The Sun.
London, England, 1801-06-06 00:00:00

fession of the Law,, maintained a peoonsition to be
•
Law, when a passage out of his own b.)ek. *ai; read
which maintained a &redly contrary pritreiple;
Was much hurt when he heard a Right lio.e.Getitle.
man (Mr. Witiom)' say, that because the times
were new; that therefore we ought to depart from
our old Laws. The Rig!it• Hon'. Gen:leman had
even considered it as a ludicrous eircUmstance, that
the Laws should
.be fixed, and the Conititutioti
changeable: His Hon. Friend (Mr. 'GaAs() had
not said that the Laws should never be al
wear' because they were altered every day, but
.he
bad contended that the maims upon which tl.e
Laws were founded should never be altered, such
as that .a man should never be a Judge in his
own cause, &e. because these were principles which
could not. change. With respea to, this Bill, ifdte
knew any fair and honourable means of preventing
the passing of it, he would willingly lay down three
lives, if he had them.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, be. would
very shortly dispose of that part of the Hon. Gen.
tleman!s Speech which applied to him. Every
thiMg which the Hon. Gentleman bud Said applied
not personally to him, but to the l'roleisioo of
which he was, and the Hon. Gentlem-in wished to
have become a Member ; and., to any such general
attack he did not feel -
himself called upon to make a
reply. It certainly.was not from any motives of dis,. •
respea to the House that he, had not risen more'
early ; he had risen almost at the comaienceinent of
the debate, because he was anxious to state the
grounds upon which he thought this Bill :ought to
pass. He thought the Bill ought to , pass, 'not as,a
matter of favour to the late Ministers, but as a mat.
ter of stria justice to them, and as a measure abso- •
lutety necessary to the future safety of the Country.
Even if they; from any high mindedness, should not
desire this Indemnity, he thought it ought to be
forced upon them, because in bringing in this
he did not contemplate them but the future security
of the Country. He was very glad he had not lit..
tei fere& before the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
WINDHAM), because he should have been extremely
sorry, to have deprived the House of „that instruc-
tion, entertainment, and convidion, which he'
was sure , that most able Speech had p.roduCed.—
Many objeaions had been made during the Debate
to the mode in which the CoMmittee had been con.
strutted. The Committee had been chosen in the
only manner they could have been chosen, and the "
persons appointed to that Committee would not have
been seleaed, if they had not possessed the confi-
dence of a majority of the House. Every Gentle-
man knew that any attempt to procure the .ap..
pointment of a Committee that did not enjoy the
confidence of the HouSe, would not only have been
ineffettual, but the person who made the attempt
would have his disgrace recorded by the aelettion of
another Committee. It had been said, that no
person had been chosen out of what was called the
Opposition, to .sit on 'that Committee. He would
state the ground upon which that seledion,had 'been
made-7-ft was this, that, considering this to be, a
subject of the greatest importance as affedirig the
safety of the State, it _otight not to, be submitted to
the-consideration of Gentlemen, who, judging from
their former language, might be inclined to treat
it with levity, or who might perhaps (he would
explain what he meant by the vtpression) disclose
the circumstances awhich were laid before them.—
Because Gentlemen who treated the whole of thiS •
Subjed as frivolous and ridiculdus, could nor
.be
tuated by the same feelings as those were, who
considered this as'one of the most important sub,
jeas that could be submitted to their consideration.
For his own 'part, he could not think- those Gen,
tlemen fit Members of this Committee who:could
state that the Report contained only ludicrous mat-
ter----who could contemplate regular planseof aotaa_
sination, formed with the most cool deliberation,
which. the Report detailed, with feelings of levity
—who could consider with levity plans for eradi•
caring every sentiment of Religion and Morality,
for substituting a regular system of, Atheism.—
Those who could consider subjects like these as
matters o'f ridicule and levity, should never by his
ootnination be upon any Committee apOiiinted to
consider of.grave and important questions, such as
had been referred to this Committee Those who
could think that the dreadfld. traosaaions in Ire_
land, where mutder had been re,luced to a system,
where persons were regularly :devoted to itssassina.
tion, were' matters of pleasantry, ,could not, in his
opinion, be fit Members of this Committee. There.
fore: he made no apology to those Gentlemen, in
wishing to exclude them ; he acted upon the best
and most conscientious exercise of, his judgment.--e-
Bin it had been said, that. the Committee lad gone
beyond its powers in recommending the adoption
of particular measures ; upon this point, however,
he' would appeal to ate House, whether it was not
ustral for Committees to draw inferences from, the
faits laid before them, anal() recommend such mut.
sures as appeared to them necessary or proper.—
One of the objeaiona to the formation of this Corn.
mittee , was, that sonic of the persons who
composed it, would be themselves benefited by
that indemnity 'which - they recommended. This
assertion was' hardly true—certainly, not to the
extent to which it had been made, For ,of
the Members of the late Administtation who were
upon that Committee, not above one could derive
any benefit from the At of Indemnity-, for there
was only, one of them by whom any Warrant of.
CoMmitment could have been signed. He had stated
before, that he'did not consider this as a twitter of ,
favour to the late Ministers, but as 'a matter of
right ; nay, even if their declined it, 'it, ought 'to '
be forced upon them, not' so much with a vicw'to..
their safety, as to that of. the State.' The princi.
plc of the Bill was-this,' that the State ought to in.
demnify thOse persons whom it deptii.ed of the
Icgal means of their defence. The question then
was, whether it was right to.deprive those persons
of the legal means of justification which they pos-
sessed Most undoubtedly it was, because those
..persons could nOt enter itito,that detente which was.
• necessary for their. justification, Without disclosing
circumstances which would e prejudiciiil to
the Public, because it would efreaually destroy
, those means of informittiori by which Govetonvnt
had hitherto acted upon to preserve the ,ronora
safety. In formet cases, where Bills of Indtleninity-
L had been passed,.they were much less necessary thsui