Sitting of 10 July 1815

PILLORY ABOLITION BILL.
Earl Stanhopeadverted to the Bill which had been for some time under their lordships attention, though finally rejected, and observed, that it involved a question of infinite importance to the subjects of these realms. He thought it desirable that it should not be suffered wholly to die away: and he should therefore submit a motion to the House, which was in fact merely a copy of an order which their lordships had made some years ago, but which had never been acted upon. His motion was as follows: "That the Judges do prepare and lay before the House, a Bill for reducing into one Act all the laws now in force, imposing the penalty of the pillory, or authorising the infliction of the same." He did not apprehend that any objection would be made to that motion; but he had another to propose, which he did not expect would be acceded to, nor indeed did he mean to press it, as his only object was to have it recorded on their journals, in the hope that the subject to which it referred might hereafter be taken into their lordships consideration. He was aware that the Judges, in dispensing the criminal and civil justice of the country, had quite enough to occupy their time; but as they must go through the statute-book, in order to comply with the preceding motion, supposing they did comply with it, there would not be any great additional trouble in comprehending the present motion, which was, that "they do prepare and bring in a Bill to digest into one Act, all the laws now in force respecting the Poor."
After a few words from the Lord Chan-

1143]
cellor, the first motion of the noble lord was agreed to, and the second negatived.

APOTHECARIES' BILL.
On the motion that the Report of this Bill be received,
Earl Stanhoperose 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 Chancellordefended 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
[1144
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.