As to the objection, taken in the protest, drawn from natural right, the
Lords knew, and it appears in the course of the proceeding, that the
whole of the libel had been read at length, as appears from p. 655 to p.
666.[10] So that Dr. Sacheverell had _substantially_ the same benefit of
anything which could be alleged in the extenuation or exculpation as if
his libellous sermons had been entered _verbatim_ upon the recorded
impeachment. It was adjudged sufficient to state the crime _generally_
in the impeachment. The libels were given _in evidence_; and it was not
then thought of, that nothing should be given in evidence which was not
specially charged in the impeachment.
But whatever their reasons were, (great and grave they were, no doubt,)
such as your Committee has stated it is the _judgment_ of the Peers on
the Law of Parliament, as a part of the law of the land. It is the more
forcible as concurring with the judgment in the 11th of Richard II., and
with the total silence of the Rolls and Journals concerning any
objection to pleading ever being suffered to vitiate an impeachment, or
to prevent evidence being given upon it, on account of its generality,
or any other failure.
Your Committee do not think it probable, that, even before this
adjudication, the rules of pleading below could ever have been adopted
in a Parliamentary proceeding, when it is considered that the several
statutes of Jeofails, not less than twelve in number,[11] have been made
for the correction of an over-strictness in pleading, to the prejudice
of substantial justice: yet in no one of these is to be discovered the
least mention of any proceeding in Parliament.
Pages:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34