Lords Sitting of 19 March 1806

WOOLLEN MANUFACTURERS' BILL
The house resolved itself into a committee on the Woollen Manufacturers' Suspension bill. Mr. Adam, the counsel, was proceeding on behalf of certain clothiers in the counties of York, Gloucester, and Somerset, who had petitioned respecting certain parts of the bill; when he was stopped by the committee; and counsel being ordered to withdraw, earl Spencer expressed his opinion that the petitioners were not entitled to be heard on the grounds stated in their petition, the principle of the bull being merely to con-
486
tinue for a further period, the Suspension act of last session. Lord Ellenborough was of the same opinion. Earl Fitzwilliam took the opportunity of stating, that he consented to the bill only on the ground of a general law on the subject being under consideration. The bill was proceeded in, passed through the committee, and was reported without amendment. Lord Auckland then presented another petition against the bill, from certain clothiers in Yorkshire; to which lord Ellenborough took an objection as to a point of form. Lord Holland and earl Spencer thought it would he dealing hardly with the petitioners if they were not allowed to be heard by counsel against the bill, merely on account of a trifling informality. It was at length agreed that counsel should be heard for and against the bill, on the 3d reading tomorrow.

WITNESSES' DECLARATORY BILL.
On the further consideration of the Declaratory bill,
Lord Ellenboroughafter adverting to the clause which he had yesterday stated his intention of proposing to substitute for the proviso added to the bill on the motion of laid Eldon, said, that he had been unable to frame the clause so as to satisfy his own mind. He therefore thought it would be the best way to omit the proviso altogether, and leave the bill simply declaratory, as originally proposed by his noble and learned friend on the woolsack, leaving it to the house of commons to add any clause which they might deem advisable.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he had originally concurred in the proviso proposed by his noble and learned friend (lord Eldon), in deference to the opinion of that noble and learned lord, and because he thought that the proviso could do no harm. It was his opinion, however, that if the bill passed as a simple declaratory bill, the law would stand thus; that if a witness objected that answering any question stated would render him liable to a civil action, such a naked and general demurrer would immediately be over-ruled; but if out of the particular situation of the witness, or the circumstances of the case, there should arise any special ground of objection, it would still be in the power of the judge to decide upon such special objection according to the law as it should appear to him, he not being compelled by this declaratory law to over-rule such objection in the first instance.
Earl Stanhopecontended, that if the bill was passed as a simple declaratory bill, without any proviso, it would declare that to he law which had not been acknowledged to be law by any of the judges, or by any noble and learned lord in that house.—It was then agreed to omit the whole of the proviso, and leave the bill as it originally stood, merely declaratory of the laws. The bill thus amended, was read a 3d time, passed, and ordered to be sent to the commons.