state of the company's debt, which was allowed in 1793 to menace the company's existence, unless measures were taken to discharge it. It was now at such a height as to menace the existence of the country, unless a speedy remedy were applied. He acquitted the court of Directors. The war was not the cause of the debt. The government of India was not prepared for the war when it began, and was com pelled to have recourse to oppressive exertions to meet the exigence. It was impossible a war, which lasted only four months, could have caused such an accumulation. Money for the commercial occasions of the company was borrowed in India at fifteen per cent. ; ten per cent. was allowed to the commercial residents, and ten per cent. for dividend. He maintained that 'under all these charges there had been a loss of three millions and a half in the Bengal trade, within the last two years. It was only the excessive profits on the China trade that enabled the company to go on; for the Bengal trade afforded nothing. He wished to try the re sponsibility of borrowing moneyf or these commercial purposes, and to shew the waste and extravagance of those who had been entrusted with the government of India; that was his object in wishing for the committee.

After some observations from Lord Castlereagh, in explanation, who formed his calculations of the company's prosperity in 1803, on the expectation of the continuance of peace; Mr. H. Addington, who deprecated all strong language respecting the noble marquis late at the head of the government of India, till all the papers tending to set his conduct fully and fairly in view should be before the House; Dr. Laurence, who thought it very proper to move for papers that had never existed, for the purpose of shewing that the law which required them had not been complied with; and ridiculed the noble lord's calculation of the company's prosperity on a continuance of peace, one month after his Majesty's message in March, 1803, which gave the first alarm of the approach of war; Mr. Paull, who disclaimed all intention of accusing the noble marquis alluded to on the present occasion, professing at the same time his confidence that when he should bring the conduct of that noble marquis more particularly before the House, he would at least make out a good ground for bringing the business forward; the papers were ordered as follows: copies of accounts of all payments made from the court of directors to the treasury; copies of all repre

sentations

sentations made from the lords of the treasury to the court of directors, on the omission of the payments due by law; copies of all representations made by the lords of the trea sury to parliament, on the omission of such representa tions; copies of all accounts of stock, applied to the guarantee fund of the company; the yearly account of the company's stock, and the appropriation thereof; accounts of all applications of the Governor-General of India, to the supercargoes at Canton, for pecuniary aid, and answers thereto.

JOINT ACCOUNT OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND.

Lord Henry Petty rose, pursuant to notice, to move, that a committee be appointed to investigate the joint account between Great Britain and Ireland. Lord H. Petty, Lord Castlereagh, Mr. Foster, Sir John Stuart of Tyrone, Mr. Hawthorn, Lord Ossulston, Sir J. Montgomery Stuart, Mr. Long, Mr. Vansittart, Mr. Huskisson, and Sir Evan Nepean, were appointed accordingly.

Lord H. Petty gave notice, that on Thursday he would move for leave to bring in a bill to regulate the office of treasurer of his Majesty's ordnance.

On the motion of Lord Temple, it was ordered that the House should on Thursday go into a committee for the purpose of continuing certain acts relating to the Greenland whale-fishery.

The further consideration of the report of the committee on Lord Collingwood's annuity bill was put off till Monday.

The Irish land partition bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Thursday. Adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS,

THURSDAY, Feb. 27.

The exchequer bills bill was read a third time and passed, and a message ordered to be sent to the commons to acquaint them therewith.

The West Riding of Yorkshire court-houses bill was read a second time, and committed for the next day.

IMPEACHMENT WITNESSES INDEMNITY BILL.

The order of the day having been read for the attendance of the judges (who were all present), to give their answers to the three questions referred to them, the first and second

of

of which went to inquire whether, according to law, a witness could demur to answer a question, the answer to which might render him liable to an action for debt, or to a suit for the recovery of the profits of public money? and the third, to ascertain whether a witness who, on making a full and fair disclosure, was to be excused from certain debts, could not be legally objected to, on the ground of his being interested?

Lord Chief Justice Mansfield delivered the opinion of the judges, which, with respect to the first two questions would, he said he feared, leave their lordships in nearly the same state of doubt in which they were before, although his learned brethren and himself had devoted as much attention to their: consideration as the time allotted for the purpose would allow. The judges were, however, upon those two questions, which they considered to be resolved into one, divided in opinion. Those who, were of opinion that a witness in such a case could not demur, might be prepared to give a decisive answer to that effect, but with respect to those who were of a contrary opinion, that opinion was qualified by a great number of exceptions, which it was not their province to descant upon under the general terms of the questions, and which, indeed, it would be scarcely possible for them, under a general question, to give a decided opinion upon. With respect to the third question, they were unanimously of opinion, that a witness in the situation described, as whatever was offered, on condition of his making a full and fair disclosure, could legally make no difference with respect to his evidence, he being bound by his oath, by law, morality, and honour, to declare the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Lord Auckland expressed his disappointment at the opinion which he had just heard from the judges, which he had expected would have been decisive one way or the other. In order, however, to obtain an answer, which might perhaps be all that would be necessary, with reference to the bill, he begged leave to propose another question, whether, ac cording to law, any officer or agent employed under aný officer entrusted with the application of public money, could demur to answer to any question relative to the matter in issue, the answer to which might render him liable to any suit respecting the application of such money? This question, however, he was very willing to withdraw, if any VOL. 1. 1805-6.

C c

other

other noble lord suggested a better mode of attaining the same object.

It being suggested by the clerk that the answers of the judges should be delivered in writing, they were accord ingly delivered. The answer to the third question was si milar to that given verbally by Lord Chief Justice Mans field. The answer to the other two questions stated, that they were so general in their nature that the judges could not give a satisfactory answer.

Lord Eldon said, it would be in the recollection of their lordships that he had, on a former occasion, expressed his doubts whether they would derive much precise information from the opinion of the judges upon such general questions. The great difficulty in his mind, with respect to framing more specific questions, was, that they could not do so with out going into the merits of the case which was to come be fore them by impeachment, and upon which they ought to preserve their minds clear from all previous opinion upon the subject, until they came before them regularly in evi

dence.

Lord Holland protested against the opinion given by the judges upon the first two questions, as one which, in its tendency, was unconstitutional. He did not conceive that it rested with the learned judges to say, that a question referred to them was too general to allow them to give a satisfactory answer-they were, on the contrary, to givea specific answer when their lordships required one, respecting any ge neral or abstract point of law, the information contained in which the House might afterwards apply according to the lex et consuetudo Parliamenti. But that that House, in order to obtain a specific answer on a point of a law, must put an individual case instead of a general question, was a practice which, he conceived, tobe wholly unsanctioned by the usage of Parliament, and which was opposite to the principles of the constitution, inasmuch as, if such a practice was to prevail, the House would be referring questions to the judges, the answer to which would involve what ought to be their lordships' proceedings upon any specific point before them. This he must decisively protest againt, and it was in this point of view that he felt himself under the necessity of ob jecting to the question proposed by the noble lord (Auck land), although, if it was pressed, he would not oppose it, but he objected to it on the ground of its being too specific. He conceived that the House had a right to an answer from

the

the learned judges upon any abstract point of law, respecting which they required information, and that such answershould be in the affirmative or negative. He could not help remarking, that in this case the opinion delivered viva coce by the learned chief justice, and that delivered in writ ing at the table, were at variance. From the former it was clearly to be inferred that the learned judges differed in opiion respecting the answer to be given, whilst the paper delivered in at the table was the answer of all the judges, and stated that, which he could not admit, and which he was anxious should not be considered by the House as an answer that it was proper to admit. Had not the consideration of the bill pressed upon the House in point of time, he should have thought it his duty, under the circumstances of this case, to move for a committee to search for precedents respecting questions referred to the judges, and their an, swers, in order that the practice of parliament in this respect might be fully ascertained.

Earl Stanhope said, his noble friend had mistaken the practice of parliament, with respect to the questions referred to the judges. If his noble friend had, like himself, endured the misery of attending for six years, during the trial of Warren Hastings, he would have known that it had been constantly the practice to refer questions to the judges upon specific points, and individual cases. He could not, at the same time, agree with his noble friend, as to the general propriety of requiring an answer from the learned judges to a question respecting an abstract point of law. Such a question might involve both negative and positive relations; and how was it possible for the learned judges to give a ge‐ neral answer, of yes or no, to a question which they could not, indeed, answer, without making a thousand, or, perhaps, ten thousand, exceptions to the general rule laid down. With respect to the bill itself, he was of opinion, that there should not be a different how for A. to what there was for B. and he had an idea, if it was not carried into effect by any other person, of proposing a general law upon the subject, contained in a short bill, according to which, the evidence given by any person respecting any matter in issue should not be afterwards made use of in any way against him.

The Lord Chancellor, after briefly stating the circumstances which gave rise, on a former occasion, to putting these questions to the judges, observed, that it was clear, from the statement of the learned chief justice, that the