They
contended that it was insufficient, defective, and contradictory; that
it was _ex parte_ evidence; that it had been manufactured by ministers;
that it was founded chiefly on hearsay, and that the greatest part of it
was false; that it had undergone no cross-examination; that it was
unconstitutional; and that, if they admitted it, they would establish a
dangerous precedent, and abandon their rights. It was urged on the other
hand by Mr. Courtenay, that it could not be _ex parte_ evidence, because
it contained testimony on both sides of the question. The circumstance,
also, of its being contradictory, which had been alleged against it,
proved that it was the result of an impartial examination. Mr. Fox
observed, that it was perfectly admissible. He called upon those, who
took the other side of the question, to say why, if it was really
inadmissible, they had not opposed it at first. It had now been a long
time on the table, and no fault had been found with it. The truth was,
it did not suit them; and they were determined by a side-wind, as it
were, to put an end to the inquiry. Mr. Pitt observed, that, if
parliament had previously resolved to receive no evidence on a given
subject but from the privy council, such a resolution, indeed, would
strike at the root of the privileges of the House of Commons; but it was
absurd to suppose that the House could upon no occasion receive
evidence, taken where it was most convenient to take it, and subject
throughout to new investigation, if any one doubted its validity.
Pages:
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611