made on the 23d of May by general Fitzpatrick, to thank the managers of the impeachment "for their faithful management in their discharge of the trust reposed in them." This motion was seconded by Sir John Newport, and agreed to with only one dissentient Voice. The speaker then calling on the managers, who stood up in their several places, addressed them as follows: "Gentlemen, "This honse upon the result of, grave and important inquiries into the administration of the public expenditure, came to the resolution of entering upon the most solemn of all its functious; and of resorting to that transcendent power, by which it can bring to judgment all misdeeds done by the highest servants of the crown, and most effectually avenge all inroads made, or attempted to be made, upon the liberties of the people. "The conduct and management of that power it delegated to you; to prepare and arrange the proofs of complex and intricate facts; and to make good the charge of high crimes and misdemeanors against a noble person, whose elevated and splendid situations in the state, rendered his actions of signal example, for good or for evil, to all persons entrusted with the public treasure. "Throughout the progress of the trial so undertaken, we have seen with peculiar satisfaction, its proceedings conducted with an exemplary diligence and dispatch, which have rescued impeachments from the disgrace into which they had nearly fallen, and have restored them to their ancient strength and honour. Upon your part we have also witnessed that unwearied in. dustry, and singular sagacity, with which you have pursued and established the proofs; that boldness so properly belonging to the common, with which you have maintained the charge, and that powerful display of argument and learned eloquence which have spread the light of day over da. k, secret, and criminal transactions. "The issue of the whole is now with the lords; and whether that be of condemnation or acquittal, it rests with a tribunal, which, so far as depends upon human institutions, promises the fairest hopes of ultimate justice. But, be that issue what it may, your part is accomplished. In the discharge of your duty, you have satisfied the expectation of the commons; you have obtained the high reward of their approbation and thanks, and, in obedience to their commands, I am now to acquaint you with their resolution : "That the thanks of this house "be given to the members who "were appointed the managers of "the impeachment against Henry "lord viscount Melville, for their "faithful management in their dis"charge of the trust reposed in "" them " General Fitzpatrick then moved, "that Mr. Speaker be desired to print the speech which he made to the managers of the impeachment of lord Melville, in consequence of the resolution of this house" which was agreed to unanimously. The house of lords resumed the consideration of the impeachment, on the 28th of May; but, as strangers were excluded from the house, and no report has been pub. lished of their debates, we are com pelled pelled to give a very short and mperfect account of the subsequent proceedings of that assembly. We understand, however, that the whole of the first day was consumed in discussions of order. The lord chancellor, in moving that the house should go into a committee on the impeachment, took occasion to express, in very strong language, his disapprobation of the ancient and established practice in such cases, of the house coming to a previous decision in the chamber of parliament, and exacted a sort of pledge, that no vote should be taken on the question, whether the commons had made good any of their charges, until the house went down to Westminster-hall. He announced at the same time, his intention of ⚫ moving in the committee, that some of the articles should be divided, and discoursed at some length on the defective form in which they had been prepared by the commons. Whereupon some of the lords entered into a vindieation of the ancient practice of the house in cases of impeachment, and argued, that the house could not, consistently with its forms, discuss the articles of impeachment, unless there was a question before it, and that, whether the house should divide on that question, must depend not on any general resolution of the whole house, but on the individual members present, any one of whom might insist on taking the sense of the house on the question which it had entertained. A long and warm conversation followed, in which the chief speakers on the one side were the lord chancellor, lord Ellenborough, and lord Radnor, and on the other side lord Lauderdale and lord Holland. At length the house went into a committee to take into consideration the first article of impeachment, and being afterwards resumed, adjourned till the 30th. On that day the former subject of discussion was revived by lord Auckland, who rising before the chairman had taken the chair, made a speech of some length enforcing the propriety of a previous discussion and vote, and ended by moving, "That the proceedings on Mr. Hastings's trial, the report of the committee, and questions put to the lords in Westminster-hall should be printed." Lord Ellenborough and lord Erskine replied to lord Auckland-but after some debate his motion was agreed to. The house then resolved itself into a committee, in which, after a long debate on the most expedient mode of framing a question, which would bring to a fair issue the propriety of dividing the first article of impeachment, as proposed by the lord Chancellor and lord El lenborough-and after a full discussion of the question itself, an amendment proposing a division of the article, was negatived by a majority of 72 to 53. The chief speakers for the amendment were lord Erskine and lord Ellenborough; against it, lord Eldon and lord Stanhope. It was then resolved, that it is the opinion of this committee, that the first question put to the lords in Westminster-hall shall be, "Is Henry viscount Melville guilty of the high crimes and misdemeanours charged upon him in the first article of the impeachment, or not guilty ?"-Then the like motions were made on the other nine articles, and severally agreed to. The house being again, on the to consider farther of the impeachment, it was moved, that it is the opinion of this committee, that the commons have made good their first article of charge. After a long debate, the house was resumed, and the judges ordered to attend next day. 2d of June, put into a committee, question the lord chief justice of the court of common pleas delivered the unanimous opinion of the judges, that the monies described in the question might be lawfully drawn from the bank by the person duly authorized by the treasurer, lawfully lodged and deposited in the hands of a private banker," and that such act, in so "drawing such monies, and lodging "and depositing the same as afore"said, is not in the law a crime or "offence." On the 3d of June, the following questions were, on the motion of lord Eldon, put to the judges, which, with the substance of the opinions of the judges thereupon, delivered on the 5th of June, we subjoin. The first question put to the judges was as follows: "Whe"ther monies issued from the ex"chequer to the governor and "company of the bank of England, "on account of the treasurer of his "majesty's navy, pursuant to the "act 25 Geo. III. cap. 31. may "be lawfully drawn from the said "bank by the person duly autho"rized by the treasurer to draw "upon the bank, according to the "said act; the drafts of such per❝son being made for the purpose "of discharging bills actually as"signed upon the treasurer before "the date of such drafts, but not "actually presented for payment "before such drawing; and whe"ther such monies, so drawn, for "such purpose, may be lawfully "lodged and deposited in the hands "of a banker, other than the "bank, until the payment of such assigned bills, and for the pur The second question put to the judges was: "Whether monies "issued from the exchequer to the "bank of England, on account of "the treasurer of the navy, pur"suant to the act 25 Geo. III. cap. 31. may be lawfully drawn "therefrom, by drafts drawn in "the name, and on the behalf of "the said treasurer, in the form "prescribed in the same act, for "the purpose of such monies being ultimately applied to navy ser"vices; but, in the mean time, "and until the same should be re"quired to be so applied, for the "purpose of being deposited in the "hands of a private banker, or "other private depository of suck "monies, in the name, and under "the immediate sole control and dis"position of some other person or 66 persons than the said treasurer "himself." Upon this second question, "If by the expression for the purpose of being deposit. 'ed in the hands of a private bank pose of making payment thereof,er, or other private depository,' "when the payment thereof shall "be demanded, or whether such "act, in so drawing monies and "lodging and depositing the same "as aforesaid, is in the law "crime or offence?" Upon this a it is to be understood, that such was "the object or reason of drawing "the money out of the bank of "England, the judges answer, that "monies may not be lawfully drawn "out of the bank of England by "the "the treasurer of the navy, for ❝ such purpose, although the (6 money be intended to be, and 66 may in fact be, ultimately ap. "plied to navy services. But, if "by that expression it is to be un"derstood, that such intermediate "deposit, in the hands of a private "banker or depository, is made, "bona fule, as the means, or sʊp"posed means, of more conveni. "ently applying the money to navy "services, in that case, the judges 16 answer, that monies may be law. "fully drawn in the terms of the "question.and lawfully deposited in "the hands of a private banker, in "the name and under the sole con❝trol and disposition of other per<< sons than the treasurer of the navy. 46 Several other questions for the consideration of the judges were proposed to the house, but on a division they were negatived; after which, the house procceded on the 5th of June, to go into a committee for the further consideration of the impeachment; when it was moved," that it is the opinion of this committee, that the commons have made good the second article of charge;" and, after a debate, ordered, "that the farther consideration of this article be postponed." Similar resolutions were moved on the other articles, and after each article had been sufficiently discussed, the consideration of it was, in like manner, postponed, without coming to a division; by which it was intended, that the advantages of discussion in the chamber of parliament should be obtained, without any vote on the charges, before the house went down to Westminster-hall. On the 5th of June, the 2d, 3d, and 4th articles of impeachment were in this manner discussed; and on the 6th, the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th articles were in like manner disposed of — Another question was also submitted to the judges on the 6th of June in the following words: "Whe 66 ther it was lawful for the treasu"rer of the navy, before the pas. "sing of the act of 25 Geo. III. cap. 31. and more especially, "when by warrant from his majes. "ty, his salary, as such treasurer "as aforesaid, was augmented in "full satisfaction for all wages, fees, "and other profits and emoluments, "to apply any sum of money en"trusted to him for navy pur. poses, to any other one whatso. ever, public or private, without express authority for so doing: "and whether such application by "such treasurer, would have been "a misdemeanor, or punishable by "information or indictment?" To which question the judges unani. mously answered, that it was "not unlawful for the treasurer" so to apply the money entrusted to him for navy services, "so as to constitute a misdemeanor punishable by information or indictment."— This opinion was delivered on the 9th of June, and on the same day the lords brought to a conclusion their deliberations on the impeachment, by discussing the tenth and last article in the usual form. We most unfeignedly lament, that we are unable to communicate to our readers the particulars of these discussions in the chamber of parliament, as they would no doubt contribute materially to explain the subsequent votes of the majority in Westminster-hall. We understand, however, that among those who spoke in support of the impeachment, L impeachment, were the lord chan- no evidence that satisfied his con. cellor, bishop of St. Asaph, lords Ellenborough, Lauderdale, Holland, St. John, Donoughmore, So mers, Grosvenor, Sidmouth and Stanhope; and that the chief speakers on the other side were lord Eldon, the archbishop of Canterbury, lords Hawkesbury, Abercorn, Carlton and Westmoreland. But the noble lord, whose ingenuity and eloquence were exerted with the greatest effect in defence of the noble lord under impeachment, was lord Eldon. That noble and learn. ed lord, considering the point of law to be settled by the opinions of the judges, directed himself in this debate, chielly to repel from the noble defendant the charge of corruption. In the course of his argument for that purpose, he admitted with great candour, and in the most explicit terms, that the noble lord, now upon his trial, had been guilty of culpable negligence" in the discharge of his daty-and of "criminal indulgence" to his paymaster; and he declared, that had these been the charges brought by the commons, he must have pronounced the noble lord guilty of the charges; but the Doble lord was charged with corruption, and of that crime he saw science. Lord Grenville and lord Spencer were not present at these discussions-nor did they vote in Westminster-hall. They had both attended, for the first two days, the examination of the evidence, but finding that the time occupied in the proceedings in Westminster-hall interfered with the discharge of their official duties, they discontinued their attendance, and took no part afterwards in the trial. On the 12th of June the house having adjourned to Westminsterhall, and being there resumed, the lord chancellor put the question, beginning at the junior baron, "Is "Henry viscount Melville guilty "or not guilty?" And all the lords present having declared guilty or not guilty, the lord chancellor, after casting up the votes, declared lord Melville not guilty. Then his lordship declared to him, "that the lords had fully considered of his case, and had found him not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors charged on him by the impeachment of the house of commons." - We subjoin to this account of the trial, the numbers of those who voted guilty or not guilty on the different articles of impeachment. 3d 4th 5th | 6th | 7th | 8th ( 9th 10th | | | | | | 120 81 83 13 131 88 85 121 121 124 1st | 20 Not guilty Guilty 52 |