The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1820-08-18 00:00:00

BILL OF PAINS AND PENALTIES.

The Earl of LIVIRPOOL mowed the Order of the

D sr fur the second rearbog.
The Duke of Lintstas moved that the Order
should he reseiodrd.
The Douse divided—

Coutents • 4l
Isiuu-cuoirots
OINIMME.
Majority siphon the amesidawat - 219
il'hen strangers were re-admitted, the House was
in debate on the motion for calling in Counsel.
The Earl of CAIINAIVON was of opinion that
it would be inconsistent 'visit public interest, sad
inconipaible with the honour of their Lordships'
House, to proceed farther by calliog in CoauseL
The objectione to the Bill were so general and so
strong. that he could scarcely make up his mind
to voting %pots it at all ; but if enlivened so
to do. he would ceitaiiily vote against it. Was it
possible to believe that such • measure was neces-
sary for the stiterests of the country ? Was it to be
supposed that the country was threatened with any
ohnigrr by their Lordships declining. to pursue it ?
He did not believe that there was one Noble Lord
in the Howse, or one individual in the country who
really dreaded evil or danger from abandoning the
Bill. Ile was not aware of any grounds which
could- be urged even on the barest footing of sup.
position by which it could be Wiesen that the
Bill was necessary. He objected to Bills of
Pains and Penalties on more general grounds.
They were a mode of legislating, er post fuel. (it
was said) in cases where the parties could not be
made amenable to the ordinary administration df
justice—as in cases where there was obviously
ground fur a criminal charge, but such a defect-of
evidence as would prevent conviction before the
common tribunals. He conceived the ground
of ileirctive evidence one of the strongest ob-
j.ctiuns against Bills of that nature. lie pro-
tested against such • principle of justice, on
the most public grounds. He @decried to the
case of Sir John Penstock, wherein the mode of trial
was changed from impeachment to • Bill of Pains
and Peualiies, for went of sufficient evidence. lie
thought that case Ito ground for their Lordships'
prevent proceedings. Foe although there was at first
a majority of 90 fur introducing the 1101 airaitiit
Sir Julio Fenn's* into that House, after hearing
the evidence awl 'debating upon it, the Bill
was carried by a majority of only 33 in the
House of Commons, while in their Lordships'
House it passed by the very feeble majority of
seven. Bishop Burnet lad, in the course of those
prucedings, defended the nature of such Bills, and
insisted oat only on their analogy to the practice of
English juroprudence, but bad mainta.sied the
propriety, iu certain cas.-v, of giving the preference
to that mode of trial. But how did the 1t.,. Lord
support his argument ? The first precedent which
he quoted was that of a Bill passed against an iii-
dividual charged with attempting to poison the
Bishop of Itocliester, by infusing some kind of
bane too his food and drink, and the isccwed wits
condemned by the Bill to be boded to dstith. Such
was ti sample of the early precedents of this de-
wiiption of Bills. As to the matter of charge of
the prevent Bill, what bad their Lordships seta or
what heard to iuduce them to believe that it' Was
• proper subject of inquiry foe that House
Their Lordships could not be isaaanot of the pros
ceediuga which had taken place to, limitiossa of
Con:nouns, nor of the vote which agibillatiftkind
come so upon the 14-borese thou Thairlijord.
pi-mst,hoptSgpsiM it be b.i.• solloseir4
• 0671 ;pi), pLti,:igerst•lii
• ' ..:6
• " • • ;,"••••• '
• •

. -

0