A new writ was ordered to be issued for Wexford, in the room of lord Loftus, called up to the house of peers as marquis of Ely.—Mr. Giles reported, from the committee of impeachment, that they had inspected the place in the court prepared for the accommodation of the house, and found that here would be sufficient space for the accommodation of 500 members, besides the managers of the impeachment. He then moved a string of resolutions, being those usual in such case: That the managers do first go out of the house before the other members; that after the Speaker has left the house, the members be called by the clerk, according to their counties: That no member do go out till his county be called: That no person but members do presume to sit in the places appointed for members in Westminster hall: That the serjeant do take all such into custody: For the more convenient passage to the hall, that the constables do attend and keep the same clear. Ordered.—The from of procedure in the cases of dr. Sacheverill and Mr. Hastings, being entered as read, Mr. Giles moved, that the same precedents be observed on the trial of lord Melville. Ordered.—It was also ordered, that no member do cross, pass through, or remain, in the passage to the hall, during the procession to and from the trial: Also, that a note, with the name of the right hon. C. Bathurst, be given to the serjeant at arms, and that he do order him to attend at said trial

said he did not wish to advert to the long procrastination which had taken place, by means of the printing of papers that had been moved for, in order to repel the charge which it was his intention to bring forward against lord St. Vincent, nor, at this time, to say a word more on the subject. He thought it necessary that a day should now be named for bringing forward the same, and he was desirous of fixing that day, as nearly as possible, according to the wish of the house; and as he would not desire to name an earlier day than it might be supposed a sufficient time would be given for printing the papers already moved for, therefore he, if it would be agreeable to the house, would name the 6th of May, on which day it was his determination positively to bring it forward.

was as anxious to avoid delay in this business as any man in the house. No rational motive could be assigned for delay on his part, or on the part of the noble lord's friends in question, but the necessary time that might be required for the production of such papers as were judged necessary for the defence of the noble lord, and the elucidation of such points as the hon. gent. had already thought proper to specify. It was to be wished that such papers should be printed, and put into the hands of members before the discussion should take place. Some of those papers were not yet produced, and a considerable time would be necessary for their printing. If there should be sufficient time for this purpose, before the day fixed on by the hon. gent., he certainly could have no objection that the matter should be finally taken up on that day. But should it appear in the mean time that all the documents could not be before the house previously to that day, he thought it only reasonable that a farther delay should take place. At present he had no object on to the day nominated by the hon. gent.

moved the order of the day, for taking into consideration his majesty's message, relative to Prussia, which being read from the chair, the right hon. secretary rose, and spoke as follows: I am sure, sir, that it is impossible that the message we have now heard read, can fail to excite the strongest sensation in every temper and disposition of mind which can exist in this house. In the first place, when we hear it stated that his majesty has abstained from appealing to his British subjects, on account of the violence and injustice which had been done to him in the seizure of his electoral dominions, it is impossible not to feel grateful for that kindness and mildness which his majesty has always shewn to the subjects of this realm. It was with the most extreme reluctance that he could consent to involve them in war upon any ground that was not immediately and directly connected with British interests. After the sentiment of gratitude to his majesty for this tender consideration of his subjects of this kingdom, the next feeling which must be strongly excited by the message, is a feeling of just indignation at the conduct of the court of Prussia. I hope that every member, while he feels this just indignation, will, at the same time perceive the propriety of uniting the most vigorous measures, with a language temperate and moderate, and which does not violate that respect which has been always considered as due to crowned heads, and ought not in the present times to be departed from. Indeed, to describe justly the measures which have been adopted by the court of Prussia against this country, they cannot be called the measures of the king of Prussia; for that sovereign is known to be of a mild and pacific disposition. The measures must be considered such as his Prussian majesty has been induced to adopt from the pernicious councils of the enemies of this country. Had it been my object to condemn, in the strongest terms, the decision of the Prussian cabinet, I might have though it necessary to lay some additional papers on the table, but that not being my object, I have moved but for few. More would have been unnecessary, as it was not my wish to give the strongest possible colouring to the accusation that the message contains. In order to understand those proceedings which have terminated in an outrage, unprecedented in the history of the worst proceedings of the worst times of Europe, it will be necessary to view the transaction a little earlier. The origin of this proceeding is to be traced to the convention concluded, at Vienna, on the, 15th of Dec., between Count Haugwitz and the French emperor; but when it is considered what was the situation of Prussia, at the time that its sovereign concluded that treaty with France, it must be recollected, that its means of negotiation were still greater than, what it derived from its own sources, or its own armies. The armies of Prussia were undoubtedly numerous and respectable; but was it on them alone that the king of Prussia relied, when he was negotiating with France? Certainly it was not. He had a strong additional support, which gave weight to his negotiations. The emperor of Russia, after he had left Austerlitz, gave the whole direction of the Russian troops, that remained in Germany, to the command of the king of Prussia. This country, too, had promised him a powerful assistance by pecuniary supplies, if he should be driven to a war with France. These were the means he possessed of giving weight to his negotiations! And how did he apply those means? Why, to seize a part of the territories of one of those powers which had been supporting him in that rank and situation which enabled him to conclude his treaty. After this treaty was signed, a considerable difficulty remained in the execution of it; this difficulty proceeded, in a great measure, from the just scruples of the king of Prussia, who perceived that it would be very hard to prevail upon his Britannic Majesty to ratify such a treaty, and who, therefore, felt that his title would be so bad as to make the acquisition of Hanover, under these circumstances, a poor equivalent for those provinces that he was obliged to give up to France. He felt, besides, that, upon no principles of justice, could he pretend to take it on other terms than those which France herself had held it on, and therefore, at first, he did not pretend to take Hanover absolutely, but with the power of restoring it. France, in the mean time, pressed for the cession of Anspach and Bayreuth. What then did the king of Prussia do? Certainly he did not expect that the French government would be able to negotiate between him and his Britannic Majesty, that he should be allowed o retain Hanover; and therefore he finally resolved to seize it without the consent of his majesty, and under the pretence of an equivalent for Anspach, Bayreuth, and those provinces which were ceded to France. It cannot then be said, that this treaty, and the proceedings which followed it, were altogether the effect of fear: for what was the necessity under which his Prussian majesty was placed? Was it merely the necessity of ceding Anspach and Bayreuth? This might have been a considerable misfortune, yet it was one which might be justified by necessity. But the sort of necessity claimed by the king of Prussia, is different; he says, "Because I have lost Anspach and Bayreuth, I therefore feel myself under the necessity of seizing the dominions of some third power; not only of a third power, but of one that, from all times, and by every circumstance, I am bound to respect." This is the sort of necessity claimed by the Prussian court, and it is this which makes the case of Prussia much worse than that of any other nation in Europe. As for Spain (1 do not wish to revive the differences of opinion with respect to the Spanish war) but Spain, I say, would comply no farther with the wishes of our enemies, than by giving a sum of money. Holland, and other powers, have been, from terror, obliged to make cessions of territory to France; but no other power has been compelled, by terror, to commit robberies or spoliations on its neighbours. It is in this that the case of Prussia stands distinguished from that of all other nations. We cannot help looking with some degree of pity and contempt, on a power that can allege that it is reduced to such a necessity. It would be, in itself, a considerable humiliation or degradation to Prussia, to be obliged to give up those provinces to which it was so much attached, and which had been called, "The cradle of the house of Brandenburgh." The degradation of this cession was still much increased by the conduct of the people of Anspach, who entreated their sovereign not to abandon them. Instead of lessening the ignominy of the cession, it was a great increase of dishonour, to sell a brave and loyal people for what was called an equivalent: it was an union of every thing that was contemptible in servility, with every thing that was odious in rapacity.—On the 26th of Jan., an official letter was written from baron Hardenberg to Mr. Jackson, expressly stating it to be the intention of his Prussian majesty to take possession of Hanover only until the conclusion of peace between England and France. In the answer to that letter, his majesty expresses his firm reliance on the declaration of his Prussian majesty, but wishes the terms to be more explicit. The language that Prussia held at that time to our court, was the same she then held to Russia, and to every other court with which she was connected by the relations of friendship. Soon after this, the convention with France appeared, and then the court of Prussia wished to represent the measures taken with regard to Hanover, as in a manner dictated by France; they would have it supposed, that it was rather an object of French than of Prussian ambition, that they should be possessed of Hanover. At first, they endeavoured to represent to the government of this country, that it was more for our interest that Hanover should be occupied by Prussian than by French troops; and their argument was this: ?If we have it, the ports may be still open to your commerce, or at leas your manufactures may have a passage through our territory.? This hope was, however, now entirely cut off, and M. de Schulenburgh, in his manifesto, professes to take the country as a present from France, which she had won and held by the right of conquest. No example could be found in all the histories of war, and no mention had ever been made by the writers on ht law of nations, of any power having a right to receive as a present, a country occupied during a war by one of the belligerent powers, but not ceded by the other.—The house must therefore see to what extremity we are now reduced. It would be idle to say that a war with Prussia would not be a calamity. It is impossible but that it must be a calamity to this country, to have the number of its enemies increased. It is also a painful consideration to think that there is no mode of returning this calamity on the aggressors which will not, in some degree, fall also on neutral and friendly nations, and even on ourselves. The house will, however, feel that there are occasions in which a manifestation of our principles and of our resentment become necessary, although attended with the calamities inseparable from war. If such an outrage as this were passed over, might not every other nation in Europe, and particularly those who have less power to resist than Prussia, say to us, "we wish as much as you that the power of France could be restrained, but you see our situation, and the great power of France, to which we are exposed? What are we to do?" If this question were put to me, I should answer, that powers in that situation must save themselves as well as they can, and even make cessions if they are insisted upon. If Prussia should allege, that she was in that state of comparative weakness that she was obliged to cede Anspach and Bayreuth; however his majesty might lament the necessity, or the accession of strength his enemies derived from the acquisition, still he would not have attempted to oppose it, or make the slightest remonstrance on the occasion. But when that power shall say, "I am not only obliged to make cessions, but I am also obliged to make war with you," then the question becomes very different, and his majesty is under the necessity of considering it in a very different light. Although I, for one, am not inclined to look very favorably on the present situation of this country, nor to feel so sanguinely as some other gentlemen, yet I think that, upon the present occasion, we should make a signal example of the court of Prussia; and whatever principles theorists may lay down about restoring the balance Europe, I think we shall do more to restore the sound and true principle that ought to prevail in Europe by sheaving the world, in this instance, that this country will not abandon them herself, nor consent that they shall be departed front by other nations in their transactions with her. I consider that the power of the country consists, in a great measure, in the known justice of its principles, in its moderation and forbearance; but if the court of Berlin chooses to depart from the principles of justice, and to act hostility to this country, it must take the consequence. I believe it has, as yet, gained nothing by its injustice. Hanover, desolated as it was first by French armies, and afterwards, in a still greater degree, bY Prussian armies, can add little or nothing to the revenues of Prussia, neither can it, in its present situation, increase her military strength. The king of Prussia has been given a mere nominal possession of that country; but so far from being strengthened by this present from France, he is only the more completely vanquished and subdued. Austria was forced, by the fortune of the war, to cede many of her provinces; other nations have been obliged to make similar cessions; but none of them had, like Prussia, been reduced to that lowest state of degradation, to consent to become the ministers of the injustice and rapacity of a master. By the command of France, Prussia was obliged to shut the ports of Hanover against our ships, and what was the possession which France allowed her to keep of Hanover? She has sent general Barbou to reside in that country, as a military superintendant, to see that every thing be done there according to the pleasure of France. There are many other instances of the manner in which Prussia is now treated by France; in several transactions, respecting the possession of Essen and Werden, and several little villages almost too inconsiderable to name, Prussia is treated with *little respect as she deserves. The French appear constantly to treat Prussia as a country that it is impossible to make a treaty or agreement with; and, in this respect, it is very likely that they are in the right. In our conduct upon this occasion, we shall have avoided a great evil, and done some good; we shall avoid the giving the sanction of this country to the spoliations which have been committed on the Continent; we shall avoid the imputation of being indifferent to the fate of his majesty's foreign possession, which would be a heavy imputation, even if it were supposed that their security was not immediately connected with the interests of this country; but, above all, we shall avoid the giving our sanction to that principle which has been lately adopted, of transferring the subjects of one prince to another, in the way of equivalents, and under the pretext of convenience and mutual accommodation. The wildest Schemes that ever were before broached would not go so far to shake the foundations of all established governments as this new practice. If we are to make exchanges, let us exchange those things which are the proper objects of exchange; let us give a field for a field, or let us exchange its stock, its oxen, and its sheep; but let us not consider the people of a country, or the subjects of a state, as matter for exchange or barter. There must be, in every nation, a certain attachment of the people to its form of government, without which no nation can subsist. This principle, then, of transferring the subjects of one prince to another, strike it the foundation of every government, and the existence of every nation. I had, therefore, great pleasure in presenting the note, delivered by me to M. Jacobi, which expressed, that no consideration of convenience or mutual accommodation, much less an equivalent, should ever induce his majesty to forget the exemplary fidelity and attachment of his Hanoverian subjects, or consent to the alienation of the electorate. I do not know that it is neces- sary to make any further observations; but before I sit down, I must stat, that there can be no doubt but that the shutting the ports of Prussia to British vessels is alone most clearly and unquestionably an act of hostility against this country.—Mr. Fox then concluded, by moving an address of thanks to his majesty, which, as usual, was an echo of the message.

rose to express his entire and unqualified concurrence in the address moved by the right hon. gent., and his cordial approbation of the sentiments with which it was introduced. From the manly manner in which the government had acted upon this occasion, it was impossible that any candid man could refuse them his praise. They had conducted themselves with a firmness so judicially tempered with conciliation, as to maintain the dignity and resolution which pressingly became them in such a case; and, at the same time, not to shut the door against an opportunity of an amicable adjustment, if the Prussian cabinet were so disposed. The right hon. gent. who opened the motion, had put the argument in favour of this country upon such broad grounds, and sustained the proceeding of his majesty's ministers by reasoning so irresistible, that he felt it unnecessary to add much to what the house had already heard. Indeed, under all the circumstances, he could not see how it was possible for government to have taken a different course. Prussia, in becoming the instrument of France to take hostile measures against this country, to adopt the course of annoying us that France had previously pursued, left to us no other alternative than that which had been taken. The noble lord vindicated the resolution to resent invasion of Hanover, and expressed his confidence that ministers, in evincing such a solicitude for his majesty's Hanoverian territories, but acted in unison with the feelings of the British people, who must ever participate in the feelings and wish of their sovereign. As to the arguments used by Prussia, after taking possession of Hanover as a permanent dominion, they appeared to him to be obviously untenable upon any principle of justice. Prussia stated, that France held Hanover by right of conquest, and under that right assumed to dispose of it. But, without any reference to the forcible and outrageous manner in which France originally took possession of Hanover, it was clear that, at the time they un- dertook to transfer it to Prussia, they did not hold it at all, for they were not in possession of that country, having evacuated the whole of it, with the exception of a single point. And unless the retention of that point (the fortress of Hameln) could be argued to imply a possession of the whole country, it would be absurd to attempt the maintaining, upon any principle of public justice, that the French held Hanover as a conquest at the time of the transfer so justly complained of. Therefore, the main ground of justification upon which Prussia seemed to rely for the validity of this transfer, must fall to the ground. Indeed the declaration of Prussia herself, in January, when she occupied Hanover, professedly, until the conclusion of pace, distinctly supported this argument, and recognized the principle she had asserted. And, upon no pretence whatever, could the unqualified way in which she afterwards acted towards that ill-fated country, be warranted. As to the probable result to Prussia herself of these events, and of the line of policy which she had so long thought proper to pursue, he firmly believed she would very soon find that she was miserably mistaken, that she would much better have consulted her own political security; and sure he was, that she would have better maintained her importance and character, had she acted quite differently—had she given her aid, when that aid might have been effectual, towards restoring the safety of Europe. Still, however, if by any course of conduct Prussia could be released from her present situation, if she could be excited justly to appreciate her own interest, and to feel for her own safety, and if any alliance could be contrived which should induce her to act upon that feeling, it was important that this country should manifest a disposition to afford every possible assistance. Such was the policy which, he trusted, would be pursued; for such, he was convinced, would be for the common interest. In every view of the subject, he was persuaded that the war, to which the address referred, was one of complete justice and absolute necessity; and on these grounds he felt great satisfaction in supporting the motion.—The address was then carried nem. con. and was ordered to be presented to his majesty by such members of that house as were of his majesty's privy council.

rose, pursuant to notice, to move that the order for printing the charge, presented the preceding day against the marquis Wellesley, rescinded. It could not, in his mind, or in that of any fair reflecting man, be consistent with justice that a charge against that noble lord, or any other person, should be published to the world, under the authority of that house, merely upon the allegation of guilt, unaccompanied by any proof whatever. He did not wish to throw any impediment in the way of the hon. gent. with whom this charge originated, or to discourage impeachment; but he must observe, that the course pursued by the hon. gent. was the most singular that could be well imagined. This was the opinion which he delivered the preceding day, and he was not disposed to retract it. The hon. gent. had moved for volumes of papers respecting the conduct of lord Wellesley, most part of which had been already laid on the table, many of them delivered to the members in print—those relative to Oude, indeed, were now distributing at the door. Yet the hon. gent. chose to overlook all these papers, and to bring forward the charge before the house, with regard to which not one document was to be found on the table, or was ever moved for. Thus, strange to tell, the hon. gent, passed by the accusations; to substantiate which, he had been so long collecting evidence, and fixed upon One with regard to which he had not yet attempted to adduce any evidence whatever. But the hon. gent. pleaded as an excuse for this, that he was provoked by a noble lord (Temple) and another member, who were perpetually teazing him, as he stated, because he did nothing but move for papers, instead of bringing forward any charge. So far the hon. gent. seemed disposed to deal in a sort of repartee with the members of whom he complained, and therefore proposed a charge, with reference to which he had moved for no papers at all. The right hon. gent. did not mean it to be inferred from the motion he was about to submit, that he was in all Case adverse to the publication of a charge before trial, or that he had that objection to what were called ex parte statements, upon which the principle of a bill, lately introduced a learned serjeant (Best), seemed to rest. On the contrary, he was determined to oppose that bill in every stage of its progress.—Returning to the subject of his motion, the right hon. gent. observed, that it was highly material this charge should be brought to issue soon as possible. But as that issue was not to he looked for, he felt that nothing should be allowed to go forth from that house accompaniad by the letters and extracts of dispatches from lord Cornwallis and others, of which no previous notice had been given, and which were calculated to prejudice the public mind upon the subject. He understood that several months would elapse before the documents to which the hon. gent. alluded the preceding day, could be prepared, and laid before the house. If so, it would not surely be consistent with justice to allow the publication of a paper that must unfairly operate against the accused. An objection was the preceding night started to his motion, on the ground that it was not calculated to produce the effect in view, as the charge under consideration would be published among the votes of the house, which were usually circulated among the members. But that statement he found, upon enquiry, to be erroneous, as this paper would be printed in the journals, which would not, of course he published. The hon. gent. in order to satisfy the house, would ask his right hon. friend near him (Mr. H. Addington), in what time the documents, on which the charge before the house professed to rest, could be got ready? The right hon. gent. concluded by moving "That the order made yesterday, for printing the Article of Charge of High Crimes and Misdemeanours against marquis Wellesley, be discharged.

replied, that to prepare the list of papers alluded to, would, he was sorry to say, require a considerable time. This he was. enabled to state from his experience respecting other papers of a similar nature; and he was sorry for the delay, because it was highly desirable, that the whole of this case should he disposed of with all convenient expedition. He was sure, that every member must sympathize in the feelings of lord Wellesley, in consequence of such suspence. Wishing, therefore, the speedy decision of the question, he regretted to say that the papers referred to by his right hon. friend could not be prepared in less than 2 or 3 months.

begged to state that the papers which referred to any of the charges he had it in contemplation to bring forward, were not completely before the house. Not one of those with regard to Bhurtpore or Surat were yet on the table, although he moved for them between 3 and 4 months ago. There were other papers. between the production of which, and the order on his motion for them, not less than 10 months had elapsed. These circumstances he mentioned, merely to shew with what justice gentlemen could ascribe any delay to him. The charge which he brought forward the preceding day, evinced, clearly, that he was ready to answer the challenge of those who called for accusations, and he would prove that be could sustain them too, if the papers were granted to him for which he should apply. As soon as those papers should be before the house, he was resolved to follow up his charges; but if, in the course of his progress, he should from inexperience be betrayed into error, he hoped the house would feel that he stood there with but little assistance. As to the error which the right hon. mover alluded to, he had only to say that he acted according to the suggestion of the chair. With regard to the time necessary to prepare the papers connected with the charge before the house, he begged leave to observe, that the right hon. gent. who spoke last was not competent to speak to that point. He, in fact, was not likely to know any thing about them, for they were not in his department. They were all in the department of the directors of the India Company.

in consequence of the hon. member having stated that he had taken the course he had adopted from a suggestion from the chair, feeling it necessary to stand right with the house, declared that he had but pointed out the manner in which the hon. member 'Could best accommodate his proceedings to the precedent of Mr. Hastings's case, which he professed to have in view.

said, he had no opposition to the motion of his right hon. friend; he thought these charges should not appear before the public, because, as yet, there appeared no evidence to support them; and it was but justice to the character of the noble marquis, to withhold from the public, aspersions upon it, until there was sonic evidence to support them. Of that noble marquis, said the hon. gent. I know but little, I had a slight acquaintance with him before he left this country. I have had no correspondence with him while abroad; since his return I have not seen him. Of the hon. gent. who prefers these charges I know nothing, but that his name is Paull, and that he sits in this house. With him I never exchanged a word, scarcely a look, yet I must declare I think he is entitled to a different treatment of this house from that of which I have been a witness. I do confess, I think that, as a member of this house, he is entitled to credit for having no other motive than a desire to serve the country by having public justice carried into effect. If this be his motive, I cannot but think that his reception, both in language and manner, was by no means consistent with the duty the house owes to its members. I cannot, however, help being of opinion, that the hon. gent.'s conduct is extremely impolitic and rash. If he has undertaken this business without any assistance, he is more rash than any one I ever knew. But if he has been assisted out of this house, and has been induced to bring this matter forward in the faith of having the same assistance in this house, I think not very highly of the courage of those who supported him in private, but who have now declined to come forward to avow that support in public. I have already said, that he appears to me not only rash, but also a little ignorant of the forms of the house; he has produced a charge in a manner not much to the credit of his experience, any more than to his prudence and discretion; but yet it was rather the business of the house to have led him on with kindness, rather than allow him to be treated in a manner I was very sorry to see. I know I have no right to recur to any particular expressions which fell last night. I wished to have an opportunity of alluding to particular expressions; but without alluding to them I do say, that in my opinion, if any servant of the India Co. who returns from India, supposes that he can fairly and justly charge another servant of the Company with having abused the trust reposed in him, and injured the interests of his employers, it is the duty of this house to give him countenance; he ought to be kindly treated, and not in such a manner as if be were a calumniator. If, on investigation, it shall be proved, that the hon. gent. has brought forward charges which he cannot make good, he will deserve, and no doubt receive, a very severe censure indeed; but till that is shewn, he is entied to the candid and impartial attention and protection of the house.—The question was then put and carried.

On the motion for the 3rd reading of this bill.

renewed his former objections made to the bill; observing, that in the first place there was no necessity for it, and in the second, that it might produce an effect different from what it was intended to do, as it went much farther than the opinions given by the majority of the judges. In his opinion, instead of removing doubts, it would be introducing new ones.

objected to the bill, as there was no practical inconvenience from the present state of the law, and as it originated from a legislative question.

conceived, that if any declaratory bill were necessary, this was the best that could be adopted. The learned gent. then entered into a very long argument, to prove that it was necessary to declare the law; and concluded by calling on the house to support the bill.

did not see that any ill consequences could arise from the rejection of the bill; on the contrary, he thought it much better that it should be thrown out, as there would be but one uncertainty in the practice of the courts; whereas, if it were passed into a law, there would be many, arising from the different constructions of it. The Solicitor General entered at great length into a statement of the advantages which would arise from the passing of this bill. The law at present, he said, was in an unsettled state, so much so, that it was not considered, by many of the judges themselves, that the opinion of the majority of that learned body, as given in the house of lords, was binding on the minority. A witness at the Old Bailey might be permitted to refuse giving an answer which would convict an offender, because the answer would subject him to a civil action or, what was still worse, a witness, for the same reason, might refuse to answer a question, the answer to which would acquit a prisoner. The Master of the Rolls stated, that he never recollected any point of law relating to evidence, settled by the legislature, on which account he was inimical to the bill. He did not think an act could be passed which would comprehend every case, and therefore as the courts of law would in time settle their own practice, which could be again altered as .necessity required, he thought it much preferable to permit them to do that, than to enact a positive law, which in all cases must be construed according to the letter.

observed, that every thing which had been urged against this bill, convinced him the more of the necessity of it. The difference of opinion among the judges, was a certain proof, that some remedy should be applied to the evil; and when he considered the arguments of the many learned gentlemen who had expressed their sentiments upon it, he thought the necessity still stronger. The learned gent. who had just sat down, had presided at one time of his life in a criminal court, when he was chief justice of Chester; and he begged leave to ask him, whether he ever had heard the exception taken? The negative opinion he considered the strongest point in favour of it; but from the argument, he was to presume, that no such doubt ever did exist. A noble and learned lord, however, of the upper house (lord Eldon), had expressed very considerable doubts upon the subject; and, if a doubt did exist, the mischief would be without bounds in every part of the judicature of the kingdom, if the bill were not passed. From every consideration which he could possibly give the subject, he thought the bill did not go one tittle beyond the opinion of the judges, and the words of it were perfectly consonant with that opinion, for which reasons he supported the bill. The house then divided, when there appeared; For the third reading of the bill, 51; Against it, 18; Majority, 33.