§ On the question for the third reading of this bill,
§ Earl Stanhopethought it ought not to be proceeded upon in so thin a house, and moved to discharge the order.
§ Lord Ellenborough,after having insisted, as he had done on a former occasion, that the principle of the bill was misunderstood and misrepresented, and that he considered the opposition to it no better than a tub thrown out for the purpose of catching popular applause, added, that he could not avoid observing, that he, as chief justice of the king's bench, was entitled to some degree of respect, but he had been grossly calumniated by an individual of that house having compared him to those monsters, who in former reigns had disgraced the bench of justice, such as Scroggs, Jeffries, &c. But he should treat the calumny and the calumniator with contempt. On a former occasion he had been blamed for his taciturnity, for which he would not apologise to that individual, but he would explain the reason to that house.
§ Earl Stanhopedisavowed any intention, on his part, to impute the smallest misconduct to the noble and learned lord; he had said, and he had a right to say, that such monsters and villains as Scroggs and Jeffries had filled the office of judge; but it was impossible for him to have found any resemblance between them and the noble and learned lord; and if that noble and learned lord felt any resemblance, it was more than any other noble lord was disposed to do in that house. The rash misconception and precipitancy which had been applied to what had fallen from himself, convinced his mind that it might be improper to delegate the power proposed by that bill even to that noble and learned lord.
The motion for discharging the order was negatived. On the question being put for the third reading of the bill,
The Earl of Moiraobjected to it, observing that the operation of the bill would 711 bear hard upon the poor. A wealthy man, if arrested on a charge of misdemeanor, would find no difficulty in procuring bail, but a poor man might find it impossible; and in that case he would be sent to gaol.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that the noble lord's objection was too general, inasmuch as it would apply to the general operation of the law in holding to bail; but the fact was, that reference was always had to a man's circumstances, and the amount of bail regulated accordingly. His lordship shortly detailed the provisions of the bill, respecting which it was for the house to decide.
§ Lord Erskinerepeated several of his former objections to the bill, and contended that no necessity had been shewn for making any alteration in the law as established by our ancestors. He particularly objected to that part of the bill which placed the attorney general on a level with a grand jury, and authorized the holding to hail upon information filed ex officio.
§ Lord Ellenboroughwent over some of his former arguments in favour of the bill, and with respect to informations filed by the attorney general, contended, that the reason of the thing required that it should neat be merely a notice to the party to run away, but that there should be the means of compelling the party to answer. With respect to the objection, that the attorney general was not compelled to receive affidavits of the facts on which he filed an information, it perhaps might be thought expedient by the court of king's bench not to hold a man to bail on such an information unless it was supported by an affidavit.
Lord Hollandcontended, that no inconvenience had been shewn to have resulted from the present practice which it was at nil necessary to remedy. He objected therefore to making an unnecessary alteration in the law. He had a right to suppose in arguing this question, the case of an attorney general being the instrument of a tyrannical government, and then the provisions of this bill might prove highly injurious to the liberty of the subject.
§ Earl Stanhopeobjected to the bill upon similar grounds. He had expected that the noble and learned lord would have acknowledged the statement respecting the expressions used by him to have been erroneous.
§ Lord Ellenboroughstill thought that the expressions were improperly applied to him.
§ Earl Stanhopeagain denied that the expressions were intended to be applied to the noble and learned lord, and objected to any reference to expressions used in a former debate.
After some further conversation, the house divided on the question for the third reading: Contents 53; Non-contents 0.—Majority 7.