The Earl of Effingham. had a right to bring up a bill to that House, yet that bill muft fpeak for itself, and carry its neceffity or meaning upon the face of it, as no noble Lord was competent to introduce a bill of pains and penalties, a money-bill, or where witneffes were to prove its confequence or propriety, without first taking the fenfe of the Houfe whether fuch bills fhould be brought before them or not; upon this principle therefore it ought to be rejected, as it would be establishing a precedent that might not be attended with the most agreeable circumftances in future. His Lordship then entered into his arguments, which he had before urged against these bills in general, and condemned them as of the greatest difadvantage to credit, especially when they became fo common as to be almoft periodical; indeed he might call them periodical, as one had paffed in 1774, another in 1776, another in 1778, another (the riots happening in 1780) in 1781, and now this being 1783, an infolvent act feemed to be expected as a matter of courfe-he would not fay he should never confent to another; but yet if he intended to introduce one himself next feffion, he fhould think it extremely wrong to let fuch an idea get into the world, as numbers would be preparing to take advantage of fuch a measure taking place, and throw themselves into prifon for that purpose, and to defraud their creditors; his Lordship made a very long and animated fpeech, chiefly tending to convince the House of the fallacy of paffing these bills, and concluded by condemning the idea of calling witneffes to prove a matter that had nothing at all to do with the propriety or impropriety of paffing the prefent one; its being a copy of that paffed in 1776, was fufficient to condemn it, as both Houses of Parliament had thought it requifite to make fuch a material difference between that and those they had paffed fince: it was therefore neceffary that it fhould undergo a thorough investigation, an inveftigation which, if common report was to be credited, there would not be time for during the prefent feffion. The Earl of Effingham again rose, and went into a minute reply to the noble Lord; he faid he did not conceive, that in a cafe of this kind it would be found good policy to ftand up for the rigid obfervance of the rules of this House, and with refpect to the time neceffary on account of its differing from the last act, he did not think of any force, as the prefent one, he was eertain, would meet but little oppofition in the House of Commons, as it was exactly fimilar to the one fent fent up by that Houfe, but which their Lordships had thought proper fo to alter and mutilate as to make them say, their Lordships had better regulate thefe bills themselves, if they are to be transformed in this manner. He concluded by obferving, that he had but little hopes left that he should succeed in his motion; but if their Lordships would not affift him in probing this matter to the quick, he would perfift in his pursuit until he should convince them it was not unwor thy their notice; the practice of many of the officers cried aloud for infpection; they fhould have it, and their infamy fhould be expofed: if he could not obtain the enquiry in that House he would pursue it in another place, for he was determined to inveftigate it to the bottom, and to hold their proceedings up to public deteftation, which he conceived they fo juftly merited. The queftion was then put for calling the reverend Mr. Green to the bar, which was negatived, no one of their Lordships feeming inclined to divide with the noble Earl, after which the fecond reading of the bill was poftponed to this day two months. The Houfe then adjourned. The order of the day being read for the fecond reading of the bill, intitled, "An act for the relief of infolvent debtors, and for the relief of bankrupts in certain cafes." It was moved, that the rev. Mr. Green be called in, and the fame being objected to, after debate, the queftion was put thereupon. It paffed in the negative. Diffentient, "Because, whether a bill be brought in by order of the House, or by an individual member, yet if the propriety of its paffing into a law depends on the truth or falfehood of certain allegations, there can be no impropriety in hearing evidence as to the matter of fact. "2dly, Because, however it may be confiftent with the compaffionate feelings of the Houfe to take facts to be granted, on which it is meant to ground an act of humanity; yet it is doubtless more confiftent with its dignity and wifdom to have them established by evidence; more especially as it was fo ftrongly urged in debate, by the fide which oppofed the admiffion of evidence, that compaffion to debtors might be cruelty and even injuftice to their creditors. EFFINGHAM." Then Lord Thurlow. Then it was moved, that the fecond reading of this bill be put off for two months; which being objected to, the queftion was put thereupon. It was refolved in the affir mative. Diffentient, "Because, after admitting in debate that the facts on which any bill refts, are in fome degree true, and refusing to hear evidence, as to the extent to which they are true; it feems hard to reject fuch bill, without fhewing that the provifions of it are not properly applicable to facts fo admitted. EFFINGHAM." The Earl of July 8. Lord Thurlow rofe on the fecond reading of the bill for regulating the trade and certain offices in the island of Dominica, juft to give their Lordships intimation that he should propofe fome amendments, which appeared to him highly neceffary, when it came before the Committee. In its prefent ftate it very nearly bordered upon abfurdity, compared with feveral acts which had paffed in his prefent Majesty's reign, one in particular that was paffed in the prefent feffion, it went entirely to controvert; but as he meant to explain it more largely when before the Committee, he should decline troubling their Lordships with any thing farther on the fubject, than to request it might be committed for Friday next, which was ordered accordingly, and the House adjourned. July 9. In a Committee of the whole House, Lord Chedworth in the chair, on the Excife bill, counsel was admitted to the bar in behalf of the diftillers of London and Briftol, to fhew how far it would be injurious fhould it pafs into a law; having gone through their different arguments, and withdrawn, the clerk proceeded to read the bill, until he came to the claufe for inflicting a penalty on perfons altering permits, making false ones, or having fuch in their poffeffion, knowing them to be fo altered, or false, when The Earl of Effingham rofe, and objected to its standing part of the bill, as he did alfo to the claufe that followed, which was for punishing those in whofe cuftody inftruments fhould be found for ftamping permits, unless they could produce lawful excufe for it; his principal objections to thefe 2 claufes claufes were, that the fines were no way proportioned to the crime, as the man who endeavoured to defraud the revenue of only a few fhillings was to be punished equal to him who attempted a hundred thousand pounds, and it was as easy for an innocent man to be brought within the meaning of this bill as a guilty one: for inftance, a man at Bath, might fend to a wholefale dealer at Briftol for fix or eight gallons of fpirits, and might receive a permit with them in which an erafure had been made; what was this man to do? He dare not take the fpirits in without the permit, left the exciseman fhould come to examine his stock before another could be procured; if he kept this which he fufpected, and fhewed it to the officer, even with this fufpicion, he was then at the mercy of the exciseman, whom he looked on as not the most worthy character in this kingdom, who might immediately have this innocent man committed to prifon, unless he could procure bail of 500l. when perhaps his fituation in life made. fuch a thing impoffible. Nor might it end here; for it was not impoffible that he fhould be unable to prove his innocence farther than his own word, and then would be subjected to the whole penalty without ever having had the leaft intention to commit a fraud; in the fame manner was the perfon fituated in whofe houfe thofe inftruments were for making falfe permits, as they might be there without his knowledge or intention to use them. He did not object to the penalty in either cafe for the fum, but because there was no regulation according to the offence, and therefore propofed that the bail fhould be for three times the value of the goods fufpected of being smuggled. The Earl of Mansfield answered the noble Lord with that The Earl of clearness and ability which ever marks his character: in the Mansfield. course of his arguments he ftated, that finuggling was fo notoriously pursued, that in the circuits which he went they were to be feen in gangs in the middle of the day, and carried on their traffic as openly as any dealer in Cheapfide. That he knew of no method that could now be purfued to ftop it entirely the revenues were greatly injured by it, and moftly under the appearance of the fanction of the law, for it was well known that permits were taken out for a large quantity of goods, and from each a number was made, by whofe means they conveyed the smuggled property to different parts of the kingdom without any great danger of being detected; it was therefore very neceffary to make the laws fevere against Nn 2 fuch Effingham. fuch practices; in every fimilar cafe it was felony, nor did he perceive any great reason why it should not be in this, for it was forgery in every fenfe of the word, copying or altering an inftrument with an intent to defraud. His Lordship did not therefore conceive it by any means merited that conftruction of cruelty which had been applied to it; for their Lordships all knew, that if a man was charged with felony, he was confined till the time of trial: in this cafe he was allowed bail; and if he could not procure that bail, why he was liable to be confined alfo ; but then it should likewise be understood, that it was not fufficient to find this falfe permit in his cuftody, unless it could be proved he knew it to be fuch, and that was a fituation that no honeft trader would ever be found in; the fame argument might be applied to the finding of inftruments for making thefe falfe perinits, as the finding them in a man's cuftody was not fufficient to convict him, fo he could produce any lawful excufe for having them; the fame as with respect to coiners: for though finding thofe inftruments in any perfon's poffeffion was felony, yet he was allowed the fame provifo, becaufe the very fame inftruments were used in the trade of button-makers, &c. For thefe, among many other reafons, he thought the above claufes ought to ftand as they now did, being clearly framed, as he understood them, for the advantage of the fair trader. — The opinion of the Houfe being taken upon them, they were agreed to, and the clerk proceeded to the claufe for granting liberty to the excifeman to enter a houfe at any time, upon making affidavit that he had reason to fufpect there was a ftill unlawfully at work, when The Earl of The Earl of Effingham faid he must again trouble their Lordships, as this was a matter that called for a most serious investigation; it was a direct infringement upon that which every Englishman looked upon as his conftitutional and fa¬ cred right, the protection and fafety of his own house. He had feen large ftrides attempted to deprive the fubject of his liberty, but was there ever a greater than this, which gave fanction to a law to break open a man's houfe, even at any hour of the night, without affigning any reafon? He trufted their Lordships would feel the full force of this, and not suffer fuch a claufe to pafs; he expatiated pretty largely on the confequences that might be apprehended from it, and expreffed his aftonishment that thofe who called themselves Whigs could for a moment think of giving it fupport, The |