§ Sir V. Gibbsrenewed his former objections made to the bill; observing, that in the first place there was no necessity for it, and in the second, that it might produce an effect different from what it was intended to do, as it went much farther than the opinions given by the majority of the judges. In his opinion, instead of removing doubts, it would be introducing new ones.
§ Mr. Tyrwhittobjected to the bill, as there was no practical inconvenience from the present state of the law, and as it originated from a legislative question.
Mr. Morrisconceived, that if any declaratory bill were necessary, this was the best that could be adopted. The learned gent. then entered into a very long argument, to prove that it was necessary to declare the law; and concluded by calling on the house to support the bill.
§ Mr. Percevaldid not see that any ill consequences could arise from the rejection of the bill; on the contrary, he thought it much better that it should be thrown out, as there would be but one uncertainty in the practice of the courts; whereas, if it were passed into a law, there would be many, arising from the different constructions of it.
The Solicitor General entered at great length into a statement of the advantages which would arise from the passing of this bill. The law at present, he said, was in an unsettled state, so much so, that it was not considered, by many of the judges themselves, that the opinion of the majority of that learned body, as given in the house of lords, was binding on the minority. A witness at the Old Bailey might be permitted to refuse giving an answer which would convict an offender, because the answer would subject him to a civil action or, what was still worse, a witness, for the same reason, might refuse to answer a question, the answer to which would acquit a prisoner.
The Master of the Rolls stated, that he never recollected any point of law relating to evidence, settled by the legislature, on which account he was inimical to the bill. He did not think an act could be passed which would comprehend every case, and therefore as the courts of law would in time settle their own practice, which could be again altered as .necessity required, he thought it much preferable to permit them 900 to do that, than to enact a positive law, which in all cases must be construed according to the letter.
Mr. Secretary Foxobserved, that every thing which had been urged against this bill, convinced him the more of the necessity of it. The difference of opinion among the judges, was a certain proof, that some remedy should be applied to the evil; and when he considered the arguments of the many learned gentlemen who had expressed their sentiments upon it, he thought the necessity still stronger. The learned gent. who had just sat down, had presided at one time of his life in a criminal court, when he was chief justice of Chester; and he begged leave to ask him, whether he ever had heard the exception taken? The negative opinion he considered the strongest point in favour of it; but from the argument, he was to presume, that no such doubt ever did exist. A noble and learned lord, however, of the upper house (lord Eldon), had expressed very considerable doubts upon the subject; and, if a doubt did exist, the mischief would be without bounds in every part of the judicature of the kingdom, if the bill were not passed. From every consideration which he could possibly give the subject, he thought the bill did not go one tittle beyond the opinion of the judges, and the words of it were perfectly consonant with that opinion, for which reasons he supported the bill. The house then divided, when there appeared; For the third reading of the bill, 51; Against it, 18; Majority, 33.