Lords Sitting of 29 June 1807

AMERICAN TRADE BILL.
Lord Hawkesburypresented, by his majesty's command, the Order in Council, continuing the provisions of the American Intercourse act, which expired during the recess, and gave notice that it was the intention of his majesty's government to propose to parliament a bill for continuing the above act for a time to be then specified, and to propose in such bill a clause of Indemnity for the advice given to his majesty to continue the provisions of the former act, after it had legally expired.
Lord Aucklandstated that the reason he did not, when in office, recommend the continuance of the act which had now expired was the pending negociation with America. He trusted, that when the treaty which was the result of that negociation came to be discussed, it would be discussed as a treaty ratified, and he felt satisfied it would be found that every possible attention had been paid to the interests of this country. He thought it but fair now to state, that when the question of the renewal of the American Intercouse act came to be discussed, he should probably be of opinion, that the same reasons which before operated did not exist for the continuance of the act. One part of it, in particular, he objected to, and was objected to during the negociation; he alluded to that part of it which allowed to the Americans a carrying-trade between our possessions in the East Indies and Europe.
Lord Hollandreferred to the Bill of Rights to prove the illegality of levying money by the authority of the crown, without the consent of parliament, and which he contended was done in the present instance, by continuing to levy duties without any competent authority.
Lord Hawkesburyadmitted that it was an infraction of the law, and therefore his majesty's ministers came to parliament for indemnity. Admitting the general principle, as stated by the noble lord, he wished to be understood that this case must stand upon its own special circumstances, of which that house would judge when the subject came regularly before them.
Lord Grenvillecontended that the order of council for levying duties which had no legal existence was a violation of a most important constitutional principle, which ought to undergo the most serious discussion in that house. Ministers had advised his majesty to levy duties for a whole month without any legal authority, and now proposed to introduce a clause in the bill intended to be brought in to indemnify themselves for this violation of the law. He thought at least that house ought to have the opportunity of discussing the great question involved in this act of the ministers in a manner which its importance deserved, and not in the shape of a clause tacked to a money bill.
Lord Hollandconsidered the question of so much importance, that he deemed it necessary to move for the appointment of a committee to search for precedents since the year 1688, of money being levied or applied by the crown without the authority of parliament.
Earl Bathurstexplained the nature of the operation of the order of council, which in fact raised no new duties, and raised in many instances less duties, in no instance higher than the crown was legally entitled to after the expiration of the act under a former subsisting act.
Lord Grenvillecontended that this statement did not alter the nature of the case. By levying lower duties than the crown was legally entitled to, might, in some instances, be levying more money than before, as in the case of prohibitory duties, in which, by lessening the duty, more money might be raised. It was still, therefore, a violation of the principles of the constitution, for which only urgent and imperious necessity could be pleaded, and if the necessity arose out of the late dissolution of parliament, it would still remain for ministers to account for their conduct in advising a dissolution of parliament, without making provision for the legal continuance of an act which they afterwards deemed it necessary to continue without legal authority.
The Lord Chancellordefended the expediency of the order of council, but admitted that it might be more adviseable to bring the indemnity as a separate measure before parliament.
Lord Harrowbyurged that the order of council only went to carry into effect the last known intentions of the legislature; similar circumstances had repeatedly happened under almost every government, and in many instances an indemnity had not been applied
666
for. He conceived the motion of the noble lord (Holland) was not called for by any circumstances in the present case, which was nothing more than a mere formal violation of the law.
Lord Grenvilleobserved that the argument of the noble lord (Harrowby) did not apply, as it was a matter of great doubt, whether the legislature would again continue the act; it therefore did not appear that ministers had carried into effect the intentions of the legislature.—Some further observations were made by lords Hawkesbury, Auckland, Holland, Grenvile, Boringdon, the earls of Lauderdale, Roslyn, and the lord chancellor, after which lord Hawkesbury moved the previous question, which was put and carried.
Lord Grenvillewished for some farther information with respect to any subsequent directions for carrying the order of council into effect.
Lord Hawkesburysaid he would make the necessary inquiries.

SCOTCH JUDICATURE BILL,
Lord Grenvillemoved for leave to present two bills for the amendment of the Judicature of that part of the united kingdom, called Scotland. His lordship stated, that there was nothing new in his motion, for that these bills were presented pursuant to resolutions passed in a former session, and which resolutions were framed, proposed and passed, with the avowed determination not to take the people of Scotland by surprise, but, on the contrary, to afford the most ample opportunity to that part of the united kingdom to deliberate upon, and maturely to consider the necessity and importance of passing the bills here proposed, without any unnecessary or further delay. If any delay had occurred in the passing of these bills, it was not the fault of the mover of the resolutions, in which it was expressly provided, that these bills should be passed in the present session, as their great and expedient advantages were called for, upon the admitted defects and insufficiency of the present mode of administering justice in Scotland. The titles of these bills were, a bill for the Amelioration of the Administration of Justice in Scotland, in certain Civil Causes, by the trial by Jury; and a bill for the better regulating the court of session in Scotland.
The Lord Chancellorstated, that he was a friend to the principles of these bills, but that great difficulties having occurred in some of the clauses therein, he had proposed another bill, which he hoped would stand clear of several objections in the noble lord's

667
bills, or resolutions, and which bill, the lord Chancellor stated, he would bring forward in the next session of parliament, it being manifestly too late to introduce such a subject in this.
Lord Grenvillereplied, that as the subject of these bills was fully and universally understood, and imperiously called for, to put an end to an admitted and crying defect in the administration of justice in Scotland, there was abundant time for passing these bills, which had been so long considered and adjusted, unless it was the object of his majesty's ministers, to have, for their own convenience, dissolved the late parliament, and to make this so short, as that no efficient or important business could be done in it; which intention of the ministry would be fully evinced, by the result of this question, in rejecting, or even postponing these bills.
Lord Hawkesburysaid, he felt himself warranted in insisting on a notice, previous to the bringing these bills forward, although he felt no difficulty in asserting, that the great body of the Scotch nation were not for the change proposed.
The Duke of Atholstated, that he had taken care to make inquiries upon the subject, and found that it was not the general sense of the people of Scotland to have these bills passed at present.
The Earl of Rosslynstated that it was the general and prevailing sense of the country, that such bills were necessary, and that he wondered to hear such a change of sentiments in those noble lords, who in the last session were such strenuous approvers of the measure.
The Earl of Lauderdalecontended that these bills should not be postponed, on account of the act of the ministry, in dissolving the late parliament; as such a dissolution, unnecessary, in his opinion, caused much delay to many measures of urgent and important necessity. He stated, that the sense of that great and enlightened body, the Scotch bar, had been taken upon this subject, as also that of the commercial and mercantile interests of that country, which were in unison with the noble mover for the expediency and necessity of the speedy passing of these bills.
The Duke of Atholagain rose,and stated, that notwithstanding all the noble earl had said, he knew that the present measure was not the universal or general sense of the Scotch nation— The bills were then read a first time and ordered to be printed.