The Sun.
London, England, 1808-05-20 00:00:00

the ribts and liberties of the subjed,.' a t'!!1 Ili.
Magna Charm, &c. 'flick Lordships, lie trusted,
•wOuld sl*,v a due resped for these sacred rights, by
manifesting their abhorrence of such a nitets.ere,
lii it least Would giVe decided negative to the
,second reading ofthollill, in order that it might he
fejefied.
Lord Hom,kso was surprised to see such a Mea-
sure brought forward without a sinele_arguteent
having been'adduced in proof of
,its necessity, or a
single attempt made to. obviatbe 'objedions to
which it Was so liable. 'He must therefore call
his Noble , and Learned Friend opposite him,
(Lord Ellenhorough) to state the grounds on which
such a Measure could be justified:
Lord ELLENBottounn thought it time enough to.
refute objections when he should have hoard them
urged.
•Lord HOLLAND could not presume to handle such
• . •
an intricate question with the professional precision
and accuracy of a. lawyer. But the Bill before the
Reuse was liable to objedions, which every
Lord must observe and feel, who understood and
valued the Coustitution. What could be more ttn-
conStitutional and alarming than the language and
the grounds set forth in the preamble of 'the Bill ?
It had been found convenient to amend the law
with regard to the course of indiaments and infor-'
mations in certain cases relating to the Public
venue, therefore it is expedient to extend the same
to other cases.—What ?. because for the security
and better colledion of the revenue, it has been
found necessary to take measures to prevent firOug-.
gling; must we therefore multiply the cases 10-whtch,
such provisions may be extended, without any ne-
cessity whatever being shewn for such a wanton de-
parture from the common law of the laud ? Is the:
Attorney-Oeueral to be armed with new and more,
. extenaive powers to proceed by information ? That
is not the mode of process which the Constitution
sandions„ which is recognised by the common law.
They require the mode of indidmeut, and the pre..
sentation of twelve sworn men. This is the process
which the highest Authorities have recommended,
to which the Elates and the Holts have given a de-
cided preference. Where was the necessity, where ,
the justification of these innovations on the Common
Law, so. little consonant to the best statutes, so
little consonant to, the best pradice of the best times ?
Where now were the enemies of innovation ?
Where were those who. so' lately trembled for the
existence of the Constitution, when some branch of
the prerogative was said to be encroached on Were
those enemies to innovation alive,, and saw only
when the innovation, touched the prerogative,. and
did they become silent and insensible when the in,
novatioo trenched on the rights and privileges of the
people ?, Was this' fair ? Was this consiltent ? .SuCh
prejudices and partialities he should never let pass
onnoticed.. Against such enormous departures front
the Common Law, froM the spirit and the letter. of
the Constitution, he should ever raise his Voiee, as
long as he able to perform his duty as a Lord of
Parliament.
Lord ELLENBOROOOR would not censure the zeal
and activity with whiCh•lhe two Noble Lords watche
ed over the Constitution ; but he must at the soaks
time wish
.that their zeal And adiv;ty would have,
allu..Ned them to attend more minutely•to the goes,
titan under dismission. They would then find that
it was not necessary, particularly in cases of misde,
nioammr, that the person to be tried should be pre-
sent in Court. • Nay, the great majority of cases was
the other way; and there was one memorable case
of late years, where the person to, be tried thought fit
to expatriate him Sell before the day of trial arrived.
This sliewed the necessity of the present meaiore.
The Noble Barl says, the oath taken by the Jury
presumes the prisoner is at the bar. It is so in trials
for felony. Baja not the Attorney General Sworn,
on entering into office, as well as the Juryman, who
is bound likewise by his oath as long as' he remains
impannelled ? The authorities of Justices Hale and
'Melt have been quoted in support of the process by
indidment. A fuller knoWledge of the principles on
which those great men laded, would perhaps prOfe,
that in certain cases they were,no• less in favour of
proceeding by information. As little Validity had
the objections that this Bill, infringed on the trial by
Jury, or on any of the rights and liberties of the sub-
jed, while the propriety, indeed the necessity of the
Bill might be illustrated and enforced in a variety of
ways.
Lord ERSKINU could not allow the principle'con-'
tamed in the preamble of the Bill ; It was hostile to
the liberty of the subjed, and incompatible with the
spirit of the constitution. As little would lie alloW
that ordinary magistrates and Justices of the Peace
shoUld. undertake to ad under this Bill in all CUM.
#l.'hey might indeed be competent to act in cases of
bavery,•riot, Ste. but where matter, of libel, or such
more intricate points, were to'be judged of, he should
be sorry to see them interfere; These and many
more objedions he entertained; against the Bill, and
they were #oo powerful to permit his assenting to.it.

Tile LOAD C;HANPELLOit said, he had attended to
all the argunients of the Noble Lords, and be was
still persuaded there was enough good in the Bill to
send it to*a`Cornmittee, in, which stage alterations
might be suggested, and adopted if necessary. With
reaped to the general principle of the Bill, it would
greatly aid the revenue laws, and consequently prove
of public utility.
Earl STANHOPE rose to censure the observations
of a•Noble and Learned Lord (Ellenborough), who
had been to learn law,.and notwithstanding he canto
with the law of others in his belly, was determined
to prefer his own law. The Noble and Learned
Lord had made' assertions which be, without • being
a lawyer, would contradid. He could cite instances
likely to choak the Learned Lords, and they could not
say amen to suah.instanees, because amen would
stick in their throats. The'dodrines of lawyers would
not be relied on. In the reign of Charles 1. the King
asked one otitis lawyers if ship-money could not be
taken by the Crown. The lawyer told him, the
King might take it in cases of necessity. So far they
behaved likescoundrels. In the reign of Charles IL
a'Judge maintained, that no man could write or use
argument against the Government, unless by consent
of the Government. In this the Judge had behaved
like a fool, when he supposed any Government
would consent to hear itself libelled. He knew of
no law in this Realm but the law established by the.
King, and Commons, and it Was a new doc-
irine twassert.that the laws of the land should be
superseded by disetetiruarypower invested in .Inog6.
Lord ELLEICIWIWIA4I) in explanation,