Star.
London, England, 1806-04-18 00:00:00

~~

1-ron. Friend, as 'Woos and fancies. fie &Attended,
that not one man had been railed by the Ad, who
would not have enli&ed. had it never pafred.
The Bill was then read a first time, and ordered to
be read a fit and on Thurfday nest.

WIT INDIIIIINITY SILL. '
The Houfe refolved ittelf into a Committee on the
Witneffes Indemnity Bill.
The MASTER. of the ROLLS laid, he thought
the Bill unneceffary ; but if it was to pals, it Was his
with to contribute as much as pollible towards its
perfection. The Bill propofed to declare the law ac-
cording to the opinion of the majority of the Judges ;
limit lamed to him that it was contradittory to that
opinion, mit did not contain the limitation expreffed
by the Judges, as to compelling Witrieffes in Courts
of Law to anfwer queftions which, if they were de.
fendants in equity, they might objett to. He fbould
therefore move this claufe :
" Provided sways. that sown herein contained oat be eon-
" &sal to preclude say wised' from eirkitine to whet is enquired
y et him In a caw: of tsar, if it is what he would not be campclied
to =bow to a BM dial again* him in s Court of Equity; or to
prevent the Judge from diming or Mellowing bads °brawn, the
fame as POW Ad had not been wade "
The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Mr. Rentratt)
profiled the greatest relpea for the opinion of the
Right Honourable and Learned Gentleman, and felt
a diffidence (ibis own opinion when be differed from
bins. He could not, however, avoid objecting to
the prwrife now propofedi as it would be giving the
Audios and countenance of the Legiflature tea prin-
ciple which he never could admit, that the rules
evidence at law were to be learned from the decilioss
of Coons of Equity. He was clearly of opinion that
they were quite independent of thofe decificns. „The
titles of evidence in Courts of Law were as ancient
as the Comtism) Law itfelf, from which they were
delved ; whereas the Courts of Equity, and their
&aims, were comparatively of modern date. He
confidered the prefent Bill, founded upon the opinions
of the Judges, went to declare what was the rule of
evidence at law, and not what was the practice in
equity. They gave, no opinions about the Coons of
Equity, and he therefore thought, that this Decla-
ratory Law fhoold not contain loch a provifo as was
pre fed.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL differed from
the Solicitor General, and fupported the claufe pro
poled by the Mailer of the Rolls ; be could not allow
that the roles of evidence were of as old a date as the
common law, which was fuppofed to have beea ante.
talent to the journey of Richard the Firit to the
Moo Land. Many of the rules of evidence in Courts
ofLaw had been fettled very recently ; and that
judge, who had for fo many years, and with fo much
amour, prefided in oar chief Criminal Court (Lord
Mansfield) had himfelf laid down fo many rules,
which had afterwards been adopted; he thought that
the prefent rule which the Judges had declared, was
not to be found in any authority of the Law, but had
been handed down to them from the Courts of Equi-
ty, and therefore ought only to be adopted with the
exceptions that it wet fubjed to there. At equity. a
defendant who had bona file pi/chafed an eaate,
plight refute to ulster a queflion which went to de-
, feat his title : he law no reafon why a witnefs thould
not have the fame privilege at law.
The MASTER of the ROLLS infilled, that when
judges borrowed their rules of evidence from the
Courts of Equity, it was no hardthip to impofe upon
them the neceffity of learning what the role in equity
was, or to what exceptions it was liable ; he did not
wifh to lend them into Courts of Equity, but he
found them already there. In the cafe of -.he Qieen
again& Newell, in Parker's Reports, the rule was laid
down " that a witnefs mutt anfwer at Law fuch
queftions, as a party could not demur to in a Court
of Equity." Lord Mansfield held the rule the fame
way : he mull contend, that, by the genuine prin-
ciples of the Law of England, a man is no more
bound to give evidence of a debt he may owe, than
of a crime he may have committed. In other coun-
tries it was different, as a plaintiff might always call
for the defendant's oath ; he was convinced, that the
rule was derived from the Courts of Equity, and
oullitt to be taken with the exceptions it was there
to.
The SOLICITOR GENBRAL thought the words
• eff the Bill were as general as the opin.ices of the judger,
and did not bar any exceptions they Intended to make.
When he eonfidered, that in the Houle of Lords, not
only eight Judges of the twelve, but the prefent and
late Lord Chancellor were agreed on the rule of evi•
deuce. he was only the mote convinced that the Bill
was neceffary. when be perceived that there Rill ex-
iled doubts on the (tibial.
Mr. PERCIVAL thought, it was much to be la-
mented, that the other Houle, which had tie affitance
of the Judges, did not candefeend to alk them tome
queftions, as to the exceptions which they uniierftood
ao exift againit the rule which they only laid down
generally. He feared, that this declaratory law
would be going beyond the opinion of the Judges, and
-therefore agreed on the propriety of adding the pee-
-1 with, if the Bill was to pats.
Mr. FOX (aid, be withed to hear the opinions of
the different Learned Gentlemen before he had made
up his mind. He was convinced that it would be
better that the Bill fhould not pals, than path with
fuch a provito. Whatever fell from the Right Hon.
and Learned Gentleman (the Matter of the Rolls),
k. came always with peculiar force, horn his peculiar
diltinenefs, and the remarkable clearriels of his mind,
but he had not at all convinced him, that this Bill, in
its prefent Rate, was not exatly agreeable to the opi•
Mons declared by the Judges. He agreed with the
Solicitor General, that this Bill was of peculiar im-
portance, both becaufe it was retpating a rule of
daily application, and becaufe there was a great dif-
ference of opinion ref-paling it. The Judges had
expreffed, that " generally' a witnefs is obliged to
anfwer queftions that may even expofe him to a aril
aCtion. The words of the Bill are, that a witnefs

cannot decline to anfwer, folely" becanfe fuch
anfwer might expofe him to a civil attion. The word
" folely" left the quellion Rill open to the Judges,
and did not take away any of the exceptions now ex.
ifting. A witncfs might, after the palling of this Aft,
decline to anfwer a queltion, not lately becaufe it
would expofe him to a civil aftion, but becaufe it
alight expofe him to a particular fort of aEtion, from
which he was proteCted by the rule as it (lands at
prefent, fubjed to the exception which the Judges
meant. The pafng the Aft in its paint fhape would
only eitablifh the prefent rule, but would not take
away any of the crafting objeetions. The greater part

4
•

of the fixed, of the liikht Hon—Gentleman (the
Matter of the Rolls) went to impugn and arraign the
opinion of the Judges, whereas the objea of the pre-
fell Bill was to give an additional Candion to thin.
opinion. For his part, he believed the opinion of the
Judges to be right, but his opinion on that folsjeft
could add nothing to the weight of their authority.—
He knew that there had been at all times excellent
Judges, attached to the common law of England, and
who would not travel into the Courts of Equity, to
learn the principles which were to determine the ad-
miffinn of evidence at law. In the prefent inftance,
the twelve Judges, who had delivered their opinions,
Rated nothing of the practice of Courts of Equity in
their opinions, whatever they might have done in their
reafons ( which he did not happen to hear); he therefore
prefumed, that their opinions were merely declara-
tory of the rule of evidence at law, and fhould there-
fore think it aging contrary to their opinions to in-
troduce a provifo of a different nature. A provifo,
to the very fame effelt as that now prnpofed, bad
been introduced in the Houfe of Lords, and %tat at
firfi received; but it was afterwards debated, and the
fenfe of that Honk was fo decidedly againft it, that
it was afterwards withdrawn. He agreed in their:
opinion, that the provifo was ttfelds, and thought
that it was highly neceffary that the law fhould be
fettled upon this point.
Mr. JERVIS coincided with 'Mat bad fallen from
the Right Hon. Gentleman (I& Fox), and thought
that the words of the Bill were fufficiently general,
and would not ihot oat any of thole exceptions to the
general rule which before eriled ; he therefore op.
poled the elaufe.
Mr. GRANT explained.
Sir VICARY GIBBS confidered the Bill in no
other light than as declaratory of what the Majority
of the had decided to be the law upon the
cafe ; and fo far he certainly approved it ; but, at the
fame time, he thought it behoved the Houfe to tau-
cife the utmnft caution in adopting any provifo, by
way of qualification; without being fine that it was
the fpecies of qualification refereed by the Judges in
laying down the general principle. The Committee,
before they adopted any amendment of that fort,
fbould be convinced that it was coincident with the
opinions of the Judges. He fhould, therefore, fop-
port the Bill, as it CAMS down from the Lords; but
was decidedly againft the Provifo.
The qneftinn being then put upon the Provifoaaufe,
it was carried in the negative; and the Bill being
gone through, was ordered to be reported to-morrow.