of the grants.—Mr. Rix, from the Excise Office, presented an?account of the Malt charged with duties for the two years ending 5th Jan. 1806.—Mr. Burdon brought in a bill for the better regulation of the admeasurement of Coals scaborne, which was read a first time.—Mr. Vansittart obtained leave to bring in a bill to empower the Commissioners of the Treasury in Ireland to issue Treasury Bills on the credit of the Supplies for the year.—General Tarleton gave notice of his intention on the day previous to the house adjourning for the Easter Holidays, to submit to the house a motion on the State of the Military Defence of the Country, particularly on the Defence Act, provided this subject Was not in the mean time taken up in another quarter.—Mr. Tierney mentioned that he wished to propose an alteration in the Treating bill, and would move that it should be committed now, printed as amended, and afterwards recommitted. The bill was accordingly committed, passed the committee, reported, ordered to be printed as amended, and to be re-committed on Monday the 21st of April.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.
On the motion of Mr. Vansittart, the estimates of the charges of the establishment in New South Wales. the Plantations, &c. and the account of exchequer bills issued under an act of the 39–40 of George III. were ordered to be referred to the Committee of Supply. The house resolved itself into a committee. Previous to the first resolution being put, that a sum not exceeding 3 millions he granted to his majesty, for paying off exchequer bills,
Mr. Vansittartmade several observations on the subject. He said that the Bank of England, with that liberality which distinguished all their proceedings, had expressed their willingness to extend the accommodation, on condition of receiving only 3 per cent. instead of 5, to which they were entitled. It was nevertheless necassary, as a point of form, to vote the present resolution.
Mr. Tierneyso far from thinking the conduct of the bank liberal, thought that nothing could be more illiberal. The bank lent this 3 millions to government for 6 years, without interest, as the price of their charter, which had been granted to them on terms which iii his opinion ought not to have been allowed. They now came and offered it at 3 per cent. and then talked of their great liberality, when it was well known that, owing to the restriction on the issuing of specie, and the substitution of bank-notes, they had not only not lost sixpence by this loan, but had been enabled to make very extraordinary profits, of which, indeed, they had boasted, and which certainly should have had the effect of rendering them a little more generous to those through whose means they had obtained them. This accommodation did not cost the bank one farthing beyond the paper on which the notes were printed. He did not object to the resolution, but he rose merely to state that the bank had driven a hard bargain, and made an ungrateful return to the country for the privileges that had been granted to them.
Mr. Vansittartthought that the sacrifice of 60,000 l. a year was a proof of very great liberality.—He did not pretend to deny that the bank had derived considerable advantages from their charter; advantages, indeed, much more considerable than were contemplated in the first instance; but certainly, comparing what the charter prescribed with what the bank had voluntarily offered, the offer must be deemed a liberal one.—The following resolutions were then put and agreed to, viz. 1. "That 3 millions be granted to his majesty, for paying off and discharging the exchequer bills made out by virtue of an act of the 39th and 40th of his present majesty, intituled, 'An act for establishing an agreement with. the governor and company of the bank of England, for advancing the sum of 3 millions towards the supply for the service of the year 1800,' outstanding and unprovided for.—2. That 30,000 l. be granted to

539
discharge bills drawn, and to be drawn, from New South Wales, which may become due in the course of the year 1806.—3. That 8,250 l. be granted for defraying Lord Henri, Petty observed, that as none the charge of the civil establishment of the province of Upper Canada, in America.—4. That 7,165 l. be granted for defraying the charge of the Civil Establishment of Province of Nova Scotia.—5. That 4,650 l. be granted for defraying the charge of the Civil Establishment of the Province of New Brunswick, in America.—6. That 3,100 l. be granted for defraying the charge of the Civil Establishment of the Island of Saint John, in America, now called Prince Edward Island.—7. That 2,040 l. be granted gradual for defraying the charge of the Civil Establishment of the Island of Cape Breton, in America.—8. That 2,565 l. be granted for defraying the charge of the Civil Establishment of the island of Newfoundland, in America.—9. That 4,400 l. be granted for defraying the charge of the Civil Establishment of the Bahama Islands, in America, in addition to the salaries now paid to the public offices out of the duty fund, and other incidental charges attending the same.—10. That 1,030 l. be granted for defraying the charge of the Civil Establishment of the Bermudas or Somers Islands.—11. That 600 l. be granted for defraying the charge of the Civil Establishment of the Island of Dominica.—12. That 12,819 l. 9s. 4½d. be granted for defraying the charge of the Civil Establishment of New South Wales; all the above from the 1st of Jan. to the 31st day of Dec. 1806.–13. That 1,420 l. be granted towards defraying the charge of the superintendence of Aliens, according to the provisions of an act passed in the 43d year of his present majesty, for the year 1806."

CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.
Mr. Vansittartit was impossible that the laurels which our moved the 3d reading of the bill for regulating the trade of the Cape of Good Hope.
Mr. W. Keenesupported the motion, making a number of observations, tending to shew his sense of the importance of that settlement, and the expediency of retaining it in our possession in the event of a peace.
Lord Garlies took the opportunity of asking the gentlemen opposite, whether or not it was intended to take any parliamentary notice of the brilliant achievement of those gallant men by whose zeal and exertions that important possession had been reduced. A considerable part of the honour attending this exploit belonged to the military. Perhaps the conquest not being
540
completed might be the cause of apparent tenderness in calling for the sense of the house on this subject.
Lord Henry Pettyobserved, that as none of his hon. Friends who were more immediately connected with the military department were present, he felt some difficulty in answering the noble lord's question. He was not aware that any motion, of the nature alluded to, was in agitation; and he had no hesitation in giving it as his opinion, that such a motion would be premature until the conquest had been completed.—It may seem paradoxical to say that this mode of increase is preferable to one more gradual and less alarming to the public. A gradual rise would have led to the supposition that this was a fund to be drawn upon to an idenfinite extent, but being raised at once to its nature limits, there will be less suspicion of future augmentation.
Lord Castlereagh roseto submit to administration the propriety of proposing of proposing a vote of thanks to the gallant officers alluded to, Towards the close of the last war the thanks of the house were not delayed to the conquerors of Egypt until the conclusion of the campaign. In his apprehension the degree in which our troops had distinguished themselves on the opening of the business was sufficient to induce parliament to express a grateful sense of their conduct.
Lord Henry Pettyrepeated that as the conquest was incomplete, such a vote would be premature.
General Tarletonpressed the propriety of an immediate vote of thanks for the gallant services that had been rendered, and deprecated the idea of forbearing until the whole conquest was completed. Should a large body of the enemy land at the Cape, it was impossible that the laurels which our brave troops had gathered should be withered by that event; but they might be deprived of that honourable distinction which he was desirous should be conferred on them.
Lord Henry Pettyobserved, that, instead of a conversation like the present, it would be better for any hon. gent. opposite, who wished, to bring forward a precise motion on the subject.—The bill was then read a 3d time and passed.

IMPEACHMENT OF LORD MELVILLE.
Mr. Whitbreadin consequence of the notice which he had given yesterday, rose to submit a motion to the house, respecting the trial of lord Melville. The hon. gent.

541
said, that the motion of which he had given notice for the house being present at the trial in a committee of the whole house, he considered to be so much a matter of course, that it Was with extreme surprize he first learned that any opposition was meant to be made to it. It was so completely incomprehensible to him what could be urged against his present motion, that he should not think it necessary now to endeavour to anticipate what might be said, but hoped the house would indulge him with a few words in answer to any thing which might be advanced on the other side. He then moved that the house be present at the trial of lord viscount Melville, as a committee of the whole house."
Mr. Robert Dundas (son of lord Melville)said, the hon. gent. in waking his present motion must be aware that its effect would be, to necessitate the house of lords to address his majesty for having Westminster-hall fitted up for the purpose of their proceeding to the trial. That, however, being the case, he hoped he might be entitled to say a few words on the subject, by which he hoped to be able to make it appear, not only that such a step would lead to the highest inconvenience, but would, perhaps, be the source of gross injustice and oppression by the delay and expence which such a proceeding would produce. Whenever any question occurred in which it might be necessary for the house of lords to deliberate, all that would be required, if the trial proceeded in their own house, would be, for the managers, to retire till the question was discussed. But, if tine trial proceeded in Westminster-hall, the lords would be obliged, on every such occasion, to retire to their own house, and if they continued debating till near the usual hour of adjournment, there would be little chance of their returning to the hall that day. In this way it was a fact, that not less than two or three days of delay would take place in the one case for one in the other. He trusted he did not ask too much of the house in hoping, that in pursuit of justice they would not be guilty of oppression; that they would not adopt a mode of trial which would be vexatious. in point of time, and ruinous in point of expence. He thought the case of Mr. Hastings would have been sufficient to warn the house against the adoption of a proposition like the present. He had no doubt the managers would conduct the case. with all the
542
expedition in their power; but it would not be in their power, or in that of the accused, to do so in Westminster-hall. The hon. gent. himself (Mr. Whitbread) unquestionably, in his opening speech against lord Melville, alluded to an impeachment to be, tried in the house of lords, and his referring to the case of lord Macclesfield was a sufficient proof of this. He trusted the hon. gent. would not now depart from that idea, and revert to the other more severe, inconvenient, and oppressive mode. The case of lord Macclesfield, on which the hon. gent. himself had dwelt, was tried at the bar of the house of lords. It occupied only 21 days; and the case of Mr, Hastings, which was tried in Westminster-hall, lasted for eight sessions. Though the accused had here preferred impeachment to criminal prosecution, he hoped the hon. gent. would not now turn round on him and deny to him the mode of trial which he himself had once pointed at, and insist on one much more oppressive in its nature and effect. The matter might occur to him more forcibly than to other members of the house, but he hoped the house would excuse him in stating it. The hon. gent. was in possession of ample documents to convince him that the private fortune of the individual here accused was not adequate to the support of an expensive trial; and when equal justice, and before the same tribunal, might be procured at a smaller-expence, he submitted that it could never be the wish of the house, or of the hon. gent., to purchase it at a greater expence to the party accused. The hon. member declared that he should not press the matter to a division, if the sense of the house seemed to be against him, as the matter might strike him differently from what it might occur to others. He concluded by cautioning the house, in their search after substantial justice, not to go into the extreme of substantial injustice.
Mr. Tierneysaid, that when the house had at last come to the resolution of impeachment, he had trusted, that no farther question on the subject would have been introduced. He was far from wishing to say any thing that might hurt the feelings of lord Melville; and he could not help bearing his testimony to the strict propriety with which the hon. gent. who opposed the motion had conducted himself, during the whole course of the discussion; but he was confident the house could not hesitate to adopt the motion before them.

543
The substantial ends of justice might, indeed, be attained by a trial at the bar of the house of lords, but not with the same satisfaction to the public mind. He had always preferred the trial by impeachment, as more applicable to the high rank of the person accused, and the nature of the charges brought against him; and for the same reason, he thought that the trial should be conducted with every possible solemnity, so that the public might be convinced that no rank or station, however high, could protect any man from a solemn decision. The public expected this solemn trial, attended with every degree of publicity, and would not be satisfied without it. With regard to its bearing hard on the private fortune of lord Melville, a similar plea had been urged by Mr. Hastings, but it had not been listened to by the house. The hon. gent. also complained of the delay that would ensue; but this house would not be accountable for any delay that might take place. The house were prepared to establish their charges, and such complaints might be addressed with more propriety to another house. In fact, all the difference in respect of time between a trial in Westminster-hall, and one at the bar of the house of lords, would merely be in their lordships travelling at times between the hall and their own house. He concluded by giving his support to the motion.
Mr. Bankessaid, he could see nothing to persuade the house to do that in lord Melville's case, which it had found so inconvenient in that of Mr. Hastings. In the course of that trial the delay was disgraceful, and the expence intolerable. He had all along been against sending any accused person to be tried in Westminster-hall, if any other place could be found where the ends of justice could be obtained; and he had formerly contended against taking this case from the ordinary course of law. He was sorry when the house had come to a different determination; but he still hoped, that they would not adopt that mode of trial, which, in the case of Mr. Hastings, had done them no credit. Every end of justice would be fully answered by a trial at the bar of the lords, while the solemnity, the dignity, and decorum requisite on such an occasion, were liable to be interrupted in the promiscuous assemblage at Westminster-hill. Was the case of lord Macclesfield of less importance than the present? Were the feelings of the public less interested by it, and less roused on
544
that occasion? But in his case, a trial in Westminster-hall was not thought necessary. An hon. gent. had said, that it was necessary to satisfy the expectations of the public; but if they expected any thing beyond the distribution of justice, he did not see how they were entitled to be satisfied. But it might be said, that they looked forward to a great public spectacle; he believed, however, that the public held such spectacles in abhorrence. The trial of Mr. Hastings had completely disgusted them with such exhibitions. If the 21 days trial of lord Macclesfield were compared with that which lasted eight sessions of parliament, it would be easy to see which deserved the preference. The various necessary delays that must ensue, and the time that must be consumed in a thousand ways, were all arguments against a trial in Westminster-hall. Even the money that might be necessary to fit up Westminster-hall, should not be lightly thrown away at the present moment. We were so touch in the habit of voting large sums, that small sums lost their importance, and dwindled into insignificance; but the present was a period which called loudly for every degree of parsimony consistent with the public service. Neither ought the individual, who is the object of impeachment, to be loaded with one shilling of unnecessary expence. On all these grounds he opposed the motion of the hon. gent.
Lord Folkestonecontended, that it was unfair to contrast the trial of Mr. Hastings with that of lord Macclesfield, or to ascribe the great length of the former to the time consumed in the forms attendant on such a mode of trial. It was owing to very different circumstances; to the variety of the charges brought against him, and the complicated nature of the evidence by which they were supported. It was a principle of the constitution, that all trials should be conducted in as public and open a manner as possible; and surely, this principle operated with the greatest force in the case of an impeachment. It certainly could not be held so public at the bar of the house of lords, for there the space below the bar was so small that it would not accommodate the committee of this house. With respect to the expence, he believed it would be found less than gentlemen conceived. A great deal depended, in his opinion, upon parade and show; as useful and salutary lessons might be drawn from the solemnity of the scene. As to the objection, of its inter-

545
rupting the course of business, he must observe, that if the trial was carried on in the house of lords, the judges must attend, and therefore the business of the law courts would be suspended in the same manner.
Lord Henry Pettysaid, that though he differed in opinion from the hon. gent. who had preceded the noble lord, yet he was not surprised at the arguments he had advanced. He had originally opposed the mode of trial by impeachment, and might therefore be consistent now in resisting a trial in Westminster-hall; but to hear those who had preferred impeachment, from the consideration of the rank of lord Melville, and the nature of the offence with which he was charged, concur in the arguments of the hon. gent., and opposing now the ancient and constitutional mode of conducting that impeachment, was rather extraordinary. The hon. gent. had said, that the trial of Mr. Hastings reflected disgrace on the house. He, for his part, was not aware of any such disgrace, though he had heard it had been attended with much inconvenience. The present case, he said, differed widely from that of Mr. Hastings. Here all the charges, and all the evidence adduced in their support, bore distinctly on one point. He contended, that if the house did not agree to the motion of his hon. friend, it would amount to declaration, that all the ancient and constitutional forms of impeachment were impracticable. The expence attendant on this mode of trial had been stated as an objection against it. It was not the expence of paper that might be consumed, or of benches that might be erected, but the want of those constitutional enquiries into misapplications of the public money, that could ever prove ruinous to the country. The danger of the country was great; the danger which now impended over its finances would be the result, not of enquiries, but from neglect of attention to those constitutional prosecutions, which are at once the protection of the public, and the surest means of guarding its purse. The hon. gent., had stated the situation of the noble lord as being peculiar. So indeed was the situation of the public. It will be my lot, said the noble lord, and arduous will the lot be, to propose in a few days a large augmentation of the public burthens. If I may be allowed to feel more than any other man the importance of convincing the public that their money is rightly applied, and that their burthens should not
546
be unnecessarily increased, it must be my anxious wish that every species of enquiry should take place, that they shall see their interests are upheld. With respect to the case of the noble lord, it is highly essential to their interests, that the utmost notoriety and publicity should be given to the trial, in order that they may have an opportunity of attending it, to witness their interests protected and discussed. They will likewise have the satisfaction of knowing, should the noble lord be acquitted, that the grounds of the clamours raised against those who support the enquiry are totally false. They will have this satisfaction, and they will also have the satisfaction of seeing ample justice done to the noble lord's character. So much for the subject of public expence. With respect to the subject of the expence to the noble lord, that may, either in the event of acquittal or condemnation, be a fit object of future discussion. The noble lord wished for all confide-ration of that nature to be deferred. The first object was the attainment of substantial justice in the most clear and public manner that would be obtained by a trial in Westminster-hall, and he was consequently impelled to vote for the motion of his hon. friend.
Mr. Rosedeclared that he was one of those who preferred the mode of trial by impeachment in preference to that in the court of King's Bench, because he thought the peculiar situation and dignity of the noble lord required it: but he was also of opinion that the object of the house would be much better and more effectually attained by prosecuting at the bar of the house of lords, than by proceeding with tedious forms and ceremonies in Westminster-hall. In advancing that opinion, he was supported by the result of the trial of lord Macclesfield, which was concluded in 21 days from its commencement. With this precedent on the one side in favour of the trial at the bar of their lordships, and that of Mr. Hastings against a trial at Westminster-hall, he thought that few men could hesitate to make a choice, or decide which mode was more eligible. His reason for thinking that the trial at the bar of the lords would be more public was, that every person might go into the house of lords, when the doors were open, without special permission; but every member in the house must know, that no person but a member of either house of parliament could attend the proceedings at Westminster-hall, without the

547
admission or leave of a peer. The noble lord (H. Petty) had mentioned his feelings and anxiety in being obliged to impose taxes; the noble lord had also lamented the difficulties which surrounded him; he was as sensible as any man of those difficulties, which he knew to be very great; but he was also sure that the country possessed resources fully adequate to meet all difficulties, dangers, and emergencies: and with that impression on his mind, he did not think there was any room for gloom or despondency.
Lord H. Pettyin explanation, said, that he had not spoken in gloomy language of the financial prospects of the country. He had said, that the country could only be ruined by a want of principle in those who directed its resources.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid, he felt a due sense of the decorous conduct of the hon. gent. who commenced the debate, and should be ready to take every opportunity of acknowledging it. The hon. member had, as it were, put himself on the mercy of the house and entreated it not to adopt a mode of proceeding which would be harassing and oppressive to the noble person who stood accused. He assured the hon. gent., that he would be the last man in the house who would support any proceeding of that description; it was not in the contemplation of himself or the managers; and he could also undertake to say, that it was as little the intention of the other members of the house, with whom he had the honour of acting, to press lord Melville to a trial, vexatious or harassing, but it was their intention as well as their duty, to carry on proceedings against that noble lord with the solemnity and notoriety which had distinguished this country on such occasions from every other in Europe and tended so essentially to establish its fame. If the hon. gentlemen on the opposite side pushed their arguments, the consequence would be, that they must desire parliament and the country to get rid of all public trials, to exclude audiences from the very courts of justice, and, in fine, from every place in which the laws of the country were to be administered. But he differed from the hon. gent. in this respect, and thought that publicity was necessary in trials of every kind, and the best guard for the security of persons and property, as well as for the discharge of great public trusts. It was a little singular, however, that in this particular case the mode was the choice of the noble lord's friends; for
548
surely, when they reversed the decision of the house for a criminal prosecution in the court of King's Bench, they must have had the present mode of trial in view, because, since the Revolution, Westminster-hall was the only place in which trials of impeachment had been conducted, with the exception of lord Macclesfield's case. He would ask, whether the shortness of that nobleman's trial was attributable to his being tried at the bar of the house of lords? The answer to this question would be easy, when it was considered that there were very few objections made at the trial; therefore, it might be concluded in as short a time at Westminster-hall as in the house of lords. He was ready to admit, that he had referred to the case of lord Macclesfield, in the debates respecting lord Melville, with a view to shew, that the precedent of Mr. Hastings's trial should not dissuade the house from adopting the trial by impeachment; but when he urged that precedent, he had no mode of trial in contemplation but that which the managers recommended. The house must be aware that a strong protest had been entered on that occasion on the journals of their lordships, against the mode of trial pursued in the case of that noble lord. The hon. gent. next read the following extract from the said protest: "Because we are of opinion, that it highly concerns the honour and dignity of this house, in all cases of Impeachments, that the trial should be in the most public and solemn manner; that being most suitable to the laws and constitutions of this kingdom in all cases whatsoever, but is more especially requisite in a prosecution of the commons of Great Britain begun and carried on by their representatives in parliament; for which reasons we think, that this trial ought to be had in Westminster-hall, and not at the bar of the house, where it is impossible, "as we conceive, to provide room and other conveniences for the attendance" of the house of commons, and such others of the subjects of this kingdom who may be desirous to be present at this trial."—The hon. gent. was really at a loss to comprehend the right hon. gent. (Mr. Rose), when he stated that the trial would be more public at the bar of the house of lords than in Westminster-hall. Would not the members of the house of commons wish to attend that trial? Yes, but they could not satisfy their wishes in the former place, for want of space. The

549
right hon. member observed, however, that the house of lords had been enlarged since the time of lord Macclesfield's trial; so had the house of commons; and the relative situation of both houses was still nearly the same as' to room and convenience. The trial of lord Macclesfield afforded also a kind of warning; for he had read, that the pressure of the crowd at the trial of that noble lord was so great, that one of the managers had been squeezed to death. (A cry of name! name!) The name of the hon. gent. as well as he could recollect, was Mr. Fazakerley. He certainly thought that this trial should be held at Westminster-hall, as the place most. suitable to the dignity of the house and the country. In reply to the right hon. member's observation as to the peers' admissions, he would say that the question was still the same; for if the peers could exercise a privilege in the one place, they were entitled to exercise it in the other. The simple point therefore arising from this part of the subject was, which of the two places was capable of holding most people. The hon. member (Mr. R. Dundas) said that he was acquainted with the private fortune of lord Melville. Certainly, in the prosecution of their duty, the managers had come to the knowledge of many private circumstances, which it was impossible for them to separate from the public transactions of that noble lord, He could not agree, however, that because a person against whom a charge had been preferred, represented smallness of fortune and inability to support the expences attending trial that there fore all proceedings should be shaped in conformity to his wishes. If this argument were allowed, it would destroy all prosecutions; for the party accused had only to plead poverty, and thus escape, perhaps, from the punishment which he merited. If the house of lords deemed it essential to the interests of the public, that Mr. Hastings should have been tried in Westminster-hall, instead of taking it at their bar, was not the same reason substantial for having lord. Melville's trial at the same place? He was one of his majesty's ministers, enjoying the confidence of the crown; and holding the situation of first lord of the admiralty, he was a privy counsellor; in short, he held those situations which ranked him amongst the first subjects in the realm; it was highly necessary, therefore, that the public should receive every faciity to attend the trial of so great an indilidual It was due to the noble lord him-
550
self to give publicity to his trial, in order, if he were innocent, to enable the people to judge fully of the hardships under which be must labour from the imputation of guilt; and, on the other hand, if the noble lord was guilty, the place of trial ought to be capacious enough, if possible, even for the whole nation, whose interests were most deeply involved.
Mr. W. Dundassaid that he had listened in vain with a view to hear any essential reason of justice or expediency urged, why the trial should take place in Westminster-hall rather than at the bar of the house of lords. He did not say that there ought to be no impeachment; but he contended that it was of the essence of justice that it should not be dilatory nor unnecessarily expensive. Every person, as an hon. friend of his had observed, was to be presumed innocent till he was found guilty. He therefore, for the present, presumed that lord Melville was innocent; and in this view, the mode of proceeding now proposed would bring the punishment of guilt on an innocent person. He did not consider this as a party question, but asked, whether it was just, or generous that a person who, setting the present affair aside, had rendered essential service to the country, and was therefore entitled to its gratitude, should, by the enormous expence to which he would be exposed, be consigned for the remainder of his life to want and poverty? The noble lord (H. Petty), and the hon. gent. who spoke last, had adverted to the old mode of proceeding, and to the trial of Mr. Hastings; but was there a lawyer in Westminster-hall who did not consider that trial as an abominable disgrace? The Judge Advocate (Mr. Bond), in proposing a criminal information, had argued respecting this abomination, this foul stigma, with the greatest eloquence. Why was he not here to-day to support his argument? He concluded by again asking, whether it was consistent with justice or generosity to bring a load of expence on the shoulders of the accused, which, whether innocent or guilty, would weigh him down to the earth?
Mr. Percevalsaid, that if any one circumstance had been mentioned which could prove that the trial should take place in Westminster-hall rather than at the bar of the house of lords, then indeed he might perhaps have been silent; but as none such had been mentioned, he trusted the house would be open to receive any impressions that might be expected to be made by the

551
arguments of his hon. friends. It was said that he and his friends were inconsistent in having first wished for the impeachment, and then endeavouring to have it conducted at the bar of the house of lords. Where was the inconsistency? They wished for impeachment still in preference to information, but they wished at the same time that it should be carried on in the manner least oppressive to the individual accused. Was there any novelty in having the impeachment at the bar of the house of lords? No; for the trial of lord Macclesfield was conducted in this manner. But even if there had been no instance of this kind, he would have been desirous of introducing that novelty, because he thought that course the most proper which united the essential attainment of justice with the least oppression to the individual. As to the point of inconsistency he, as the person who, in case the mode of information had been adopted, would have had the business to manage, had felt the difficulties that would attend this course of proceeding. The managers had better means acquiring important information by the mode of impeachment, and in fact it was not till of late that they had discovered what to them appeared matter of great consequence. Now, what would have been the situation of the case, if, instead of having an additional article, as now, he should have had to make this an additional count in his information? They talked of the in consistency on his side of the house. Now, was there no inconsistency on the other? They first voted for an impeachment indeed, but they subsequently voted for a criminal information. Why did they do so? Would the trial have less publicity at the bar of the house of lords than in the court of King's Bench? The privacy then was no objection. It was strange that they should now insist so much on publicity. A right hon. friend of his (Mr. Tierney) had asked, whether the argument against this solemn impeachment would not go to all cases? Even if it had, that would not have deterred him from preferring the trial at the bar of the house of lords. He certainly valued the privilege of impeachment highly; and this was the very reason why he wished it should be conducted in the least oppressive mode, as otherwise it would be in danger of falling into disuse. His hon, friend under the gallery, (Mr. Bankes) had been so impressed with the inconveniencies attending the trial of Mr. Hastings, that he had formed a resolution
552
to oppose the impeachments when any other course could be adopted. But at all events it was desirable we should have the benefits without the inconveniences of it. He then adverted to the great difference it would make in point of time; and contended that the great object ought to be to remove from the mode of trial by impeachment every thing oppressive and embarrassing.
Mr. Secretary Fox roseto trouble the house only with a few words. But something which fell from the hon. and learned gent. who spoke last, induced him to trespass on their attention for a moment. That hon. and learned gent. had charged him, and those who agreed with him in thinking that lord Melville ought to be brought to trial, with inconsistency, in voting first for an impeachment, and then for a criminal information. They had done so undoubtedly; but under what circumstances? The house would keep in mind, that the question then was between them and those who opposed all criminal proceedings whatever, and who strained every nerve in order to prevent any sort of trial. He had then stated the reasons which induced him to act as he had done. But as the hon. and learned gent. had thought proper to say nothing about them, and possibly might have forgot them, he would state them again. If the pure question had been whether there was to be an impeachment, or a criminal information? he would have preferred an impeachment. But when he saw that the motion for an impeachment was lost by a majority, hollow as it was, he had no alternative but to adopt a less eligible, mode of proceeding, rather than have none at all. But how was that majority procured? Why; by the union of two parties, one of which endeavoured to stop all proceedings. The two gentlemen, relations of lord Melville, who brought forward and supported this proposition, were certainly justifiable in what they did. Nobody could be more alive to the sympathy of relationship, or of friendship, than he was; but at the same time he must say, that they were not exactly the persons whose directions were to be followed in this instance. How did the case stand? A motion was made for a criminal information, and at the time it was pretty plainly insinuated that this was the mode which, on account of the comparative smallness of the expence, the accused would prefer; but afterwards it appeared that lord Melville, upon re-consideration, with all the disadvantage of the additional exnence, preferred the mode of impeachment, But was

553

it ever said or insinuated that the impeachment was not to be conducted in the most solemn manner? Not an idea was entertained that the trial would not be allowed to proceed in the way best calculated to answer the ends of public justice. On the contrary, the cordial support of the hon. gentlemen was promised to the managers who were to conduct the impeachment. He had no doubt of the sincerity of that promise, and as little did he doubt that the present opposition of the hon. gentlemen proceeded from their conviction that they could conduct the business much better than the managers who had been appointed for that purpose. But then he might be afraid of such friends. They had voted against all criminal proceedings whatever, and certainly the therefore ought to be against them. With regard to the length of time, his hon. friend had given sufficient reason to suppose that the difference would not be material; and as to the argument of the right hon. gent. (Mr. Rose), who maintained that a trial at the bar of the house of lords would be as public as one in Westminster-hall; he was convinced that his reasoning would have very little influence on house. Now, why should we resort perpetually for directions to those who had opposed all criminal proceedings in this ease? It was an old rule of the house, which was now dropped, perhaps properly, but which was not without some grounds to support it, that no persons should be allowed to speak in a committee on a bill who opposed the principle, because it was thought that such persons would not make any alterations in the detail which would promote the object of the bill. As to the policy of the conduct of these gentlemen with regard to themselves, that was their business; but, in a public view, it would be the worst policy in the world to raise even a suspicion of a collusion with those who opposed the bringing of lord Melville to trial in any way. Could any man doubt with regard to the publicity of this affair, that all the arguments which went to shew the advantage of an impeachment over a criminal information, went also to prove the advantage of a trial in Westminster-hall, above one in the house of lords? Were they not aware that all the arguments in favour of solemnity and publicity, which had once been urged in favour of an impeachment, might now be turned against themselves? "A public spectacle!"
554
said an hon. gent. opposite to him. Why, he hoped that every trial of this kind would be rendered a public spectacle, and that as many as possible would be admitted to them; not, indeed, with a view to influence them; but that those who were concerned in such trials, might feel the responsibility of their situations and characters; that the public might be satisfied that every thing was fairly conducted, and that the decision, whether one way or the other, was given with that deliberation and impartiality, which the circumstances of the case required.
Mr. Canningsaid, that after the speech of the right hon. gent. (Mr. Fox), and when it was considered how much warmth he had thrown into that speech, he scarcely knew what course he had to take. If it was decided that the strong arm of government was to fall upon lord Melville, perhaps it would be as well if gentlemen on that side of the house were to hold their tongues altogether. The right hon. gent. besides imputing to them the greatest inconsistency, seemed to consider, that every argument which came from them should be received with the greatest suspicion. The hon. gent. had also stated, that it, was impossible that those who voted for the impeachment could have then in their contemplation that such impeachment would be regulated by the precedent of lord Macclesfield's case, rather than by that of the other precedents of impeachments in Westminster-hall. It, however, was natural that they should look to that case, which was the only one cited at that time. As for himself, he trusted that his assertion would deserve as much weight as the general assertion of any other gentleman; and he must declare that he had this case in his contemplation when he voted for the impeachment. The right hon. gent. had expressed surprise that they did not look to the last precedent, that of the trial of Mr, Hastings. That was a case of which not only the public opinion, but parliament it self, had pronounced upon, when it appointed a new judicature to try offences of that nature in future. As to the authority of arguments being lessened when coming from relations or private friends, he thought there should be full as great a diminution from their authority when they came from persons of a contrary description. For example, a noble lord (Henry Petty) had held nearly the following language: "You feel disposed o shelter lord Melville as

555
private friends, but I feel as chancellor of the exchequer." Whether the feelings of nature, or the sensibilities of office, deserved the greater respect, he left it with the house to determine.
Mr. Whitbreadin explanation, said, that when he had cited the case of lord Macclesfield, he only meant to shew, that impeaehments were not necessarily attended with great delay; but as a right hon. gent. (Mr. Canning) had mentioned what was in his contemplation, he should also mention what passed in his; he had intended originally to move, that the impeachment should be in Westminster-hall, and had mentioned it to the late Mr. Pitt, who made no objection to it.
Mr. C. W. Wynnesupported the motion on constitutional grounds. Impeachment was the best mode of proceeding, and it was proper to have it as open as possible. The house of lords might be thrown open, but few could get in. He expressed his surprise at the logic of some hon. gentlemen. Because Mr. Hastings's trial had lasted eight sessions, did it follow that all trials conducted in the same way were to last an equal time? The great delay that took place on that occasion might be attributed to other causes. In an impeachment, the house of lords had the right of chusing the days of trial, and adjourning it as they pleased; and during the trial of Mr. Hastings, there was one year in which but four days were appointed for the trial.
Mr Wallacesaid, he was one of those who from the beginning, disapproved of the prosecution of lord Melville, and who thought there had not been a sufficient ground of accusation made out against him. His opinion was unaltered; but since the trial was resolved on, he thought the great object at present was, that speedy justice should be done, and with as little vexation as possible, to the party who was the object of the trial. The proceeding itself inflicted a very severe penalty on the defendant, and would draw down the punishment of guilt upon the head of a person who might be innocent. As to the arguments that had been relied on, of the superior publicity and solemnity of the trial at Westminster-hall, they made but little impression on his mind. He did not consider the publicity of a trial to depend entirely upon the number of persons who Were present at it. The proceedings of the court of King's Bench had, as he thought, sufficient publicity, and yet that court was
556
so small, that it was not capable of admitting many persons; and when the occasion was considered, he could not conceive that much additional solemnity would be gained either from the place of the trial, or the number of persons who attended. These circumstances might produce a considerable irritation in the public mind (which perhaps was what was wanted), and it might gratify the vanity of certain gentlemen, in giving them a better opportunity of displaying those talents which they might fancy they possessed. He felt a still greater objection to the trial being at Westminster and a party man, as much as it was in the power of government to do.
Mr. Greycould not exactly understand what the hon. gent. meant by his concluding observation; for whether the trial was in Westminster-hall, or at the bar of the house of lords, lord Ellenborough would in either case have the same right as a peer of parliament, and nothing more. As to parliament having shewn its disapprobation to the impeachment of Mr. Hastings, by establishing an East-India judicature, he must observe, that that appointment was made in 1784, whereas the impeachment of Mr. Hastings began in 1788; and, if parliament meant to shew disapprobation to impeachments, it would not merely have created an East-India judicature, but a general judicature for trying offences which were fonnerly tried by impeachment. A right hon. gent. (Mr. Caning) had spoken of "the strong arm of government being directed against lord Melville." He should have recollected, whether on a former occasion, and when he was connected with administration, "the strong arm of government" had not been exerted to withdraw lord Melville from justice, and to protect him from the charges which the house had brought against him. But how was it that government could now be said to use their power? They only wished to give the greatest publicity to the trial, and publicity had always been supposed the best defence of the subject against the strong arm of government. He thought the general question had been amply discussed; and should only observe, that the difference of expence between the trial at Westminster-hall, and at the bar, would be to the defendant nothing near what had been suggested in the course of the debate,—The motion was then put and carried.