self would ere long repent it. He would not attempt to reply to the arguments adduced by the noble lord, for the purpose of proving that these charges ought not to have been brought before the House, as he considered that the time was past for such anjargument, the House having already repeatedly decided to the contrary. They had ordered witnesses repeatedly to attend to give their evidence, a similar order had been again made this session, and witnesses were now in attendance. These witnesses had travelled many a weary mile to attend at the bar of that House to claim that justice which was due to them; and now, after having heard part of the evidence and gone thus far, the proceeding was to be suddenly put an end to, the remainder of the charges were not to be investigated, and with respect to those which had, the learned Judge was to be deprived of the opportunity of rebutting the evidence against him. He regretted that he must be under the necessity of detaining their lordships some time, but he felt it to be his duty, under the circumstances in which the House was now placed by the present motion, to call their attention to the whole of the evidence which related to the charges against Mr. Justice Fox, with a view of putting it to them upon the whole of the case, whether they could consistently, or in justice, now suddenly abandon the proceedings which they had commenced. His lordship then entered into a very long and minute detail of the charges against Mr. Justice Fox and the evidence in support of them, commenting upon each charge as he went but as it is altogether an exparte statement, we consider it proper to refrain from following the noble marquis in this part of his speech.

on;

Lord Eldon said he should give a most decided negative to this motion. He knew, as well as any man, the importance of preserving the independence of the judges; but there was something equally dangerous with a condition of dependence, and that was, that they should be placed above all law and all controul. He did not see how the enquiry could be dismissed, unless the evidence before the House were erased from the journals. The noble lord, who now sat on the woolsack, was well acquainted with the importance of the trial by jury, and had selected for his motto this distinguishing character of British jurisprudence. What would he say to the repeated violations of this mode of trial, which appeared on the evidence to have been practised by the learned judge, whose conduct was the subject of en

quiry?

quiry? The mode in which the examination had proceeded was not open to the objections stated by the noble lord who made the motion. It was perfectly regular, that the Houses of Lords and Commons should jointly address the Throne for the removal of an unjust judge; and it would be in the greatest degree indecent, if such an address were not preceded by patient and deliberate inquiry.

The Lord Chancellor was extremely sorry, at that late hour, to solicit the attention of their lordships, but he could not avoid making a few observations. When this subject first came before their lordships, he was a member of the Commons House of Parliament. The learned judge, whose conduct was referred to, had applied to him to appear as counsel, but he had declined all interference, as he understood the object was to remove this high officer from his judicial functions, and that could not be done without the assent of the representative part of the legislature. From this circumstance, and the little expectation he entertained that this subject would so early be submitted to the determination of their lordships, he had not prepared himself by any previous examination of the evidence; but holding the important situation he did, it would be absurd for him to say, that he could form no opinion on the matter now be fore their lordships, because the merits of it depended on the existing law, and not on the testimony collected for the purpose of this investigation. The noble and learned lord who spoke last said, that there were indeed parts of the evidence which would attract the particular attention of him who had the honour of then addressing the House, and be cause he knew his sentiments, and saw upon the carriage which came to the door of their lordships, the motto to be borne with the armorial insignia of the Erskine family thro' all future generations--that motto was, "Trial by Jury:" although he (Lord Chancellor) had been engaged in the hottest times in the defence of that cause, he did not, by the trial by jury, mean to imply any thing distinct and sepa rate from the judge who presided at those trials: it was the trial by judge and jury which attracted his respect and admiration, and he had learnt to direct his veneration to it by an illustrious nobleman (Lord Camden), whose sentiments to him were not a matter of history, but of personal know> ledge, for he was the friend of his youth; and that personage, to the judicium parium, had added terms expressive of his regard for that valuable part of the constitution of a court,

court, which was immediately concerned in expounding the law referable to the facts before the jury. Since his noble and learned friend had adverted so particularly to him, he would remind him of another circumstance which might lead that noble person to suppose that he (Lord Erskine) valued this mode of trial too much to admit any part of it to be impaired. Did any man ever go further than he did, to remind judges of the duties they owed to their country, for which he had been publicly rebuked, but which he returned, he trusted, with honest indignation? It was his pride, that in the course of his professional occu pation, he had been honoured with a gown of precedence, which did not limit his exertions, but permitted the appli cation of them on many occasions, the recollection of which constituted no inconsiderable portion of the happiness of his life. Feeling as he did, he joined with peculiar fervor with the noble and learned lord, in the sentiment, that judges should not be placed above the law, and be permitted to trample on the right of the subject. The true question in this case was, what was intended by the statute of William, and had Mr. Justice Fox, by his misconduct, conduced to the degradation of our free government and constitution? But, whatever might have been his deportment, he was entitled to a fair trial. One of the first prin ciples of British justice in the administration of our penal law is, that the party should be accused, then his case was to be submitted to the grand jury, which was a secret inquest in the first instance, and witnesses were to be examined before them: then, if they saw just cause, he was put upon his trial, and he was judged by twelve impartial persons, who were wholly unacquainted with what had passed upon the inquest; and when he stood at the bar of his country, no man's mouth could be opened but in his presence, no prejudice could be raised which he could not immediately countervail. It was inconsistent with the practice of any court to know any thing of the evidence but in the presence of the party, and that evidence was subjected to his exami nation. Their lordships were men exalted, enlightened, and learned; but they were still men, and subject to all the infirmities of human nature. All he had known of the mind of man had instructed him how dangerous it was to assume an opinion, unless the party had a cotemporaneous opportunity of taking off the unfavourable impresion, and thus the poison was ever accompanied by the antidote. 4

Would

Would their lordships apply these acknowledged principles of our law to the case of the learned judge? Witnesses had been examined at their lordships' bar, their evidence had been registered, no counsel attended, and no cross-examination was admitted. They have said, that this learned judge condescended to bully the jury presented be fore him. Their lordships had better have fulminated their rage, and have abandoned all the decencies to which they were attached, than proceed to condemn him under such circumstances. How long was this blockade of evidence to remain upon their lordships minds, before the party was to be heard in his defence? What a spectacle had the House exhibited! how anomalous the proceedings! While they were arraigning the judge, what were they doing themselves? Had their lordships not been haranguing one another, inflaming one another, and must not all justice perish for ever, if such were their proceedings? Was it the intention of the House to address the King to remove Judge Fox? What was that but the commencement of a judicial proceeding? It was impossible they could stir a step except the Commons agreed with them. Suppose, when the address was sent down to them for their concurrence, the Commons should say, We chuse to proceed by impeachment, in what a situation would their lordships be? Why, that of having actually prejudged a man upon a collateral point. Were they, who had before condemned him, to try the impeachment? Suppose that Mr. Hart, or any other of the petitioners, were dissatisfied with the decision of their lordships, and thought it proper to apply to the Commons, was that House to try a man upon whose case they had pronounced an opinion already, whom they had dismissed from the charge? These were some of the least anomalies into which they would be plunged by a continuance of the present proceedings. Were their lordships afraid to trust the ordinary tribunals upon this occasion, to let the guilt or innocence of the honourable judge be decided by a jury upon a scire facias to repeal the patent by which he held his office? The Commons have also received petitions upon the subject, but they could do so without any inconsistency, for it was not they who were to judge. There was also another objection, and in his mind a very great one, to procceding in that House, and that was, that no one could say when the trial was likely to terminate. He had listened .with very great pleasure to the admirable speech of the

noble

noble marquis, with so much indeed, that if he had not discovered, by looking at his watch, that he had spoken full three hours, he should have conceived, from the excellence of his speech, that he had not occupied more than a quarter of an hour of their lordships' time. If this opening speech was to consume so much time, what time would be sufficient for the counsel, the examination and cross-examination of evidence, and all the delays that necessarily hang upon judicial proceedings? Their lordships had been just delivered from the jaws of one impeachment, were they to run into the jaws of another? If they were, in the name of God, let the proceedings commence where they ought, that is, in the Commons, and let not their lordships prejudge a case which they might probably be called upon, in their judicial capacity, to determine.

Lord Hawkesbury did not rise for the purpose of going into the evidence, but meant to confine himself to that part of the question which had relation to the jurisdiction of their lordships. It was necessary to come to a precise know ledge of the principle upon which they were to proceed. One great error appeared to him to pervade the argument of the noble baron who made the motion, and it was, that he seemed to consider their present proceeding as an exercise of the judicial power, when, in fact, they were only exercising that inquisitorial authority with which they were vested by the constitution. No two powers could be more distict; they might be exercised together without any violation of the equitable principles of our code of judicature. If they were to be restricted from the exertion of the inqui sitorial power, because it was possible that the Commons might consider the offence which they were enquiring into as fit matter for impeachment, there would be an end at once to any practical employment of it. They could neither address for the removal of a secretary of state, a first lord of the admiralty, or the governor of a colony. Their lordships, he thought, had placed themselves in that situation that they could not recede. They had heard evidence; they had passed a bill to continue the proceedings in the present session. He would enter his protest against quashing the proceedings. He thought it became the House to consider the situation in which they had placed themselves, as well as the situation in which they had placed the learned judge also.

The Earl of Moira had been prevented, by his occupa

tious