On the third reading of the Declaratory bill, earl Stanhope moved to leave out the proviso which had been added to the bill by lord Eldon.
§ Lord Ellenboroughsaid, he had framed a clause which he intended to propose as a substitute for the proviso, and which he thought would answer every purpose intended to be provided for by the noble and learned lord (Eldon), whilst at the same time it would obviate the objections made to the proviso by other noble lords. Instead of referring generally to the practice of courts of equity, which had been objected to as not being consonant with the practice of courts of common law, he proposed to state specifically the exceptions to the general rule laid down in the bill. In the clause he had drawn up he proposed to enact, that no mortgagee, or bonâ fide purchaser, or possessor of an estate should be compelled to answer any question, the answering which might probably tend to defeat his title, or incur a forfeiture of his estate. He meant, of course, a civil forfeiture; as in the case of a widow, who on marrying again forfeited property, she 484 should not be compelled to answer a question as to the fact of her marriage.—On a question from lord Holland, lord Ellenborough replied, that he proposed to substitute his clause for the whole proviso which had been added to the bill, on the motion of the noble and learned lord (Eldon).
The Lord chancellorexpressed his approbation of the clause, which he thought would answer every purpose intended by the proviso.—The further consideration of the bill was then postponed till to-morrow, to give time for the engrossment of the clause.