HC Deb 15 December 1819 vol 41 c1178

Lord Castlereagh, referring to the order of the day for the second reading of the bill regarding the right of traversing on indictments or informations for misdemeanors, stated, that if no objection was entertained, he should propose that it be now read a second time.

Mr. Tierney

observed, that it must be within the recollection of the House, that in his former allusions to this measure, he had spoken in ignorance of its provisions. As he was now informed upon that point, he felt his principal objection removed.—A noble friend of his had, in another place, effected an alteration which would be more beneficial to the interests of society than any enactment for a long period. The power of prosecuting on the part of the Crown was at length defined and limited. He made these remarks with the more satisfaction, because the noble lord to whom he had alluded (lord Holland) was a Whig of the first distinction.

Mr. Brougham

professed himself to be also desirous of acknowledging the merits of the noble lord to whom allusion had been made, and he felt it to be the more necessary on this occasion, because the credit of those modifications which the bill had undergone had been, he would not say taken by, but given to, another noble lord, who certainly had never shown himself an advocate for Whig principles; and it might also be remarked, that a similar provision had been submitted by his noble friend five years ago, and rejected by the other House.

Lord Castlereagh

said, he was glad that the merits of the bill were acknowledged: whether they were to be ascribed to one noble lord, or to another, he would not then inquire.

The bill was then read a second time.