Lord Hollandsaid, there were circumstances connected with this bill which, as it appeared to him, would render the passing of it at this time, and in its present shape, very improper. He thought it unfair towards the parties who were 419 candidates, while at the same time he was of opinion that the situation in which the high bailiff was placed was one which required some remedy. He, however, did not mean now, in the last stage of the bill to offer any objection, except on a point of form. This, their lordships would observe, was a bill to revive an act which had expired; and on examining it, he found that it merely recited the title of the bill which it proposed to revive. He was aware, that if the bill proposed to continue an existing act, it would be sufficient to set forth the title of the act; but when the law had been allowed to expire, the case was very different: it then seemed necessary that all the provisions of the act proposed to be revived should be recited in the reviving bill. If this were not done, their lordships would be obliged, in the case of every revived act, to go and search the charnel house of parliament, in order to learn the existing law from defunct statutes. This, their lordships would recollect, was to be an act of parliament de novo; for the act proposed to enact what at this time was not the law of the land, and yet when passed, the law would not appear on the face of the act.
The Lord Chancellordid not consider the objection of sufficient weight to delay the passing of the bill. The noble lord admitted, that if the bill had been to continue an existing act, it would not have been necessary to do more than recite the title of such act; and, in fact, this was also all that was required for the renewal of an expired law: for by an act introduced by the late Mr. Perceval, it was provided, that in any act purporting to continue another, it should be sufficient to recite merely the title of the previous statute, though it should have expired before the continuing act passed. The present bill, therefore, would, on its being passed, have the force of law in the same manner as if all the provisions of the expired law had been recited in it. The noble lord must, therefore, perceive, that the present bill was unexceptionable, for it not only proposed to revive, but to continue, the former act.
Lord Holland, notwithstanding what had been said by the learned lord, was of opinion that, as this was de facto a bill to revive, it ought to contain the provisions of the expired act. He did not mean to assert, that it would not have the force of law when passed; but though the word 420 continued was inserted, he thought it would be more regular, if the amendment he had suggested were adopted. The act had expired, and their lordships were now passing a purely reviving bill.
The Earl of Lauderdalethought it very extraordinary, that a bill which on the face of it professed to revive, should be regarded as the same as a merely continuing bill. He should have expected the learned lord to propose to strike out every thing relative to the revival of the former act. If he approved of the bill, he would make a motion to that effect; but it was not for him to seek to correct a bill which he disapproved and considered altogether unjust.
The Lord Chancellorwas satisfied, if he understood Mr. Perceval's act, that the wording of the present bill was perfectly correct. It proposed both to continue and revive. All that could be objected to it, therefore, was, that it contained more words than were necessary; but he did not consider that a reason for delaying the measure by striking out the superfluous words.
Lord Hollanddid not consider Mr. Perceval's as strictly applicable to the present bill, which distinctly professed to revive an expired law. He, besides, thought it necessary that the provisions of the former act should be recited, in order that the law might be known.
§ The bill was then read a third time.