§ Earl Greyadverted to the opinions of the law officers of the Crown, referred to in lord Sidmouth's Circular, and observed, that what was there stated rendered it still more necessary that the case referred to them should be laid before the House. It related to a question of the greatest importance, involving, as he conceived, a departure from the practice of the constitution, and a violation of the law of the land. He should, therefore, move on Tuesday for the case referred to the law officers, and should then make observations upon the whole question. In the Opinion of the law officers he observed a reference made to an opinion of a learned predecessor of theirs, respecting the case of Thomas Spence and Alexander Hogg, in 1801. He thought it of great importance that every information respecting this question should be before the House; and therefore, if there was no objection, he would now move for that opinion.
The Earl of Liverpoolthought that there was no opinion respecting the cases referred to of Thomas Spence and Alexander Hogg to be found amongst the papers of the office; but that instead of being an opinion given, it was an opinion acted upon.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the cases referred to of Spence and Hogg must have occurred when he had ceased to be attorney-general, as he had no recollection of it. He thought, however, that the opinion referred to was not one given, but one acted upon, and that Spence and Hogg were held to bail either by justices of the peace or judges of the King's-bench, he could not recollect which. He would, however, inquire and obtain the requisite information, if the noble lord would postpone his motion.
§ Earl Greyagreed to postpone his motion, in consequence of what had been so candidly stated by the noble and learned lord. He could not discover what authority there was previous to the Circular, for persons being held to bail in the cases alluded to, by justices of peace, and it was of the greatest importance to ascertain it.