HC Deb 10 July 1805 vol 5 cc823-5

Mr. Whitbread brought in a bill to prevent the proceedings in the impeachment against lord Melville, from being affected by any prorogation or dissolution of parliament. This bill was read a first and second time, committed, and the report brought up. Upon the motion for agreeing to the report,

The Attorney General rose, and after disclaiming any wish to throw the least impediment in the way of the Impeachment, sub mitted to the consideration of the house, whether, if the bill were passed in its present form, an inference would not arise, that an impeachment was abated by a prorogation or dissolution of parliament, and of course interfere with the privileges of that house. This was a question which he apprehended was completely determined in the negative, in Mr. Hastings's case, and he was unwilling that this bill should proceed in such a shape, as to raise a doubt on the subject. Its present objectionable form, he observed, was founded upon a precedent that had taken place, previous to the determination he had alluded to. The right hon. gent. concluded with expressing a wish, that the third reading of the bill should be postponed till to-morrow, in order that it should be so altered, as to guard against any improper inference.

Mr. Whitbread observed that this was a literal transcript of the bill introduced by Mr. Burke, in the case of Mr. Hastings's impeachment; and the author of that bill was certainly not liable to the suspicion of wishing to trench Upon, or to excite a doubt as to the privileges of that house. The ob-object of this bill the honourable member explained to be such, that unless it were adopted, the committee for managing the Impeachment would not he enabled to report to the house on the first day of the next sessions, if they thought necessary, the result of the evidence they had already examined, hut would, on the contrary, be obliged to go through the examination of the same evidence over again. It was with a view to provide against such a circumstance, that he proposed this bill, which he did not conceive calculated to cast any doubt upon the privileges of that house, or he should have been among the last to have brought it forward. From the advanced period of the session, and the consequent necessity of expedition, the hon. gent. was desirous that the bill should not be delayed in its progress, but that it should be read a third time to-day.

Mr. S. Bourne concurred in the Observations of the Attorney-general.

The Speaker observed, that the bill had two distinct objects, first to provide that the proceedings depending in that house on the articles of impeachment against lord. Melville should not be discontinued by any prorogation or dissolution of parliament; the second imported a different provision, that the said article should be proceeded upon in the next session, as to the other house of parliament in the event of a prorogation or dissolution, in the same manner as if no such prorogation or dissolution had taken place. Against the first part of the bill there did not appear to be any objection, but the second was conceived to cast some doubt upon the established privilege and jurisdiction of that house to Continue an impeachment notwithstanding any prorogation or dissolution of parliament. The bill, however, the right hon. gent. had no doubt, would be so modelled as to, remove the objectionable. part.—The bill after being altered, according to the Speaker's suggestion, was engrossed, read a third time, passed, and ordered, to the lords.—Adjourned.