§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the order of the day for the house going into a committee on the bill for remedying inconveniences resulting from the expiration of certain laws.
§ Mr. Sheridanobjected to the Speaker's leaving the chair. Why did not ministers prevent those inconveniences which they now called upon parliament to remedy? It was in their power to have prevented the evil, and why had they not done so? They knew what laws were about to expire, and why had they not provided in due time? It appeared to be a bill which might be well entitled, 'A bill for the better encouraging the laziness, indolence and neglect of his majesty's ministers.' It was too uniformly assumed that the bill would pass. The act which was to be continued might have expired before the bill for reviving it had passed, and thus the offence proscribed against cease to be criminal, or on the other hand, what was infinitely more serious, that which had ceased to be criminal, might, by a sort of latent revival, become suddenly penal, and thus a man might inadvertently be guilty of a crime, and hanged in a parenthesis. He thought the bill replete with absurdities, and no consideration would incline him to yield to the motion for the Speaker's leaving the chair, unless it was that of having the advantage of his high authority and parliamentary experience in the committee.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercontended, that this measure was not a violation of the usages of parliament for centuries; because the session of parliament, according to parliamentary usage, was considered but as one day. It was only a few years ago that an act was passed to provide that acts of parliament were to have effect from the day of passing; whereas, antecedently, all acts had reference to the first day of 912 the session in which they were passed. The right hon. gent. seemed to think that it was the duty of ministers to attend to the acts that were likely to expire, but did not seem to be aware that a committee was appointed at the commencement of every session to inquire what bills were likely to expire, and if any neglect took place, it was the act of the house. But in the view taken by the right hon. gent. he did not seem to be aware that this bill was not to have effect by imposing penalties, confiscations, or forfeitures; it was only to continue authorities to maintain jurisdictions, until the enactment of the continuing bill. Therefore the execution in the parenthesis alluded to by the right hon. gent. could not take place under this bill. It would do much good, and could do no injury.
Mr. Ponsonbythanked the right hon. gent. for having attended to the suggestion made by him respecting the inexpediency of continuing penalties by this bill, when he had first mentioned the subject. The objections of his right hon. friend would have been unanswerable against the original bill, if it had not been for the proviso introduced by the right hon. gent. for excepting penalties. But, certainly, the introduction of that proviso removed a great part of these objections; and, with this proviso, he thought that the bill might be productive of benefit in certain cases.—The house then went into a committee.
§ Mr. Sheridanrenewed his objections to the principle, and thought it was an admission of the indolence of his majesty's ministers.—The bill then passed through the committee.