§ On the order of the day being read for the House resolving itself into a Committee of Supply,
Lord Folkestone rose,He wished, before the House resolved itself Into the Committee, to tall their attention to a Subject which had already been mention, ed by him once or twice in the course of the session, but on which he had received no satisfactory information. He alluded to the case of a person convicted some time ago of selling guineas—a Mr. De Yonge, This circumstance took place fluting the last session of parliament. The question, however, had not been finally decided upon; a point being reserved to be argued in the Exchequer Chambers. Early in the present session, he had inquired of the Attorney General whether any further proceedings were likely to take place? To this the Attorney General had replied, that he was ready to argue the case whenever called upon by the judges to do so: but as he had not been called upon, he wished now to give notice, that if the point was not decided in the to the ensuing term, 724 it was his intention to institute Some proceeding on the subject. He did not wish to dwell on the peculiar hardship of the case; but he Could not help observing, that this man, who had no friends, halt been selected as the subject of a prosecution for that which almost every banker and principal tradesman had been guilty of for years. He toad been convicted on an old act of parliament made in the reign of Edward 6. He could have wished to have entered more at large into the subject, and to have argued on the nature of the provisions of that act, to ascertain if they were sufficiently comprehensive to reach such a case. He repeated, it Was his intention to give notice, that if the case was not likely to be argued in the ensuing term, he should make a specific motion on the subject, not merely with a view to the hardship of the case, but in order to propose an alteration of the law, or perhaps a repeal of the act under Whioh Mr. De'Yonge had been convicted.
The Attorney Generalthought those who had heard the noble lord most be led to imagine that some improper delay had taken place. When the question was put to him by the noble lord some time ago, the courts were not sitting. It being subsequent to the last term, he had then replied, that the case remained to be argued, and that he was ready to argue it When called upon. He wished it to be observed, that it was impossible for it to have been argued between that time and this, there having been no opportunity since; the one term being ended when the question was put, and the next not begun when the subject was again brought forward. He was not aware the prosecution had been dropped, and expected the point reserved Would be argued In the ensuing term. White on his legs, the House would perhaps allow him to reply to a charge preferred against him some time before by the noble lord, for dropping a prosecution against a Mr. Collier for printing a libel. He had now the satisfaction of saying—satisfaction for himself, as it enabled him to repel the charge—that he had heard the next day, that Mr. Collier had been tried at Lancashire and convicted.
Lord Folkestoneobserved that the statement of the learned gent was irrelevant; and was proceeding to offer Some farther remarks, when
The Chancellor of the Exchequerspoke to order. He was surprised to hear the noble lord complain that the statement of 725 his learned friend was irrelevant, when the whole of what had fallen from him was completely so, and when he was proceeding to speak a second time, though he had no right to a reply.
§ The Speakerremarked that the noble lord had a right to ask a question, but not to make a second speech.
§ A motion was then made, That the Estimates of the Store-keeper-General's department should be referred, to the Committee of Supply. On the question being put,
Lord Folkestonesaid he had a right now to say what the right hon. gent. had refused to let him say before on the former question.
§ The Speakerrequested the noble lord to sit down. It was not regular for a member so to rise. The House was to decide, whether or not its laws should be neglected.
§ Mr. Whitbreadthought it was not the law of the House, it at least had been the practice, as he had instanced on one or two occasions. He gave it as his opinion, that the noble lord was entitled to suck an indulgence from the practice of the House. He meant no disrespect to the Speaker, but left it to him and to the House to decide.
§ The Speakerreplied, the rule of the House was one thing; its indulgence another. If it was their pleasure, they could then indulge the noble lord. In some instances such, indulgence might be more inconvenient than at others.
The Attorney Generalwould be very sorry the noble lord should be refused an opportunity of replying to any thing he had said.
Lord Folkestonedid not intend to detain the House, The Attorney general had said, that he had charged him with having dropped the prosecution instituted against Mr. Collier, and had seemed to triumph over him on the occasion. The noble lord denied ever having preferred such a charge.
The Attorney Generalassured the noble lord, that if, on a former occasion, he (Lord F,) had corrected the misapprehension on his part, he (the Attorney General) Would not have brought forward the subject on the present occasion; but as he did not correct him when he mentioned the circumstance before, he had no idea that he had misunderstood the noble lord.