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 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 honourable gentleman, and opposing now the ancient and constitutional mode of conducting that impeachment, was rather extraordinary. The honourable gentleman (Mr. Bankes) 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, ore 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 expence attendant on this mode of trial had been stated as an objec tion 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. It might soon be his lot to propose an augmen tation of the public burdens, and he trusted he might be allowed to feel, that the people should be invited to every species of enquiry, and obtain every degree of knowledge with regard to its disposal. They were entitled to that satisfaction which they must feel from seeing that their interests were attended to. With regard to the expence it would occasion to the person accused, he was convinced it would be small. At any rate, its amount might make a fit subject for consideration in that House, either in the event of his acquittal or condemnation. 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 much as possible. For these reasons he supported the motion. Mr. Rose had voted for the impeachment in preference to a trial in an inferior court; but he had then imagined it would be conducted at the bar of the House of Lords, after the precedent of Lord Macclesfield. Every end of public justice would in that way be attained in a fifth part of the time. He thought the noble lord had spoken in too desponding a tone of the finances of the country. In his opinion, the resources of the country were abundant, and fully sufficient to meet every exigence. Lord H. Petty, in 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 re Sources. Mr. Whitbread wished to say a few words, in reply to the objections 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 complained of the oppression and vexation 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 expence, and an unnecessary audience, 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 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. It had been said that that House had been enlarged since Lord Macclesfield's time; but surely the number of the Commons had increased in proportion. As to what some gentlemen seemed to be so much afraid of, when they said, Lot Let us not go to the expence of fitting up Westminster-Hall! he did dot feel the same fears, and should advise, that they should go to the expence 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 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. If it should appear that Lord. Melville was innocent, it would be proper that his innocence should be proved in the most solemn and public manner; and if he should be guilty, that the managers should be enabled to prove that guilt in the face of the assembled nation. For this reason he thought, that, whenever there was an impeachment by the House of Commons, it should be carried on in Westminster-Hall. The object was to ascertain the guilt or innocence of the party accused in the most public and solemn manner. 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 oppression 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 supposition, he should ask, was it fair, was it ge nerous nerous or just, that Lord Melville, whose political life (independant 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 another? An honourable gentleman had said, that the House should take an example from the trial of Hastings; but could it be forgotten, that that trial, with the delay and expence attending it, had been ever since considered a foul stigma and a disgrace to the laws of England? This was declared upon a late occasion by the judge-advocate, whom he did not now see in his place, with greater force and authority than he could give. He wished that right honourable gentleman had been then present to repeat what he had before said upon that subject. In the mode that was now proposed, after the example of Hastings's trial, it would be evident that Lord Melville, whether innocent or guilty, must meet the severe punishment of poverty and want, which the expence of this trial must necessarily occasion. Mr. Perceval would not detain the House many minutes there was a cry for the question); but he had a public duty to perform in saying something upon this question. If 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 arguments of his honourable 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 haying 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 formation 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 of 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 conse quence. 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 inconsistency 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 had 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. An honourable 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 honourable friend under the gallery (Bankes), had been so impressed with the inconveniences attending the trial of Mr. Hastings, that he had formed a resolution to oppose 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. 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. He Mr. Secretary For rose to trouble the House only with a few words; but something which fell from the honourable gentleman who spoke last, induced him to trespass on their attention for a moment. That honourable gentleman had charged him, and those who agree 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 |