Lords Sitting of 12 March 1806

MINUTES.
Lord Walsinghampresented the report of the committee appointed to search for precedents of the proceedings of the house in cases of Impeachment; which was ordered to be printed. A short conversation ensued between lords Auckland and Eldon, respecting the additional article of Impeachment against lord Melville, as to the manner in which that noble lord should be called upon to answer; which ended in an order to summon their lordships for to-morrow, in order to take the same into consideration.

WITNESSES' LIABILITY BILL.
Lord Walsinghamreported the Declaratory bill, the amendments made in winch were agreed to.
Lord Eldon Lord Eldon, in order to save the exceptions which existed to the general rule laid down in the bill, proposed a proviso, the first part of which enacts, that the court shall not repel an objection made by a witness to answer, where such objection is made specially and on specific grounds stated, but shall decide on such objection according to the law as it appears to them. It is lastly enacted, that a witness shall not be compellable to answer any question
422
which he could not be compelled to answer as a defendant, in a court of equity, on a bill being filed against him.
Earl Stanhopeobjected to this proviso, which, he said, instead of declaring the law, left it to the judges of each court to decide what was law, thereby, instead of removing doubts, rendering those doubts more doubtful. He also considered the clause to be unconstitutional, in as much as it sent the judges of the courts of common law to the courts of equity to learn by what law they were to decide, a system which met his marked condemnation.
The Lord Chancellordefended the clause to which he could not see the slightest objection. It was perfectly clear, from the opinions of the judges, that there were exceptions to the general rule, which it was necessary to provide against. With respect to courts of equity, the law of evidence was the same in those courts as in the courts of law, and therefore the objection upon this head fell to the ground, as the clause merely directed in fact that the laws of evidence should be resorted to. Although somewhat irregular in referring to a bill of the noble earl's (Stanhope) now on the table, on this subject, he was happy to concur with him in one part, where, notwithstanding his objection yesterday, he had inserted the words "the lords spiritual and temporal." The lords spiritual were the ministers of God and of religion, and it being thought fit that they should take a part in our temporal concerns, it was also fit that they should have the precedence.
Earl Stanhopesaid he had inserted the words "the lords temporal and spiritual," but that the printer had altered them.
Lord Hollandnotwithstanding what had been said by his noble and learned friend on the woolsack, could not agree in the propriety of referring the judges of the courts of common law to courts of equity, to learn the law of evidence. He had too much veneration for the common law of the country to sanction such a proceeding.
Lord Eldoncontended that the seven judges who had answered the questions in the affirmative having all done so with a variety of exceptions, it would be, in fact, acting contrary to that opinion if a law were passed enacting a general rule on the subject without any exception, and he had no hesitation in saying, that without some such clause as that he had proposed, the Declaratory Bill would be the greatest nuisance that ever existed; no man's pro

423
perty would then be safe, as he might be compelled to answer questions which might divest him of all title to his estates. As to courts of equity, their lordships would recollect that the judges who had answered the questions in the affirmative, had all drawn from thence the grounds of those opinions.—The clause was received and added to the bill.
Earl Stanhopestill considering his bill for the more effectual Discovery of Truth from Witnesses to be necessary, moved its second reading, observing, however, that he should move in the committee to alter the preamble, and make it a bill for the better protection of witnesses. The object of the bill, he stated, was to prevent the evidence given by witnesses from being afterwards made use of against themselves.—The bill was read a second time, and committed for Friday.