Sitting of 17 February 1806

MINUTES.
On the motion of Mr. Francis, a new writ was ordered for Apple-by, in the room of Mr. Courtenay, who has been appointed one of the lords of the treasury.—A new writ was ordered, on the motion of Mr. Pole Carew, for Worcester, in the room of Wm. Lygon, esq. now lord Beauchamp.—Mr. Fox was introduced by lord Henry Petty and Mr. Whitbread, and took the oaths and his seat.—Sir P. Stevens presented, pursuant to order, an account of the contracts for spirits, with the terms, &c. from 5th July 1803, to 5th Jan. 1806.—A bill for erecting a workhouse, and making certain arrangements with respect to the poor in the parish of St. Sepulchre, was brought in by sir J. Anderson, and read a first time.—Mr. Lee moved, "that there be laid before this house, an account of the number of writs issued out of the courts of King's Bench and common Pleas, in Ireland, for the last 4 years, commencing the 1st day of Michaelmas term 1801, and distinguishing the numbers issued out of each court during each year." Ordered.—Lord H. Petty gave notice, that he would, to-morrow, move that the house do adjourn to Monday next; and also, that on that day he should move for a revival of the committee for investigating the joint account between great Britain and Ireland.—Dr. Duigenan moved for leave to bring in a bill for enforcing the residence of spiritual persons on their benefices in Ireland. Ordered.—The 5 millions ex

173
chequer bills bill was read a third time, passed, and sent to the lords.—The bill for ascertaining the population of Ireland was brought in by Mr. Fitzgerald, read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on the 3d of April, and to be printed.—A bill for more easily obtaining the partition or inclosure of land in Ireland, was brought in by the same right hon. gent. and read a first time.

UNION WITH IRELAND.
Mr. Alexanderavailed himself of the appearance of a right hon. gent. in his place (Mr. Secretary Fox) to put a question to him on a subject, which he looked upon as deeply interesting to the empire. In a late debate (see p. 128,) that right hon. gent. had expressed some opinions respecting the Union with Ireland, which had excited a considerable sensation, and given rise to much agitation in different parts of the empire. The request, therefore, that he had to make to that right hon. gent. was, that be would distinctly state the tenor of those opinions, so far as they might lead to any practical result, with a view to put an end to the agitations which they had already excited.
The Speakerfelt it to be his duty to remind the house, that, for any member to put a question to another, with reference to any expressions that might have been used by him in a former debate, was wholly irregular and inconsistent with the received practice of that house. It would, however, rest with any hon. member to use his own discretion how far he should deviate from the received usage, and comply with such an irregular proceeding.
Mr. Alexanderwas fully aware of the irregularity of his application, and therefore pressed for an explanation, as a particular favour, rather than as a right, with a view to quiet the apprehensions which appeared to have been excited.
Mr. Secretary Foxthen rose and observed, that he had many apologies to make to the house for saying any thing on the subject. The words which the hon. member had alluded to, as having been used by him on a former night, applied particularly to the question then under the consideration of the house, and so far as they referred to that, appeared to him sufficiently clear and explicit. He had felt himself bound to express himself in than manner, to prevent any misunderstanding, because a very respectable member of that house had said, that he could not consent
174
to the motion then under discussion, for voting posthumous honours to marquis Cornwallis, as he could never approve of the measure of the union, which had been effected by that nobleman. He agreed himself with that respectable member as to the measure of the Union, though he differed from him, as to the effect of his supporting the motion; which he had clearly evinced by his vote for the honours to be paid to the memory of the noble marquis. But he had at the same time begged of the house clearly to understand, that by voting in that manner, he by no means expressed any approbation of the principle of the measure of the Union, or of the manner in which it had been conducted. His opinion on that subject remained the same as it had been, and he saw no reason to look to any alteration of it; at least, he had yet not heard any thing to make him alter it. But he had not on the occasion alluded to, expressed one word prospectively. His observations applied purely to the measure as it arose, and to the manner in which it had been conducted. But it did not follow, that, because a man had felt that a particular measure, and more especially the manner in which that measure had been conducted, had been exceptionable, he was therefore bound to undo it. There are, said the right. hon. gent., many measures which may originally have been bad, and yet cannot be remedied by a repeal of them; and if ever there was a measure, the enactment of which is not connected with its repeal, it is precisely this measure of an incorporate Union. For, however objectionable the manner under all the circumstances under which it was carried, it is impossible to remedy any objections which might have originally existed against it, by its repeal.
Mr. Alexanderdeclared himself fully satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. gent. and again disavowed any other object than that of setting the public mind at rest on the subject.

WITNESSES' INDEMNITY BILL.
On the order of the day being read for the second reading of this bill, and for the attendance of the judges, who were all present,
Lord Eldonadverted to the till which was before the house last session, and which embraced the same object as the bill now under their consideration. He at that time called the Serious attention of their lordships to the bill, which he considered to be in the nature of an ex post facto law, and he then proposed certain questions to be put to the judges, in order that there might be a clear understanding, as to the nature of the law upon the subject. He now rose to propose, that similar questions should be put to the judges, with the same view. He could not help, however, observing, that the principle attempted to be established by the present bill, was one which demanded the most serious consideration of their lordships; was one, for not guarding against the introduction of which they might deserve the reproaches of posterity. The bill expressed doubts as to the liability of a witness to answer a question, the answer to which might involve him in a civil suit, he could only say, that he had been 30 years in the profession of the law, as counsel, and in a judicial character, and it was the first time he had heard that them was any doubt upon the subject, although he was aware, that upon this point a high legal authority was against him. He wished, however, their lordships to be fully aware of the nature of the bill, which went, as it might happen, to give persons sums of money (for it was the same thing, whether the money was actually given, or whether they were freed from any process, for a sum of money claimed by the public) for giving evidence at their lordships' bar, and not only were such persons, on that account, discharged from any process on account of debts due to the crown, but from any process on account of debts due by them to individuals, according to the words of the act, "any other person or persons." He saw so many objections to the bill, that he could not help recurring to the admirable speech of lord Hardwicke, upon a bill of a similar nature, which was before the house in the year 1742, and to which he had referred last sessions, when that great man concluded his speech by observing, that he would much rather be the object of such a bill, than the author of it. His lordship concluded by moving to refer to the judges for their opinion, three questions, varying in terms, the object of which was to ascertain, whether, according to law, a witness had a right to demur to the answering any question, relevant to the subject under in

171
vestigation, the answer to which might tend to acknowledge a debt recoverable by civil process? or which might render him liable to civil process generally? or which might render him liable to civil process at the suit of the crown, for the profits of any public money converted to his own use?
Lord Hollandsaid, he should not now comment upon the objections made to the bill by the noble and learned lord, as this was not the proper time for discussing the bill. He could not help, however, observing upon one point urged by the noble and learned lord, in which he thought the noble and learned lord was not borne out by the words of the bill. He did not conceive that there was any provision in the bill which could authorize the construction, that a witness giving evidence under the sanction of its provisions would be therby exonerated not merely from civil process on account of the application of public money, but also on account of debts due from such witness to private individuals. On the contrary, he conceived the bill to apply solely in its enactments, as it certainly did in intention, to the discharging such witness from process on account of public money.
Lord Eldonadmitted that the bill did not apply to merely private debts. He, however, wished to put the case of transactions arising originally out of the employment of public money, becoming so far transactions between individuals as to give rise to debts which could only be a subject of contention between those individuals by whom and to whom they were contracted.—After some further explanation between lord Eldon and lord Holland, the questions were referred to the judges, who requested time till Thursday se'nnight to consider of them.
Lord Hollandexpressed a wish that an earlier day might be appointed for the judges to deliver their opinion, which he thought would be practicable, as questions similar to the present were referred to the learned judges last session.
The Lord Chancellor(Erskine)said, that the delay asked by the judges was, he conceived, no more than ought fairly to be allowed, considering the variety of avocations by which their time would in the mean while be occupied. The sessions at the Old Bailey would intervene, which would necessarily employ the time of some of the learned judges and, upon questions of such importance as these, they would
172
naturally wish to deliberate upon them when all of them were present. He said this merely to shew that it was the other avocations of the judges which prevented an earlier day from being fixed.—It was then ordered, that the judges should attend on Thursday se'nnight, to which day the second reading of the bill was postponed, and the lords ordered to be summoned for that day.
Lord Eldonadverting again to the importance of the law considerations which the bill gave rise to, intimated the probability, that upon further turning over the subject in his mind, he should feel it incumbent on him to move for a committee to search for precedents. In case such should be his determination, he proposed to give notice of it to-morrow, and to move it on the subsequent day.