§ Lord Hawkesbury having moved the order of the day for the second reading of the bill for continuing the proceedings against Mr. Justice Fox till next session, observed, that a noble lord, who was not now in in his place, had expressed his disapprobation of this measure. He was, however, at a loss to conceive on what ground any objection could be made to a bill which was so evidently calculated to promote impartial justice with respect to the public, with respect to the petitioners, and with respect to the learned judge himself. He would do that learned judge the justice to say, that he had shewn every disposition on his part to meet the charge fairly, and to facilitate that investigation, which he was, doubtless, desirous should be completed as speedily as possible. With respect to the witnesses, it was obvious that much expense would be saved, by rendering it unnecessary to bring back to this country those who had already been examined. If it should appear that the bill would violate any broad constitutional principle, it certainly ought not to pass; but it was far from having any such tendency. He reminded their lordships that it was the practice of the house to make a distinction between measures which were strictly legislative, and those which were judicial. The latter were continued from session to session, but the former always ceased upon a prorogation or dissolution. There were other measures, which, though not strictly judicial, were 621 analogous to judicial proceedings; and with respect to these, it had been the practice to bring in a bill for continuing them, to prevent the inconvenience of being obliged to renew them. Such a proceeding took place in the case of sir Thomas Rumbold, and also in that of Mr. Hastings. He could not see how this bill was to interfere either With the prerogative or the privileges of the other house of parliament. It could not pass without the consent of the other branches of the legislature, and when it had their consent it became their act. The only possible ground on which it appeared to him the bill could be consistently objected to, was that of the charges against Mr. Justice Fox being of so trivial a nature as to deserve no farther investigation. Now to enable the house to form an opinion on this view of the subject, they had the ex parte evidence taken before the former committee, to which he should not have referred, had it not been made public at the desire of the learned judge, and also the whole of the evidence given at the bar on one of the charges.—In alluding to this last evidence, he should only say, in the words of the counsel for the petitioners, that until their lordships heard what the learned and venerable judge had to say upon that evidence, no man could regard a single fact as proved. It would be very improper in him, or any one, to pretend to pronounce an opinion on the charge from that evidence; but this he would say, that it appeared to afford ground for some farther proceedings—for giving, at least, the learned judge an opportunity of explanation and vindication. Though there was no precedent that perfectly applied to the bill, the measure was supported by its analogy to other cases. He therefore moved, that the bill be now read a second time.—The bill was then read, and ordered to be committed.