§ The Earl of Mulgrave moved, that the Witnesses Indemnity in Bribery Cases' Bill be committed, and said, that he should not trouble their Lordships with any observations upon it, as they had already agreed to the principle of the measure, and the details might be taken in Committee.
989The Earl of Wicklowwas much surprised that the noble Earl opposite had introduced such a Bill as this, sitting, as he did, on a bench that was the property of the Whigs (the Opposition Bench), without any further notice than he had thought proper to give it. It was true that other Bills of the same sort had passed their Lordships' House, but then all those Bills were passed for specific purposes, and particular reasons were assigned for passing them. A certain advantage was obtained by those particular Bills; but this Bill was of a different nature—it introduced a new principle as the law of the land. In the better times of our history, in the better times of the Whig party, the Whigs did not pursue such conduct. The first Bill on this subject was introduced in the year 17–12. At that time there was a combination of men of all parties, for the purpose of driving a most able Minister from public life, and on succeeding in that, for the purpose of persecuting him in private life. He need hardly say that he alluded to that celebrated Minister Walpole. When the witnesses as to his conduct were first brought forward, they refused to give evidence before the Committee, and a Bill of indemnity was then proposed for their security. The proceeding, at that time, was so far from being countenanced by the Whigs, that it was justly and forcibly condemned by a great Whig historian, who called it "an Inquisitorial Bill." The Bill passed the Commons, but when it was brought up to their Lordships' House, it was rejected by a majority of fifty-seven, the numbers being fifty-two for, and 109 against it. The Lord Cardigan, though a bitter enemy of Walpole, denounced it as unconstitutional; and the greatest constitutional lawyer, that, perhaps, had ever sat upon that Woolsack (Lord Hardwicke) gave the same opinion. He should not take the sense of their Lordships on his objections to the measure, but he could not let it pass without stating them.
The Lord Chancellorrecommended that the Bill should now be committed, and these objections could be discussed in the Committee—not at that moment, but after the Government was formed. In the mean time the Bill might be printed.
Lord Broughamfully concurred with that suggestion. In justice to his noble Friend, he ought to remind the noble Earl opposite that the Bill had been much discussed—that he himself had opened it to 990 the House last year, when it underwent much discussion. There certainly was one clause in the present Bill that was as ill-framed as he had ever seen a clause in his life, and it had been agreed that that clause should be fully considered in Committee. The noble Earl opposite had been so anxious to make an historical parallel that he not only altered and amended, but had made a little history for the purpose; for such an extraordinary combination of parties as the noble Earl had described in former days certainly had not taken place in those days, and he would tell their Lordships why—it was because they were days in which parties had little principle of any sort to guide them. He was sure that the noble Earl's history was not quite so correctly given as usual, for though true it was, that there were now Tories and Whigs, and so far the two periods were alike, there was this difference between them, that not only there were then Tories and Whigs, but sections of Tories and sections of Whigs, which was not the case in the present day; and the questions that divided all these parties were not, as now, questions of great principles, but questions how power should be distributed in this great family or the other. He was quite clear in his own mind, that if the noble Earl had really felt all that he had now stated about the Whigs of the present time, as compared with those of better times, he would have stepped forward before, and have said so; for it was not the part of a very kind friend to keep back his opinion till it was too late to be of service; and if the noble Earl had stated these things before, there was no saying what might have been the consequence.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that there certainly was this resemblance between the Whigs of former times and those of the present, that now they were called the Radical Whigs, and then they were called the Disaffected Whigs. There was some resemblance, too, in the anecdote told of Pulteney, afterwards Earl of Bath, who, when sent for to form a coalition Ministry, said that the heads of parties were like the heads of snakes—they were impelled by their tails.
Lord Broughamwas glad that he had given the noble Earl the opportunity of explaining the meaning of his references, and of showing where the supposed applicability of them was to be found. The anecdote just related by the noble Earl, of which he had never heard before, certainly 991 did show that there was some applicability in the circumstances of past times to the language of the present times, but he could not say how far the language was applicable to the facts.
The Earl of Mulgravereally did not see, at that particular moment, the point of the joke about those (the Opposition) Benches being the property of the Whigs. The noble Earl had said, that these Benches were the property of the Whigs, but whether they were or not, or whether the noble Earl was of those who occupied them or not, as the noble Earl had the reputation always of being in the majority in that House, had he maintained these objections to the principle of the Bill, they might probably have been successful and he should have brought them forward before.
§ The Bill went pro [...] Committee.