charge, gives notice for preparation only on _that day_, whilst the
prosecutor has the whole range of time antecedent to the indictment to
allege and give evidence of facts against the prisoner. It has been
usual, particularly in later indictments, to add, "at several other
times"; but the strictness of naming one day is still necessary, and the
want of the larger words would not quash the indictment. 2dly, A
comparison of the extreme rigor and exactness required in the more
_formal_ part of the proceeding (the indictment) with the extreme laxity
used in the _substantial_ part (that is to say, the evidence received to
prove the fact) fully demonstrates that the partisans of those forms
would put shackles on the High Court of Parliament, with which they are
not willing, or find it wholly impracticable, to bind themselves. 3dly,
That the latitude of departure from the letter of the indictment (which
holds in other matters besides this) is in appearance much more contrary
to natural justice than anything which has been objected against the
evidence offered by your Managers, under a pretence that it exceeded the
limits of pleading. For, in the case of indictments below, it must be
admitted that the prisoner may be unprovided with proof of an alibi, and
other material means of defence, or may find some matters unlooked-for
produced against him, by witnesses utterly unknown to him: whereas
nothing was offered to be given in evidence, under any of the articles
of this impeachment, except such as the prisoner must have had perfect
knowledge of; the whole consisting of matters sent over by himself to
the Court of Directors, and authenticated under his own hand. No
substantial injustice or hardship of any kind could arise from our
evidence under our pleading: whereas in theirs very great and serious
inconveniencies might happen.

Your Committee has further to observe, that, in the case of Lord
Wintoun, as in the case of Dr. Sacheverell, the Commons had in their