§ Lord Ellenborough ,after 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.