11g 
concur perfectly with the duke of 
Norfolk. 
the effect of this prohibition was 
not to prevent what passed in West- 
minster Hall from being the sub. 
ject of discussion out of doors, 
during the continuance of the trial 
and even in the presence of the 
judges, but to cause imperfect and 
defective accounts of the evidence 
and other proceedings to be circu. 
Jated, instead of the full and accu- 
rate reports, which the newspapers, 
if permitted, would have given. 
That all knowledge of what was 
disclosed in Westminster Hall could 
be withheld from those who were 
Bot present at the trial, or that 
those who assisted at the proceed- 
ings, would abstain from making 
comments on what they had seen 
and heard, was not to be expected ; 
hor was it probable, that, in so 
numerous a body as the judges of 
lord Melville, unaccustomed as the 
greater part of them were to discus~ 
Sions oi the import of testimony or 
other evidence, many would not be 
swayed by the remarks.and opinions, 
which they heard out of doors. But, 
if no precautions could prevent the 
judges upon this trial from being 
influenced by public opinion, it was 
surely desirable, that the public 
Should have better materials for 
judging of the case, than the partial 
and imperfect recollections of the 
by-standers and spectators in the 
galleries of the hall. If it be true, 
that the advantages of the expensive, 
and in many respects, objectionable 
form of trial by impeachment, con- 
sist chiefly in the greater impression 
it makes ‘and greater sensation it 
excitesin the country, then will we 
venture.to maintain, that a regula- 
tion like this tends todefeat, and 
upon the occasion-of lord Melville’s 
We cannot forget, that 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 1806. 
trial we are confident, that it actual.” 
ly did defeat the salutary ends pro. 
posed byimpeachment. The coun. 
try ceased to be interested in the 
progress ofa trial, the proceedings 
of which were not communicated to 
it, like oher daily occurrences, 
-by the press ; and after thedecision 
had been given few were disposed 
to open the ponderous volume, in 
which the evidence and arguments 
of the case lie buried ; and few 
there are even at present, in this 
enlightened country and inquisitive 
age, who have formed any opinion 
of Jord Melville’s guilt or innocence, 
from their own examination of the 
evidence against him. One part 
of the public think his character 
spotless and his conduct free from 
stain, because a majority of, his 
judges found him guilty of no Tegal 
otlence ; while we fear another part 
impute his acquittal to collusion, 
and divide the blame of it between 
his judges and his accusers. 
The trial commenced on Monday 
the 29th of April. Ten days were 
employed by the managers, im 
bringing furward and examining 
their evidence,and inthe speeches of 
Mr. Whitbread, who opened the case 
and of the solicitor general, w hosum- 
medup theevidence. Threedays were 
afterwards employed by the counsel 
for the defendant tn their reply 3 two 
by Mr. Plumer, and alter examin. 
ing a few witnesses, the third by Mr, 
Adams. The 14th and 15th days 
of the trial were takea up by the 
managers in their reply on the part 
of the commons, the legal argument 
being conducted. by the attorney 
general, and the observations on the 
evidence left to Mr. Whitbread. 
Mr. Plumer was also indulged’ with 
permission to make some remarks: | 
in answerto the attorney general. | 
3 2 
