Lords Sitting of 28 April 1806

IMPEACHMENT OF LORD MELVILLE.
Lord Aucklandmoved, that this house do strictly prohibit and forbid any publication whatever of the Trial of lord Melville, during the continuance of the same; and that notices of such order be posted up on the doors of this house, and on the doors of Westminster Hall.
The Duke of Norfolkasked if there was any precedent for such a motion?
Lord Aucklandreplied in the negative; but argued that such a regulation was called for by reason and justice. He adverted to the instances of speeches, or proceedings, for 2 or 3 days successively, namely, on one side of the question, and in support of the charges, without the other party having an opportunity of urging a tittle in his defence against such allegations. He would put it to their lordships, and appeal to the whole house, whether it were fit that partial publications of the proceedings should go abroad in that manner?—The motion being read from the woolsack,
Lord Eldon,according to his conception of the motion, as he heard it read, thought such an order would go to the prohibition of the trial being published altogether, even after its conclusion; which, he seemed to think, could not be what was intended. He, however, highly approved of the principle upon which the prohibition proceeded, and he lamented the partial publication of trials, as frequently practised with respect to the courts below. He was sorry to say, that he was old enough to have
928
seen, in his time, much mischief result from that practice; and he particularly alluded to the case of the last impeachment. He therefore approved of what was now proposed; it would prohibit a practice which might afford grounds for a person to be deemed guilty, when, in point of fact, after hearing the whole of the case, their lordships' judgment might be such as to establish the innocence of the party.
Lord Hawkesburyexpressed his acquiscence in the principle laid down by his noble and learned friend; but as he conceived the effect of the motion would be to prohibit the publication of the trial altogether, he thought some words should be introduced therein, to limit the order to a prohibition during the continuance of the trial.
The Lord Chancellorexplained, that it might be owing to his mistake in reading the motion, that the noble lords were led into such a supposition. There were words in the motion to meet the idea adverted to, and he thought it absolutely necessary to the honour and justice of the house, that such a notice should be given.
The Duke of Norfolksaid a few further words on the occasion, and adverted to the impracticability of preventing that which should transpire on the trial from going forth.—The question was then put, and the motion agreed to by their lordships, and ordered accordingly.—The report of the committee appointed to regulate the ceremonial of the trial was then taken into farther consideration. The duke of Norfolk, lords Spencer and Hawkesbury, were the principal speakers, In respect to the delivery of tickets to the different peers of parliament for admission at Westminster-hall, it was finally agreed that the regulation adopted in former cases of impeachment should be adhered to.— On the motion of lord Eldon, that part of the report which regulated the manner of giving judgment, was postponed for consideration till a future day.