Lords Sitting of 25 April 1806

MINUTES
Lord Ponsonby(late the right hon. W. B. Ponsonby, was introduced with the accustomed formalities, sworn, and took his seat. His lordship's supporters were the earl of Besborough (as lord Ponsonby) and lord Dundas.—The earl of Orford (late baron Walpole) was also introduced, sworn, and took his seat. His lordship's supporters were earls Fitzwilliam and Spencer.

IMPEACHMENT OF LORD MELVILLE.
Lord Eldonstated to the house, that there appeared to him an error in the report of the committee respecting the ceremonial to be observed on the trial of lord Melville, which it was necessary to correct. It was there stated, that on giving judgment every peer should say, "Guilty" or "Not Guilty,"—"upon my honour;" at the same time, laying his hand upon his breast. He conceived that this was erroneous, inasmuch as the decision on such an occasion must be the vote of the house collectively, and certainly, in case of a verdict of Guilty, it was not giving judgment, as the de-

905
fendant might move in arrest of judgment, the grounds of which motion would come to be considered by their lordships. The subsequent proceeding of judgment must result from the vote of the house, and be delivered by their speaker. He concluded by giving notice, that he should make a motion on Monday to rectify this error in the report.
The Earl of Raduoradverted to the motion which he made the preceding day, and Which he still contended ought to have been adopted, respecting the peers sitting in their places on the trial of lord Melville, and not departing there from during the trial of each day. His lordship referred to six precedents of trials before the house, in which a similar order had been made; and contended that it ought to be made in this case, in order to ensure that strict decorum which was requisite on so solemn an occasion. Having moved the reading of the first standing order, requiring the peers to sit in their places in the house, as prescribed by act of parliament, he concluded by moving, that so much of the said order as was applicable, should be enforced on the trial of lord Melville.
The Lord Chancellorthought the strict enforcement of such an order would frequently be productive of great inconvenience. He had no doubt that their lordships would observe the greatest decorum upon the trial, whilst, at the same time, he conceived himself already under the standing order, with every necessary power to enforce the observance of decorum, whenever there was any deviation from it. He was likewise of opinion, that the present motion had been decided upon, in substance, the preceding day, and therefore ought not now to be entertained in another shape.—The Earl of Westmeath and Lord Auckland also opposed the motion, on the ground of the inconvenience such an order strictly enforced would produce. The latter noble lord said, there were 12 precedents of impeachment, in which such an order had not been made.—Earl Spencer thought it unnecessary, as it seemed to be agreed on all hands that the greatest possible decorum ought to be observed on the trial.—Several other peers briefly delivered their sentiments; and after the earl of Radnor spoke in explanation, the house divided—For the previous question, 37. Against it 10. Majority 27.
[AMERICAN INTERCOURSE BILL.] Lord Sheffield rose to move for several addi-
906
tional papers, which he thought further necessary to the illustration of this important subject. He should therefore first move an humble address to his majesty, requesting instructions might be given that there be laid before the house, a copy of the report of the board of trade, delivered in Feb. 1784, to the privy council.
Lord Hollandwould not object to the production of the paper, but could not help observing it was in consequence of that very report that those measures were taken, which, for three years subsequent to that period, produced the most calamitous consequences in the West-Indies. He could not conceive, besides, that the opinions of the lords of trade in 1784, could, upon this question, be of much use in 1806. He objected also to the practice adopted by the noble lord of moving for papers relating to particular years without moving for those respecting the intermediate years.
Lord Sheffieldcontended, that this and many other papers which he still had to move for, would explain the state of that trade at different periods, and the various opinions that were entertained of its tendency.—After some conversation, the motion was agreed to, and the noble lord proceeded to move for a similar report delivered in Jan. 1791, and for a copy of all the memorials presented at different times since 1801, against suspensions of the navigation laws.
Lord Aucklanddeclared, that not one of the papers moved for by the noble lord had the least relation whatever to the object of the bill before the house. The object of that bill, he wished once for all to declare, seemed to be wholly misunderstood by the noble lord. It by no means intended the introduction of any change in the navigation laws; its whole object was to make that lawful which was now unlawful, and to make ministers responsible instead of their subordinate servants. As to the papers, they were so voluminous, that it would employ 60 clerks, for mouths to prepare them, which would prove a serious derangement to public business, without mentioning the expence attending the production of them. If it was intended to create delay by moving for such volumes; that intention would be frustrated, for he was determined to proceed in the 2d reading of that bill, without waiting for any such papers.
Lord Sheffieldwished only for an extract; but this was also objected to, unless the noble lord would point out some particular part to be extracted.
Lord Aucklandtook the opportunity of declaring, that he would not consent to postpone the 2d reading of the bill on account of the papers moved for by the noble lord.
Lord Hollandsuggested, whether the noble lord had not better move, amongst other voluminous works, for Anderson's History of Commerce and Postlethwaite's Dictionary.—After some further conversation the motion was negatived.
Lord Sheffieldthen moved for copies of all memorials and petitions presented to the board of trade since 1801, relative to suspensions of the navigation act.
Lord Aucklandobjected also to this motion, as the memorials (there were no petitions) would form several folio volumes, and were of no consequence to the question. Any of the memorialists, who now thought it necessary, might petition the house against the bill.—The motion was negatived.