Lords Sitting of 8 May 1815

PROCLAMATION OF LOUIS 18.
The Earl of Darnleysaid, that he wished to put a question to the noble lord opposite, on the subject of a document that had appeared in the public Journals. He could not, perhaps, regularly inquire whether it were an authentic document; but he begged to be informed, whether the Declaration of Louis 18 was authorized by his Britannic Majesty?
The Earl of Liverpoolreplied, that it was not possible for him, consistently with his public duty, to give the noble earl any

183]
answer that would be satisfactory: the instrument had no reference to any immediate act of the British Government.
The Earl of Darnley, under the circumstances, could not avoid hoping and believing, that if the document were authentic, it was not authorized by ministers.

SMALL-POX PREVENTION BILL.
Lord Boringdonstated, that in the session of 1813 he had brought in a Bill to prevent the spreading of infection by the inoculated Small-pox, which was withdrawn. He had introduced another bill last year; which, after having undergone a good deal of consideration, was also withdrawn; the noble and learned lord opposite having stated that the offence was punishable at common law. This opinion had among the unlearned occasioned great surprise; it did not appear that any indictment for the offence had then been preferred, and he had therefore pledged himself to bring in another bill of the same description as the former bills, this session. That pledge he would have redeemed, if matters had stood in the same situation; as it was not to be endured that persons should be allowed with impunity to spread infection by a disease which might so easily be prevented by vaccination, which was approved by the best physicians, and sanctioned by Parliament. Lately, however, in a case where eight persons had lost their lives, owing to the indiscretion of a mother, who exposed her child when it had the inoculated small-pox, an indictment had been preferred at common law, and the offender convicted and punished. He trusted, therefore, that when it was known in all quarters of the country, that the offence exposed the party to a heavy punishment at common law, the practice of bringing children inter public places when they had the innoculated small-pox would be discontinued. If the recent judgment of the King's-bench-should not be found to produce that effect, he should still feel it his duty to bring in a bill for that purpose; but under the present circumstances he did not feel himself called upon at this moment to proceed farther.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that the judgment of the King's-bench,- in the case alluded to, did not lay down any new law. It was a thing perfectly well known among lawyers, that the offence was punishable at common law; certainly, the opinion which he had given last year, could have created no surprise among them, and he
[184
believed it would be found, that this was by no means the first indictment which had been preferred for similar offences.
Earl Stanhopebegged the noble and learned lord to explain himself. Mere inoculation was the promulgation of an infectious disease; and he wished to know if it were meant to be asserted, that under the statute that was punishable? The fact was, that inoculation was not discovered until long after the passing of the Act. It did not appear to him per se illegal.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that in the next term he should be called upon to decide upon the precise case. He would, however, anticipate his judgment so far as to say, that inoculation, with proper precautions of secluding the patient and preventing the spreading of the infection, was not illegal. The abuse of the practice only was criminal.
Earl Stanhopeadded, that he did not think any court of law could decide otherwise: if it did, he should have thought it dis duty to bring in a bill that would give them such a trimming as they had never before received.
Lord Boringdonobserved, that he believed that only one prosecution and conviction had taken place under the statute.
Lord Ellenboroughwas of opinion, that other cases might be found on the books, of the same kind, under the same statute.

ALIEN BILL.
On the motion for the committal of this Bill,
Earl Stanhopesaid, there never Was a bill with so many absurd clauses. He adverted to an Act of the 2nd of Richard 2, by which aliens from nations in amity with this country were permitted to come into the country freely for purposes of commerce, and to transact their business without molestation. Bills of this description trenched on that law; but if it was proper to pass them at all, it was at least incumbent on those who ought to attend to them particularly, to take care they were in a state fit to be passed. It was absolutely necessary that more attention should be paid to the bills that were brought into that House. The Commons had sent them up a bill relative to the borough of Hellestone, which it was found impossible to deal with; and now they sent this Bill, which was little better. It ought to have been submitted to the Attorney and Solicitor general, before it was brought in. One objectionable part of the Bill was, that all aliens having no

185]
licence, &c., were to be imprisoned till sent out of the country; and having no licence, meant having no licence under this. Act; so that those who had licences under the last Act, might be imprisoned without knowing that they had committed any offence. He had suggested this to the noble Secretary, who now, he understood, was prepared, with an amendment which would remove nineteen-twentieths of his objections to the Bill. Another objection was, that even cases of shipwreck and distress were not excepted. In one of the clauses an indictment was to be preferred where there was no indictable offence. However, he should not object to the Bill going into a committee.
The motion being agreed to, the Bill was accordingly committed.
Viscount Sidmouthstated, that the reason why this Bill had not been submitted to the Attorney and Solicitor-general, was, that the Alien Bill of 1803, of which this was nearly a transcript, had been so submitted. There was a great convenience in compelling aliens to take out new licences, as changes must have taken place by death and departure, and it was desirable that the number and abode of all aliens now holding licences under the late Act should be known. Upon the whole, the inconvenience to the parties which would result from their being compelled to come to London and renew their licences, appeared to outweigh the advantages on the other side, and therefore he proposed a clause by which licences held under the former Act were considered to be sufficient.—This clause was accordingly inserted.
Earl Stanhopesaid, that the clause removed much of what he had considered as objectionable in the Bill, and had been first suggested by himself. His lordship then proposed several other amendments, and particularly insisted that certain words which he mentioned, should be stated in a parenthesis, that, as he alleged, being absolutely necessary to make the sense clear.
Lord Redesdalesaid, that there were no parentheses in acts of parliament, and that the question ought not to be put.
Earl Stanhopeinsisted, that there were parentheses in acts of parliament, and he was astonished that any lawyer should deny it.
The proposed amendments were severally negatived, and the Bill passed the committee.