The Earl of Westmorelandagain repeated his objections to the Bill, and concluded by moving for a committee to examine what was the nature of the jurisdictions for the trial of offenders, and what prosecutions had been carried on under the former Act.
The Marquis of Lansdownesaid, that the noble lord had for the third time stated the same objections in the same phraseology; and, therefore, he need only say, that if the present motion had for its object to defeat the passing of the Bill this session, he could not agree to it.
The Earl of Liverpoolalso objected to the motion, as it was understood that the Bill was to be re-committed.
The Earl of Westmorelandsaid, he did not wish to prevent the commitment of the Bill; but he submitted whether it would not be better to allow it to stand over for the present session. He withdrew his motion, however, for the present.
§ Lord Ellenboroughdoubted whether, after all they could do in the way of amendment, the Bill could be brought into such a state as to render it proper for their lordships to pass it. It would perhaps be better to postpone it till another session, rather than pass it in the crude and undigested state in which it must remain if now passed.
The Bill was then recommitted, and several amendments were made. The Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Friday.