the indictment? We are all of opinion that it is not necessary to prove
the overt act to be committed on the particular day laid in the
indictment; but as evidence may be given of an overt act before the day,
so it may be after the day specified in the indictment; for the day laid
is circumstance and form only, and not material in point of proof: this
is the known constant course of proceeding in trials."

Here the case was made for the Judges, for the satisfaction of one of
the Peers, after the prisoner had waived his objection. Yet it was
thought proper, as a matter of course and of right, that the Judges
should state the question put to them in the open court, and in presence
of the prisoner,--and that in the same open manner, and in the same
presence, their answer should be delivered.[22]

Your Committee concludes their precedents begun under Lord Nottingham,
and ended under Lord Hardwicke. They are of opinion that a body of
precedents so uniform, so accordant with principle, made in such times,
and under the authority of a succession of such great men, ought not to
have been departed from. The single precedent to the contrary, to which
your Committee has alluded above, was on the trial of the Duchess of
Kingston, in the reign of his present Majesty. But in that instance the
reasons of the Judges were, by order of the House, delivered in writing,
and entered at length on the Journals:[23] so that the legal principle
of the decision is equally to be found: which is not the case in any one
instance of the present impeachment.

The Earl of Nottingham, in Lord Cornwallis's case, conceived, though it
was proper and agreeable to justice, that this mode of putting questions
to the Judges and receiving their answer in public was not supported by
former precedents; but he thought a book of authority had declared in