Sitting of 13 February 1806

MINUTES
Mr. Pym and Mr. G. B. Mainwaringtook the oaths and their seats for the counties of Bedford and Middlesex.—On the motion of Mr. Hurst, a new writ was ordered for Steyning, in Sussex, in the room of lord Ossulston, who, since his election, had accepted of the of-
168
fice of treasurer of his majesty's hous hold—On tire motion of Mr. L. Dundas, a new writ was ordered for Richmond in Yorkshire, in the room of the hon. G. H. L. Dundas, who, since his election, had accepted of the office of steward of the Chiltern Hundreds.—On the motion of Mr. Vansittart, a new writ was ordered to be issued for Cashell, in Ireland, in the room of the right hon. W. Wickham, appointed one of the lords of the treasury; and for Wareham, in Dorsetshire, in the room of J. Calcraft, esq. appointed clerk to the board of ordnance.—On the motion of Mr. Creevey, the name of lord H. Petty was added to the committee for managing the impeachment against lord .viscount Melville.

WOOLLEN WEAVERS' PETITION.
Admiral Berkeleypresented a petition of several woollen weavers, resident in or near die clothing towns and villages in the county of Gloucester, setting forth, "that the petitioners have for several years past suffered great hardships and distress, owing to certain master clothiers having, for their own emolument, violated those laws which parliament has from time to time enacted for the preservation and prosperity of the woollen manufacture, and for the due protection of the persons employed therein; and that the said laws have been so violated, under the pretence of their being obsolete; and that the said master clothiers, after their repeated applications to parliament for an indiscriminate suspension or repeal of nearly the whole code of existing laws had failed, at length, at the close of the session, in the month of July 1803, obtained a bill for suspending the said laws until the first day of July following, under, as the petitioners were informed and believe, a solemn pledge and assurance, that they would come forward early in the ensuing session with a bill for a general revision and regulation of the said laws, and owing to which assurance the petitioners forbore from opposing the said bill of suspension; and that from that period up to the present time the said master clothiers have not come forward with any bill of revision or regulation whatever, but have, during each succeeding session, waited till near its close, and then urged the want of time for investigation as a ground for their soliciting a further bill of suspension; and that during this prostracted suspension of the laws, the petitioners have been the afflicted spectators

169
of their daily violation by the master clothiers, who have been making fortunes to themselves at the expense of those privileges, and of that employment, which parliament has held out and guaranteed to the petitioners as a reward for long and faithful services, and by such practices injurious to the ultimate reputation of the fabric; and that, under these circumstances, the petitioners pray that their case may be taken into speedy consideration, and that such relief may be afforded to them as to the house shall seem meet."—Ordered to lie upon the
table.

WITNESSES' INDEMNITY BILL.
Lord Hollandmoved that the witnesses' indemnity bill should be read a second time on Monday, and that the lords be summoned.
Lord Hawkesburysaid he did hot mean to oppose the motion made by his noble friend, he only wished to call the attention of the house to this bill, the object of which,

167
it would be recollected by their lordships, made part of a bill which was before the house last session, and which went to indemnify persons giving evidence on the impeachment of lord Melville, from both criminal prosecutions and civil process, in consequence of such evidence. Some doubts, however, then arose with respect to the indemnification from civil process, and only the indemnity from criminal prosecutions was agreed to. With respect to the civil indemnity, certain questions were referred to the judges, with a view of ascertaining whether persons were legally justified in refusing to answer questions, the result of which might subject them to a civil suit. Their lordships were aware that, a prorogation having intervened, the judges did not conceive that there were any questions now regularly before, them to which they were called upon to give an answer. The subject, however, which was involved in those questions, he considered to be of importance, and he suggested whether it would not now be advisable to refer similar questions to the judges, for the opinion of that learned body, before they proceeded upon the bill?
Lord Hollandsaid, he did not object to the proceeding proposed by the noble lord; but, as there was an obvious necessity that their lordships should either pass or reject the bill now before them without loss of time, his noble friend would also be aware of the necessity of having the opinions of the judges as speedily as possible. The earliest day that could be named would, he conceived, be the most advisable to be appointed for the attendance of the judges, in order that their lordships might, without delay, proceed upon the bill, and either agree to its provisions, or finally reject it. After a few words interchanged between lords Hawkesbury and Holland, respecting the time to be appointed, it was ordered, that the judges should attend on Monday, for the purpose of then referring to them certain questions.