Sitting of 24 May 1808

IRISH CUSTOMS REGULATION BILL.—
Upon the motion for the second reading of the Irish Customs and Fees regulation bill,
The Earl of Lauderdaleobserved, that this was a bill which infringed upon one of the Standing Orders of that house, by which it was declared that any matter foreign to and having no connection with the purport of any aid, supply, or money bill, being introduced therein, and thereby fettering their lordships' discretion, was destructive to the rights of that house, and unparliamentary. The bill in question purported to be for the Regulation of Customs and the Fees of custom-house officers in Ireland; and it enacted that the right of taking 6d. upon certain duties be repealed; and then it enacted, that 3d. be paid upon the same duties; after which it proceeded to regulate the holidays kept by persons employed in the customs. Now, he certainly must contend, that this bill tended immediately to subvert the orders of that house, and on that account he was in duty compelled to resist it; for it became their lordships to be extremely jealous of any infringement upon their standing orders, considering that it might lead to dangerous consequences. After shewing that matter foreign to the title of the bill, as a money bill, was introduced by the other house of parliament, his lordship moved an amendment, that instead of the words 'be now read a second time,' there be substituted 'that this bill be rejected.'
Lord Hawkesburysaid, that what had been stated by the noble earl, respecting the Standing Order of that house, applied to bills of aid and supply. He must admit that the bill before them was a money bill; but he conceived, that in respect to some particular bills, the order was not imperative but admonitory, and in the case under consideration, left it to the option of that house to put it in force, if their
540
lordships, after exercising their discretion, should be induced to think that such was the intention of the house of commons, at the time of passing the bill, viz. to introduce foreign matter, with a view to fetter their discretion; but he did not perceive that the principle of that order could be justly applied in the present instance, and therefore should not vote for the rejection of the bill.
The Lord Chancellorthought that so far as this bill regarded duties on the customs of Ireland, it might properly be deemed a money bill. He could see no impropriety in first taking off the 6d. duty which had been formerly paid, and afterwards substituting 3d. This arose from the officers having been authorized to take half themselves, and to pay the other half to government. And when the bill was framed for the purpose of regulating their fees, it was not improper to introduce regulations concerning the holidays kept by such officers. On this account, and on the ground of these orders being sometimes rather admonitory than imperative, he should leave it to their lordships' discretion to consider whether the bill before them was one to which the order should be applied.
Lord Hollandregarded the standing orders of very great importance. The noble baron (Hawkesbury) had taken considerable pains to draw all the distinctions his mind could suggest, when the standing orders of that house ought, or ought not, to be observed: for this purpose, he had gone through all the modes, and had defined at what time they were to be considered in the imperative. There could be no such distinction, for they must at all times be imperative; and their lordships might as well have no orders, if they could be thus frittered away, by leaving it to their discretion to consider them imperative or admonitory. He had no disposition to put any obstacle in the way of the present bill, other than resisting its infringement upon the orders of that house; for if the commons once found out a mode of sending up bills in that way which tended to a breach of the orders of that house, they might be induced to do so on some occasions highly dangerous to their lordships' privileges.
The Earl of Lauderdalewas surprized at what had fallen from the noble lord (Hawkesbury) in laying down a distinction, when the orders of that house should be considered imperative, and when admonitory. It was absurd to consider any Standing Order admonitory: that house might

541
as well have no orders at all if they were not imperative. This doctrine had been also laid down by the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, and it was astonishing to him that those two noble lords could thus attempt to destroy their lordships' standing orders. He could not account for it but upon this principle, that the language used by them was intended, on their part, to be imperative towards that house.—The question was then put upon the original motion, and agreed to without a division.

INDICTMENT BILL.
On the question for going into a committee on this bill,
Lord Erskinethought it his duty to oppose its going into a committee, considering it, as he did, an alteration in the law of the land, without any necessity whatever being shewn for it. It had hitherto been invariably the practice of the constitution to draw a distinction between an indictment found by a grand jury, and an information filed by order of the court of king's bench, or by the attorney general fix officio. It was now for the first time to be declared, that on informations as well as upon indictments, the parties were to be held to bail. The practice had hitherto been upon information, to summon the party by subpoena, and if he did not appear to issue an attachment, but not to hold him to bail, the attachment being discharged the moment the party put in an appearance. Under this bill, upon the information being certified, the party might immediately be held to bail. To such an alteration he could not consent, unless some strong necessity was shewn; and not a word had been stated in favour of this bill to prove any such necessity. It was nothing to the point, that the present attorney general would not commit any abuse of his power. They were to consider what future attorney generals might do under this bill;—the king might be deceived, and a worthless person might be appointed attorney general; or an attorney general might be deceived, and informations, ex officio, might be filed for expressing opinions which every man had a right to express; and persons might, under the operation of this bill, by being held to bail, be grievously oppressed. At a time like the present, when the people must necessarily bear great burdens and endure great privations, and when there was every probability they would be called upon to bear greater burdens and endure greater privations, he thought it unwise and impolitic to run the
542
risk of exciting discontent by altering that law and that practice of the constitution which had been established by our ancestors, and had continued for centuries, by placing the attorney general upon a level with a grand jury. The bill, by the powers it gave, tended to abridge the freedom of the press; and though he, as much as any man, wished the licentiousness of the press to be checked, he objected to this bill, because it tended to fetter the freedom of opinion, by placing those who uttered opinions disagreeable to the government, in the power of an officer of the crown.
Earl Stanhopesaid, he had waited a little while, that some noble and learned lord might have an opportunity of speaking, but he was astonished at their silence. They perhaps thought it more prudent to remain silent, when they could give no reason if they spoke. If the noble and learned lord on the woolsack thought what was assigned in the preamble a sufficient reason, he would produce his own expressions, not in that house, while in debate, but in an act of parliament of his own framing, which would give the lie to the reason mentioned in the preamble of this blasted bill brought up from the house of commons. That house ought to be reprobated for sending such a bill; it was as contemptible in its formation as it was wicked in its principle. The noble lord commented upon the similarity of title of this bill, and that of the 26th of the present king, which was produced from the infamous bill of Pepper Arden. This act of the 26th had not continued for many years when the noble and learned lord thought proper to introduce another bill, which also passed into a statute, and in the preamble of that statute it was expressed, that great grievances to the subject and a loss of justice had been occasioned by the former one. Now, the present bill said that great convenience and benefit had resulted from the former as well as the latter. He considered it as an infringment of the liberty of the subject, and one which deserved the utmost reprobation. He was surprised at the indifference shewn by that house upon such an important change being made in the fundamental laws of this realm. When he looked round the house, and saw, on all sides, the benches deserted upon such an important occasion, he could not avoid making one observation, that if any business had been transacted there, which might excite some curiosity about the father of a child; of

543
if it occasioned the presence of a beautiful young lady, their lordships' benches would have been as full as they could be crammed. He did expect some answer would have been given to the strong arguments of his noble and learned friend, but he supposed they were unanswerable.— Upon the motion being again made by the lord chancellor,
Lord Hollandrose, and expressed the utmost astonishment that no answer should be given to what had been stated by his noble friends. It was unparalleled in the history of this country, that so great a change should be made in the law of the land, without any necessity or reason but those stated in the preamble. His lordship here, with great eloquence, urged, as he had done on a former occasion, the danger of altering our laws, generally, for the purpose of obtaining the convenience of extraordinary laws made for the revenue. There were objections made by him and his noble friends which had not been answered, and in such an important change of those laws which had been handed down to us from our ancestors, and which attracted the admiration of mankind, it was requisite, he thought, that some necessity for such a change ought to be shewn by those who defended it. For his part, he considered it his duty to give a most decided opposition to such an innovation, he saw no necessity for the measure; and he thought there would be considerable difficulty in convincing him that there could be any necessity for this dangerous alteration. If the bill did not alter the law, but enacted what was already enacted, it was absurd,; and if the alteration was made, he could never assent to it, unless he was persuaded there was sufficient necessity for that alteration.
A division took place on the question for going into a committee, Contents, 15. Non-contents, 6. Majority, 9. The house then went into a committee. Upon the first clause being read,
Earl Stanhopesaid, that although he much commended the conduct of his noble friends, who had left that house because they would not be present when such a pernicious bill passed through the committee, yet he had staid himself; for, after the unjustifiable manner in which this bill had passed before their lordships, he had an inclination to see what their lordships would do in the committee. He then submitted several alterations, and in the course of the proceeding re-
544
ferred to the statute of Ch. 1. and shewed what attention was therein paid to the liberty of the subject and the guarding him from imprisonment. When this statute-was passed, it received the royal assent differently from any other act of parliament. The king said 'let right be done the people, as is by parliament demanded.' The noble lord then proposed an amendment, to exclude from the bill informations filed ex officio by the attorney general, which was negatived; as were also some other amendments proposed by the noble earl.