WE

E have in a former chapter noticed some proceedings in the house of commons relating to the impeachment of lord Melville. In this we shall give a brief detail of what occurred afterwards in parliament on this business; and then lay before our readers a short sketch of the several debates on India affairs.

On the 26th of March Mr. Whitbread, after a few prelimi nary observations, moved that the house of commons be present at the trial of lord viscount Melville, as a committee of the whole house.

Mr. Robert Dundas said, the effects of the present motion would be to oblige the house of lords to address his majesty for having Westminster Hall filled up for the purpose of their proceeding to trial. Such a step, he said, would not only lead to great inconvenience, but might be the source of gross injustice and oppression, by the delay and expense 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 could be required, if the trial proceeded in their own house, would be for the managers to retire till

the question was discussed. But, if the 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 no 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 the 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 expense. 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 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 matter might occur to him (Mr. Dundas) more forcibly than to other members of the house, but he hoped the house would excuse him in stating it. The honorable gentleman was in possession of ample documents

documents to instruct, 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 expense, he submitted that it could never be the wish of the house, or of the honour able gentleman, to purchase it at a greater expense to the party accused.

Mr. Tierney said, that when the house had at last come to the resolution of impeachment, he had trusted that no further 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 tes timony to the strict propriety with which the honourable gentleman 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. 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.

Mr. Bankes could see nothing to persuade the house to do that in lord Melville's case, which it had found so inconvenient in that of 1806.

Mr. Hastings. In the course of that trial the delay was disgraceful, and the expense intolerable. Hẹ 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-hall. An honourable gentleman 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 now held such spectacles in abhorrence. The trial of Mr. Hastings had completely disgusted them with such exhibitions. If the If the twenty-one 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 P

fit

fit up the hall, should not be lightly thrown away at the present mo

ment.

Lord Folkestone was for the motion.

Lord H. Petty, though he differed in opinion from an honourable gentleman who had preceded the noble lord, yet was not surprised at the arguments he hud advanced. He had originally opposed the mode of trial by impeachment, and might therefore be con sistent 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 honourable gentle man, and opposing now the an cient and constitutional mode of conducting that impeachment, was rather extraordinary. The ho nourable gentleman 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 honourable friend, it would amount to a declaration, that all the ancient and constitutional forms of impeachment were impracticable. The expense attendant on this mode of trial had been stated as an objection against it. It was not the expense of paper that might be consumed, or of benches that might be erected; but the want of those

constitutional inquiries into misapa plications of the public money, that could ever prove ruinous to the country. The first object which the house should have in view was the attainment of justice; open, clear, and public justice. To this every inferior consideration should give way. He was confident that the people would take the most decided interest in the discussions, and he thought that the public anxiety should be gratified as much as possible. For these reasons he supported the motion.

Mr. Whitbread wished to say a few words, in reply to the objec tions which had been made to his motion. An honourable member, for whose conduct in the whole of this business he had taken every opportunity to express the greatest respect, had appealed to the compassion of the house, and had com plained of the oppression and vexa tion which a public trial would cause. Nothing of the kind was however intended. It was only wished, that the trial should be conducted with all that solemnity and publicity which had been the uniform practice in this country. The arguments against idle expense, and an unnecessary audi ence, would go to shut the courts of justice altogether against the public, and thus deprive our mode of administering justice of that publicity, which is one of its greatest boasts. Those gentlemen who voted for the impeachment in preference to a less solemn trial, must have had it in contemplation, that it would be conducted in Westminster-hall. This had been the uniform practice ever since the Restoration, except in the case of lord Macclesfield. In his case also, a very long protest was entered

against

against the innovation. Was it not to be supposed that every member of this house would wish to attend on so important an occasion? But have they this in their power, if the trial take place in the house of lords? Surely not. "Let us not go to the expense of fitting up Westminster-hall!" He did not feel the same fears, and should advise, that they should go to the expense of fitting up Westminster-hall, as he thought the simple question with regard to which of the places the trial should be held at, ought only to be, which of the two places would hold the greater number of people? which of them would give the greater publicity to the trial? It was certainly not the wish of the managers to give publicity to any other species of information than that which they had necessarily collected in the course of their examination; but what bore directly on the charges they had preferred against lord Melville, ought to be made as public as possible. If there was such an anxiety in the public to hear the impeachment of lord Macclesfield, that the house of lords was not sufficient to accommodate them, there might be expected to be at least equal, anxiety to hear the trial of lord Melville, who had held nearly the same rank as a minister, a peer, and a privy counsellor, and who was charged with offences of nearly a similar nature. He thought that every individual would be anxious to be present at such a trial.

Mr. Wm. Dundas would not allege that it was possible for him to be altogether impartial on this subject, but he was at a loss to see how the ends of public justice could be better promoted by having the trial in Westminster-hall. It

was the very essence of justice that it should not be dilatory, and that it cause as little vexation or oppres sion as was possible. It was a maxim of our law, that every man was to be presumed innocent, until his guilt were proved; and therefore he had a right to presume lord Melville to be innocent of what he had been charged with. If so, the consequence of a long protracted impeachment would be to bring inevitable ruin, and an age of poverty and want, upon an innocent man: but even if he were not allowed to make this supposi tion, he should ask, Was it fair, was it generous or just, that lord Melville, whose political life (independent of that matter now alleged against him) was known to be marked with public services, should be consigned to an age of poverty and want, merely because one place for the trial might afford something more publicity than an other? In the mode that was now proposed, after the example of Hastings'strial, it would be evident that lord Melville, whether innocent or guilty, must meet the severe punishment of poverty and want, which the expense of this trial must necessarily occasion.

Mr. secretary Fox said, 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 P 2

brought

brought forward and supported this proposition, were certainly justifiable in what they did. No body could be more alive to the sympathy of relationship, or even 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 expense, the accused would prefer; but after wards it appeared that lord Melville, upon re-consideration, with all the disadvantage of the additional expense, preferred the mode of impeachment. But was 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 honourable gentleman was promised to the managers who were to conduct the impeachment. With regard to the length of time, his honourable friend had given sufficient reason to suppose that the difference would not be material; and as to the argument of the honourable gentleman, who maintained that a trial at the bar of the house of lords would be as public as one in Westminster-hall-he supposed that his reasoning would have very little influence on the house. Now, why should we resort perpetually for directions to those who had opposed all criminal proceedings in this case? It was an old rule of the house, which was now dropped, perhaps proper

ly, but which was not without some grounds to support it, that no person should be allowed to speak in a committee on a bill who opposed the principle, because it was thought that suclr persons would not make any alterations in the detail, which would promote the ob ject of the bill. A public spectacle!" said an honourable gentleman opposite 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. Canning, after the speech of the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Fox,) and when it was considered how much warmth he had thrown into that speech, scarcely knew what course he had to take. If it was decided that "the strong arm of government" was to fail upon lord Melville (cries of "No! no! Order! order!"), perhaps it would be as well if gentlemen on that side of the house were to hold their tongues altogether. The right honourable gentleman, 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 ho nourable gentleman had also stated, that it was impossible that those who voted for the impeachment could have then in their contemplation, that such impeachment

would