HC Deb 05 March 1806 vol 6 cc353-6
Mr. Whitbread

reported from the committee, appointed to draw up articles of Impeachment against Henry lord viscount Melville; "that he was directed by the committee to acquaint the house, that Alexander Trotter, esq. late paymaster to Henry lord viscount Melville, whilst treasurer of his majesty's navy, having been examined by the said committee, did refuse to answer to what had been demanded of him by the said committee." The hon. gent. then moved,"That the entry in the journal of the house, of the 13th of April 1742, of the proceedings of this house, in relation to Mr. Nicholas Paxton, might be read:" And the same being read; the hon. gent. moved, "That the said Alexander Trotter, esq. be, for his said offence, taken into the custody of the serjeant at arms attending this house; and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant accordingly." [The speaker, in putting the question, substituted by mistake the name of Alexander Davison, for Alexander Trotter, which occasioned a general laugh.] On the question being put,

Sir W. Elford

rose and expressed his hope that the house would not adopt the proposition of the hon. member, and consent to commit Mr. Trotter for refusing to answer the questions alluded to, upon a fair consideration of the reasons which induced that refusal. When Mr. Trotter understood that he was to be examined before this committee, he very naturally considered the propriety of declining to answer any questions which might have the effect of criminating himself, or exposing himself to a civil suit. Accordingly upon questions being proposed, which appeared to Mr. Trotter to have that tendency, he had recourse to the advice of counsel, and this advice corresponded with that which was pronounced law by several of the Judges in another place. The majority of the Judges had, he was aware, declared the law to be otherwise. But still, doubts existed upon the question, viz. whether a witness was compellable to give such answer to any question as might subject himself to a civil action, and in consequence of these doubts it was understood that a declaratory law was deemed necessary, and was intended to be brought forward. Under these circumstances, considering the difference of opinion which prevailed upon the point which applied to this subject even among the Judges, and that it was not yet ascertained what the law was, but that on the contrary a declaratory law was in contemplation, which two of the most respectable law lords had very properly said would require the most mature deliberation, he trusted the house would not visit the proposed punishment upon the conduct of Mr. Trotter.—The hon. bart. then read the opinion of counsel, under which Mr. Trotter had acted. This opinion was signed by Mr. serjeant Shepherd and Mr. Alexander, and imported that a witness was not compellable to answer any question, the effect of which might be to subject him to a civil suit. With all these considerations in view, it struck his mind, and he hoped it would appear in the same light to the house, that, pending the progress of the bill which was now in the other house of parliament, and which was introduced by the hon. mover himself, it would not be more reasonable than just, that the committee should suspend their enquiry upon this part of the case. It would, indeed, he inconsistent with the grounds upon which that bill professed to rest, to take a different course; for that bill, as well as the act of indemnity from criminal prosecutions, obviously recognised the principle on which the conduct complained of in Trotter, was quite justifiable. From these considerations he must say, that to commit Mr. Trotter into custody would be an act of oppression. If the hon. mover would consent to have the enquiries of the committee suspended, so far as Mr. Trotter was concerned, until the bill before the other house should be passed into a law, the refusal of Mr. Trotter to answer any question put to him by the committee, could not be excused, and upon the enactment of such law, he believed, that Mr. Trotter would not be inclined to make any refusal.

Mr. Secretary Fox

said, that if no bill of indemnity whatever had passed, or was passing through parliament, still it would be extremely wrong in the house to take the course recommended by the hon. bart., and refuse to sanction the conduct of its committee. Upon such an application as that under discussion, it was not for the house to consider whether Trotter was legally compellable to answer certain questions which might have been put to him by the committee. Now, it should be taken for granted, that the questions proposed to him were correct; otherwise the house had not a proper confidence in its committee. What was the case? Why, that upon the recommendation of this committee, a bill was brought in, to indemnify Trotter from any civil action that might arise out of his answers before them, although the opinion of many lawyers was, that he was compellable to answer questions of that tendency; and that opinion, which prevailed before the bill was introduced, was since strengthened by the declaration of a great majority of the Judges. How could the house then, upon a question so circumstanced, reconcile it to itself to delay the progress of this prosecution, in the manner the hon. bart. proposed? Such a proceeding would be, in fact, to withdraw their confidence from the committee, and to imply a suspicion that that confidence had been abused. Coupling the proposition of the hen. bart. for delay, with what had taken place last year, when, by a mere majority of one, the cause of justice had triumphed, the house could not be unaware of the object. But he trusted that the house would not sanction the disposition that was manifested to withhold from this committee the degree of confidence which had never been refused to any committee upon similar occasions.

Mr. Whitbread

observed, that if the motion he had introduced at the instance of the committee, should not be agreed to, the house had better withdraw its confidence from that committee altogether. It was impossible for him, consistently with his duty, to state at present what passed in the committee, but at the same time he could say, that Mr. Trotter was treated, in the course of his examination, with the utmost possible indulgence. In the opinion of many, indeed, among whom he was one, that indulgence had been often pushed too far. He had been indemnified from all criminal prosecution, and it was proposed to indemnify him from all civil actions. He had frequently demurred to questions which, according to the declared opinion of eight of the Judges, he was legally compelled to answer, and yet time was given him deliberately to advise with counsel, &c. The hon. member disclaimed the intention of offering any thing with a view to extenuate or to apologize for the conduct of the committee. Nor did he mean to state precisely the questions which Mr. Trotter refused to answer, but he could state in substance, that they were of such a nature as, according to the law pronounced by the four dissentient Judges, he could not be screened from answering. The hon. member repeated, that if the motion before the house was not adopted, the committee would be placed in such a situation, that it would be better to withdraw the confidence of the house from them altogether, and to appoint another committee.

Sir W. Elford

disclaimed any intention, in the observations which he felt it his duty to submit, to impeach the integrity of, or weaken the confidence due to, the committee.—The motion was agreed to.

Mr. Whitbread

said, he should decline to go to the extent of the precedent which the house had heard read, and which committed the refractory witness to Newgate, &c. He should only move that the serjeant at arms shall attend Mr. Trotter before the committee, whenever they shall think proper to examine him.—Agreed to.