HL Deb 10 July 1815 vol 31 cc1143-4

On the motion that the Report of this Bill be received,

Earl Stanhope

rose to express his objections to the Bill in question. He had never seen such a bungling bill, even from the bunglers of the House of Commons [a laugh]. During the last session, a Bill had come up from that House to their lordships, in which the pecuniary penalty for some offence had been changed into transportation for fourteen years. Now, their lordships knew, that when a fine was levied by way of penalty, it was customary to provide that half the fine should go to the informer, and the other half to the King; but in this Bill they forgot to alter that provision, so that the enactment literally ran thus—that the person committing this offence should be transported for fourteen years, half the penalty to go to the informer, and the other half to the King [a laugh]. With respect to the present Bill, he was decidedly Friendly to its object, because it was an honest one; but he was an enemy to its clauses, because they were oppressive. The noble earl specified several of the provisions which he thought oppressive and incorrect. He objected also to its being made a private instead of a public Bill, as it was smuggling the measure through the House in an unfair manner. He wished that it might be postponed for the present, not from any desire that it should be abandoned, but merely that it might be resumed next session in a less imperfect manner; and he should therefore move, that it be read a third time on Thursday next.

The Lord Chancellor

defended the Bill, as calculated to produce much good. It was not so perfect as it might be, perhaps; but that was no reason for rejecting the benefit it would produce, merely because it was possible to render it still more efficient. With respect to the oppression complained of by the noble earl, if he would examine the charter of the Apothecaries Company, he would find that they possessed, by virtue of that Charter, powers much more extensive than it was now proposed to grant them. In fact, the present Bill was a qualification and limitation of that Charter. It would, indeed, be a great act of injustice on the part of that House towards the suitors for the Bill, if they were now, after having suffered it to go through so many stages at a considerable expenditure of time and money, to throw it out, except there existed some stronger grounds for such a proceeding than had been indicated by the noble earl. He should, therefore, certainly vote for its passing to a third reading.

The amendment was negatived, and the Bill ordered to be read a third time tomorrow.