The Sun.
London, England, 1805-07-11 00:00:00

TROTTER'S INDEMNITY BILL.

Lord HAW RESIIVR Y moved the third reading of
Trotter's Indemnity Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR proposed several
AmendMents in the Clauses of the Bill, and. parti-
cularly called the attention of their. Lordships to that •
part of the Bill which went to indemnify the persons
who were the objects of it from all Civil Suit. He
did not think he should do his duty if he did not
move to leave out all that related to this.speeies of
Indemnity. He solemnly protested against such a
Clause remaining part of the Bill, as it went to
establish a most d.angarons precedent, without the
existence, in his opinion,: of any solid grounds for
such a departure from the ordinary forms and prac-
tice of law. His Lordship Went at some length. into
theAscussion of the point of -law conneaed` with
this subjekt, contending, that from the words of the
Clause, it went to exempt the persons who were the
objeas of it. from all Civil Suits whatever, -whether
instituted by the Crown or by. private individuals.
He expressed his entire di..;approbation of such an
enathuent, and-moved an Amendment, for the 1);:r-
-po-34.. of leaving out all that rely al Lo
against Civil Suits.
The Duke of AroßroLK objeEled to the Amend-
ment, conceiving that the Clause in. its construCtion
did not go the length stated by the Noble Lord, and
that 'the passing Of the Bill was necessary for the
purposes of obtaining the whole:truth with resped
to those circumstances which formed the subje# of
the IMpeachment.
Lord HAIPKESBURY contended that the wordS
of th,.: Clause did a6tually go the length of exempt-
ing the persons who were. the objetis of it from all
Civil Suits instituted by any individuals whatever. 7--
'He considered such a provision as monstrous, and
that it would be highly inexpedient for their Lord-
ships to agree to it. He could not, however, en-
tirely agree with his Noble and Learned Friend,.as
he still thought that those persons, in order to be
rendered metal evidence, ought to be indemnified
against any Civil Suit to be instituted by the. Crown.
Lord Viscount SlDMOUTHdisagreed with both
his Noble and Learned-Friend on the Woolsack and
his Noble Friend who had just 'spoken. He be-
licited that Lawyers of. considerable • eminence had
doubted whether a person examined 'as an evidence,
and who demurred to a tt'aestion,' stating, that by
answering it he might become liable to a Civil Suit,
whether such person could be compelled to answer.
Hi therefore thought, that to obtain the full benefit
of the evidence of the persons sought by this Bill, it
ought. to be passed without any restriction as to the
Indemnity._

The Lb CILIIVCELLOR was surprised to
hear any doubt upon the'subje&. It was every day's
practice in the uourt of unancery, that persons were
compelled to answer as to monies owing by them-
selves. He had no doubt that a person examined as
an evidence 'who refused to answer o question be-
cause the answer might render him liable to a Civil
Snit might be compelled to answer. Supposing,
therefore, this Indemnity to pass as It stood, it must
be upon this principle, that supposing a man to have
embezzled 50 or t 00,0001. of the Public Money, that
suni was to be allowed to remain in his pocket, which
was nearly the same thing as giving him an equal
sum upon condition that be should give evidence
against another, and this too that he might do that
which lie was compellable to do without it. Against
Mil a principle be again solemnly protested.
Lord Viscount SIDMOUTH said, after the opi-
nion expressed by the Noble and Learned Lord so
decidedly as to the law of the case, he should bow
to that opinion, and withdraw his opposition to the
amendment.

The LORD CHANCELLOR wished it to be un-
derstood that he had only declared his opinion as to
what he conceived to be law; but if ther6 were any
doubt about it, the only propt.r way of proceeding
was to have the opinion of the Twelve Judges upon
the iubjeCt.
The Earl of BUCKINGLIdAISHIRE declared
his intention to support the amendment, in conse-
quence of the opinion -upon the point of law expressed
by the Noble and Leatned Lord.
Lewd li/NTO thought that a Civil Suit instituted
by the Crown, agaiu,t one of the parties who were
tile objets ofthis Indemnity, might be in its opera-
tion -a perral proceeding. a 4 if it v eat to procure a

The, LORD CHANCELLOR, upon' twieWinit
all the circumstances of the. case, was of opinion
that 'they,nnist 'either rej6t the. Indemnity against
a Civil Suit altogether, or let it stand as it wag:
Lord 11-IULGRAPE, the contrary, *tight
there was a clear distinaion between Civil, Snits in-
stituted by the Crown • and 'by Individuals, as the
Pup might consent to give any sun of money that
could be expeCled from, asCitil Ault against an
dividual for the purpose of obtaining some ulteriOr
objet, by means of the evidence of that indWidual;
,)tit they Could, not idiot - the same principle bar
the suit; instituted sagiinsts,..that' individual by other
persons.-
Tho Earl of CitRYSFORT thought more time
ought to be given for the consideraion Of it Bi
Which involved a-subjea of 'so much importance as
that they were now discussing;,
The 1,0 RD Cad NOEL LOR said, he was f!
pressed with the necessity there v.-as for this subjea
undergoing the most mature and deliberate Conside.:
ration, that he should move that the Debate Should
be adjourned, With a view of afterwards moving, that
the Judges should be ordered to attend,' for the .Pur-
pose ofgiving their opinion, Whether a person giving
evidence, and obje&ing to answer a question, on the
ground that.he should-thereby be rendered liable to
a Civil Suit, was compellable to answer such que4-
tion ? If the Bill should be thereby put off till next
Session, he thought itormore importance that the
point to which he had alluded should be maturely
discussed, than that, the Bill should now she passed
for the sake of gaining a 'little time. There was.
however, another alternatiVe, which was, to pass the
Bill solar as related to an Indemnity against Cri-
minal Proceedings, and
.to r,:fer the other point to
,the opinion of the Judges.

A conversation ensued upon this new propaial, be-
tween Lord Vis Fount SIM/011TH, the Ear! cr,:vcx..
INGILVMSHIRK, the Earl of C.kaylmaT, Lofd
HAM KESBUR Lord Mu LOH AVE) and the Duke.of
NORFOLK; when it was at length agreed, aut every
thing relating to an Indemnity against Civil Suiti
should be left out of the Bill, and that another
should be introduced relative to that point, for the
purpose of having the opinion of the Judps upon it.
The Bill, thus amended, •v.,a, road a third time,
and passed.