§ The order for the commitment of this bill being read.
§ The Lord Chancellor quitted the wool sack, and delivered his sentiments with respect to the above bill. In the course of his observations, he said, the present was a bill of as much importance as any that ever came under their lordships' consideration; and he was surprised that those who supported the measure should have urged its progress so far, without stating any thing of the grounds or principles upon which they thought the house ought to adopt it. However, as the subject presented itself, with reference to the proceedings at the bar that day, and what was set forth in the preamble of the bill, it was worthy of the most serious consideration of the house. His lordship then referred to certain parts of the preamble of the bill, as the statement of the resolution of the commons to impeach lord viscount Melville of high crimes and misdemeanours the statement of certain acts, being contrary to law, 799 &c. This last called upon them, by their agreeing to the bill, to admit previously, that the acts alluded to were contrary to law. To such an implication, as well as to the generality of the language of that part of the bill, he must seriously object; besides, they were called upon to enact that which had reference to the articles of Impeachment, which had been just read, and of which it was impossible the house could as yet be masters of their contents. The preamble of the bill contained three propositions, respecting which they had no information. One referring to the Impeachment before they knew what it was; a second referring to certain acts done; which acts they knew nothing of; and a third and most serious consideration, was the proposed indemnity from civil actions and suits; not only on the part of his majesty or the public, but on the part of individuals. In this view of the case, their lordships could not consistently proceed, without adequate information. The bill went further, it proposed to indemnify for all acts illegally done, whether connected with the impeachment or not. Adverting to the consideration of the objects of the bill, being accomplices in the facts charged in the impeachment, his Lordship stated the rules and provisions of the existing laws, with respect to the evidence of accomplices; particularly the acts of king William and queen Anne; respecting burglaries and other offences; and argued for the propriety of adhering to the principles of that part of the law. He adverted to the cases of sir Thomas Coke, the earl of Macclesfield, and the proceedings in contemplation of the impeachment of lord Orford; upon which occasions the conduct of the house either was different, or held by the first authorities at the time that it should have been, from that which it was proposed to be, in the instance of the present. He highly disapproved of the indemnifications in the way proposed, especially with respect to civil suits, which he considered, in effect, as giving a witness money for his evidence; as the bill proceeded upon the supposition, that there might be demands upon the parties by civil suits, from which it was proposed to indemnify them. To this principle he could not agree; the bill required to be materially ahered and amended, ere that house could, consistently with its duty, countenance it. For those purposes, he should not object to the bill's going to a committee; but, for the better security of all that was done then, it would be preferable to act upon the known and established principles of the law in these re- 800 spects; and he conjured their lordships, with regard to the measure in question, not to go too far, which might lead to consequences, the injurious effects and operations of which, it was impossible to foresee.
§ Lord Holland, in answer to the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, spoke at some length. He contended that the case before them did not admit of those constructions, which the noble lord on the woolsack had given them, and that the cases referred to did not bear, in respect to the case under consideration, in the way he had stated. With respect to the information which was so strongly insisted upon as necessary, that already before the house, in the reports from the commiffioners of naval enquiry, constituted by the legislature, and the different reports sent up from the other house, together with the articles of impeachment, was he thought, sufficient to enable them duly to take the bill into consideration. The parties who were the objects of the bill, were as strictly defined as those in the case of lord Macclesfield. They were those who served in the navy pay office, under the treasurer-ship of lord viscount Melville, and limited in number. The indemnity was proposed, without reference to whether their evidence should be in favour of viscount Melville or not. A true and correct testimony was the object aimed at; and their lordships should not be over scrupulous in a case, wherein, on similar occasions, notwithstanding what was advanced by the learned lord, their ancestors were not scrupulous at all. It was for the interest of truth and justice, and not with reference to what might be the event of the trial of lord viscount Melville, that they were called upon to pass the bill. Neither, he contended, would their passing it go in the least to prejudge the case of lord viscount Melville; and, as to that part of the wording, "contrary to law," he conceived, that all bills of indemnity were for no other, than for acts contrary to law; but they bore a construction different from that put upon them by the noble and learned lord. As to any language which might be incorrect, and not essential to the object of the bill, it might be amended in the committee; but, with respect to the objection against the indemnity for civil suits, their lordships should consider how far, without it, it would be practicable to obtain the necessary evidence, either for the vindication of the character of a noble member of that house, if innocent, on the one hand, or of the interests of the public and of truth and justice on the other.—On these grounds he hoped no alterations 801 would be made in the bill tending to defeat an object which was equally evident and laudable.
§ Lord Hawkesbury professed himself friendly to the principle of the bill, which was a fair one, and borne out by precedent and the practice of parliament. He thought there was evidence sufficient to induce them to entertain the measure, in those documents alluded to by his noble friend; and, as coming from the grand inquest of the nation, it was therefore admissible in point of principle.—The questions which remained, involved the nature and effect of the provisions of the bill, and the probability, whether those could be so corrected and amended in a committee, as to induce them, upon the whole, to agree to the measure. He, therefore, could not object to the bill going to a committee. As to the words objected to by his noble and learned friend, they might be left out, or any other, which would not produce inconvenience, affect the principle of the bill, or frustrate the objects of those who brought it forward. With respect to the latter clauses—those indemnifying the parties from all civil suits and applications—it was, he thought, an unheard of extension of the principle, and would tend to set a precedent of a very dangerous nature. In this view, it should be considered what might be done with a reference to the desired object, without the interference of the legislature, as in the instance of the Attorney-General's entering a noli prosequi, in the case of a criminal proceeding, which would leave the parties liable to a civil action. His lordship then referred to a part of the provisions of the bill, and which had a prospective operation, with re-respect to an indemnity against all civil actions, as well as criminal prosecutions, and which, he confessed, appeared to him to be so violent and outrageous an extension of the principle, as, he thought, could never be seriously in the contemplation of the promoters of the bill. He adverted to the propriety of limiting the indemnities, with reference to the circumstances of the pending impeachment, and of placing the parties in that situation, in which a noli prosequi would leave them. At the same time, at the close of the session, he thought as little delay as possible should obtain; and that it would be better to let the bill go through its two next stages, and consider the proposed alterations on the third reading.
§ Lord Sidmouth shortly delivered his sentiments. He agreed in a great deal of what fell from his noble friend who spoke last upon the subject, and thought the objections 802 made to the language of the bill were such as might easily be obviated in a committee; but he thought it would be a lamentable consideration were the bill altered in such a way as to throw obstacles in the way of attaining the evidence necessary for the ends of substantial justice on the one side, or of establishing the innocence of the individual accused on the other. He thought that all due facilities should be given, and that they might confide in the vigilance of the noble lord on the woolsack, that no illegitimate measure should be resorted to. After a few words from the lord Chancellor, the bill passed through the committee, was reported, and on the motion of lord Hawkesbury, ordered to be read a third time to-morrow, it being understood that the amendments were to be proposed on the third reading.