oF 
proposed by the learned serjeant 
being very generally disapproved of 
by those who were most competent 
to judge of. its effects, as tending to 
Iessen that wholesome publicity in 
the proceedings of our criminal 
courts, which is the best check, 
both on judges and jurymen, the 
notice was, some days afterwards, 
withdrawn, 
The bill (46 Geo. III. cap. 37.) 
declaratory of the law with respect 
to a witness refusing to answer, on 
the ground that he might thereby 
subject himself to a suit for debt, 
arose out of the preceedings in the 
impeachment against lord Melville. 
A bill, which had passed the honse 
of commons for indemnifying all 
persons required to give evidence 
in the impeachment of lord Melville 
who had served under him in 
the navy pay office, having been 
strongly objected toin the house 
of lords, was, afler some de- 
bate, agreed ‘to be postponed, till 
certain questions should be sub- 
mitted to the judges, in order to ar- 
rive at a clear tinderstanding of what 
was the law upon the subject. But, 
the judges disagreeing upon the 
points referred to them, though a 
majority of eight to four were de- 
cidedly of opinion that a witness was, 
generally speaking, compéllable to 
answer 2 question, though his an- 
swer might subject him to a civil ac- 
tion, it was thought proper to pass 
an act declaring such to be the law; 
and this, after some opposition, was 
accordingly enacted. ‘I'he judges, 
conformably to whose opinion the’ 
bill was passed, were the lord chief 
justice of the king’s bench, chief 
baron Macdonald, judges Heath, 
Laurence, le Blanc, and Chambre, 
and baronsGraham and Sutton, with 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 1806. 
whom may be classed Jord chancel+ 
lor Erskine and lord Eldon, The 
judges of a contrary opinion were, 
chief justice Mansfield, baronThomp- 
son, and justices Rooke and Grose. 
A subject of no small delicacy, 
and of great importance to one part 
of the united kingdom, was brought 
before parliament by lord Grenville, 
towards the close of the present ses« 
sion ; we allude to the proposed ree 
form of the court of session, or sue | 
preme civil court of Scotland. It 
seldom happens that institutions co-_ 
eval with the state, which have grown 
tu maturity along with it, can be 
afterwards fundamentally changed 
or reformed, without producing ef- 
fects different from those foreseen 
or intended by tac innovators; and, 
therefore, no wise or prudent legis- 
lator will embark in such schemes 
of reform without the most urgent 
necessity, or carry them farther than 
necessity requires. But, if ever a 
case existed, where innovation was 
justifiable,it was on the present occa 
sion. The courts of justice in Scot- 
land had arrived at that state, when 
it was necessary to attempt a tho- 
rough reform and revision of their 
constitution, both on account of the 
magnitude of the evil that called for 
redress, and the opinion entertained 
of it by the people ef that king-— 
dom. ‘The question for the discus- 
sion of government was not whether — 
reform was necessary, bat what sort 
of reform was most expedient. The - 
number of appeals from the court — 
of session to the house of lords oc-— 
casioned a retardation of business, 
and caused the greatest loss and in-— 
convenience to suitors, while it too 
clearly indicated, that the court 
from which so many appeals. pro- 
ceeded, no longer possessed the con- 
fidence © 
