§ Lord Eldonwent over some of his former arguments against this bill, comparing it with the indemnity bill brought into the house in the year 1742, and observing, that such a bill having now been introduced, it was essential, in his opinion, that their lordships should ascertain what had been done 180 in similar cases or former occasions. He therefore moved for the appointment of a committee to search for precedents respecting bills to enable witnesses, in cases of accusation, to give evidence at the bar of the house, by indemnifying them from criminal prosecutions or civil suits, or either of them.
Lord Hollandsaid, he did not wish to oppose the motion of the noble and learned lord, but he was convinced that on the search being made, which the noble and learned lord desired, it would be found that the present bill was not by any means, as the noble and learned lord would have it understood, a fac-simile of that introduced in 1742; but, on the contrary, wholly dissimilar. He could not help, at the same time, thinking it unfair to argue the bill at the present moment, when it was not regularly before the house.
§ Lord Eldon ,in explanation, contended, that he had never said that the present bill was a fac-simile of that of 1742; but that they must both be argued on the same principle.—The motion for a committee to search for precedents was agreed to.