The old criminal process was distorted and turned into a weapon to remove ministers and judges for supporting policies disliked by the Commons, although even here the criminal nature of impeachment was so obvious that criminal language was still used to support such political impeachments. Some individuals during this period were impeached merely because they belonged to the opposite party or were favorites of the King and hence rivals of the Parliament in setting State policy. This struggle became bloody and in 1642 erupted into a Civil War that ended with the beheading of Charles I. In the years immediately after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 the non-criminal impeachments were used to confirm the Parliamentary ascendency. By the early 18th century the supremacy of Parliament had been clearly established and the last four English impeachments were all purely criminal in the old

medieval mold.

-

Holdsworth notes that "The four last impeachments those of Lord Macclesfield (1724), Lord Lovat (1746), Warren Hastings

political conduct of the accused, who were all charged with serious

breaches of the criminal law." Id. at 384. The first three are of

primary concern to us in that they represented to the Framers the contemporary English practice and the meaning of the process. It should be noted that Lord Melville was impeached for misappropriation of public funds, clearly a crime pertaining to office. He was acquitted.

Lord Macclesfield's impeachment was a judicial impeachment

for bribery, 39 Cong., Rec., supra, at 3029. He was Lord Chancellor. Lord Lovat was impeached for high treason for being involved in the rebellion of 1745. Again, this clearly constituted a crime against the State. Id. Warren Hastings, the Governor General of India, whose impeachment in 1787 was primarily motivated and initiated by Edmund Burke, was impeached for criminal conduct. 1 Holdsworth, supra, at 384.

1/

On the third day of Hastings' impeachment trial, Burke stated:

We say, then, not only that he governed arbitrarily,
but corruptly that is to say, that he was a giver
and receiver of bribes, and formed a system for
the purpose of giving and receiving them.... In
short, money is the beginning, the middle, and the
end of every kind of act done by Mr. Hastings:
pretendly for the Company, but really for him-

self...P. Stanlis, Edmund Burke, Selected Writings
and Speeches 400 (Doubleday & Co., 1963).

1/ A state court in Parsons v. Parsons, 167 Va. 526, 189 S. E. 441, (1937), in discussing misdemeanor stated: "When Hastings stood before the House of Lords, charged with high crimes and misdemeanors, certainly that tribunal did not for seven years mill over inconsiderable offenses." 189 S. E. at 443.