Commons Sitting of 21 February 1826

REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES—LIABILITY OF MEMBERS TO SERVE ON JURIES.
Mr. Bennettsaid, he wished to obtain information from the Speaker to guide him in the situation in which he stood. He had, in pursuance of the orders of the House, to attend a committee to-morrow morning, and he was also summoned as a juror in Westminster-hall. Now, how was it possible for him to obey their orders, and at the same time discharge his duty to his country in the situation of juror? He was at a loss how to proceed under these circumstances, and he threw himself on the Speaker for the benefit of his advice.
The Speakersaid, the House was aware that this very question had been referred to the consideration of a committee of privileges, which bad not yet made their report. The only answer he could give at present to the question

643
which the hon. member had put to him, was, that he had himself no doubt of the course which he should pursue, were he placed under the circumstances alluded to. His answer would be, that, conceiving his duty in that House was his first obligation, he should perform it—he would not say neglecting every other duty, for that would imply a fault, but—omitting all others which could clash therewith. He understood that the report of the committee of privileges would be presented in the course of the evening.
Mr. Wynn, shortly after, reported, from the committee of privileges, to whom the matter of complaint made by a member of the House of his being summoned as a jury-man in the Court of Exchequer, in the case of the King against Steel, was referred, that they had examined the matter of the said complaint, and had come to the following resolutions:
1. "That it appears to your committee to be amongst the most ancient and undoubted privileges of parliament, that no member shall be withdrawn from his attendance on his duty in parliament to attend on any other court.
2. "That this privilege, with respect to service upon juries, has been repeatedly asserted, as will be seen from the three following cases:
"On the 22nd November, 1597, sir Edward Hobby moved the House for privilege for sir John Tracie, being a member of this House, and now presently at the Common Pleas, to be put on a jury. Whereupon the Serjeant of this House was presently sent with the mace to call the said sir John Tracie to his attendance in this House; which was thereupon so done accordingly, and the said sir John then returned to this House.
"On the 6th of May, 1607, it was informed that sir Thomas Biggs and sir Thomas Lowe, two members of the House, were by the sheriff returned in the court of King's-bench, jurors upon an attaint between John Macham, tenant to the lord Barkley, and Edward Beard, tenant to the lord viscount Lisle, and it was conceived that in this case, by the privilege of the House, they ought to be spared from their attendance:—Which was ordered accordingly, and Mr. Serjeant commanded to go with his mace and deliver the pleasure of the House to the secondary of the King's-bench, the court then sitting.
"On the l5th of May, 1628, sir William Alford returned of a jury this day in
644
the common place, to have privilege of parliament not to serve; and a letter to be written by Mr. Speaker to the judges, that, he be not amerced for his non appearance.
3. "That this privilege, among others, appears to be expressly reserved by the words of the last clause of the Act 6 Geo. 4, c. 50, for consolidating and amending the laws relative to jurors and juries."
Mr. Wynnobserved, that as, no doubt, the fines had been imposed in consequence of a misconstruction of the act, he thought the House would sufficiently assert its privileges by agreeing to this report, and proceeding no further in the affair.
Mr. Humewished to know in what manner the decision of the House, on this subject was to be communicated to the learned baron of the Exchequer; for it was well known that printing the proceedings of that House was held to be illegal.
The Speakersaid, that the hon. member ought to know, that one of the first orders of the session was for the printing the votes of the House, by which its proceedings could be known. There were besides the Journals of the House in which the proceedings were recorded, and which were accessible by the public, in consequence of the permission given to parties to sell them.
Mr. Holfordthought, that the privileges of members were sufficiently asserted in the report. He would not therefore take any further proceeding.
The report was agreed to, and ordered to be printed.

JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES—MEXICAN MINING COMPANY.
Mr. Hobhouserose to present a petition, in which he requested the attention of the House. It related to a subject to which he had before adverted, and to which, notwithstanding all that had been said, he could not help attributing a great portion of the present distress—he meant Joint-stock Companies. When hon. members considered that every one of the shares in those bubbles which was thrown on the market was a bad piece of currency, they would not be surprised at the extent of the evil. The loss occasioned by the pitch to which these ruinous speculations were carried, if the highest rate of premium and the lowest rate of discount were considered, would, he had no doubt, be found to fall little short of 14,000,000 l. Some, he believed by far the greater part, of these speculations

645
were a total loss to the subscribers; and, of those few which were carried into operation, it would be found that very little profits had been shared. One great evil of those speculations was the injury they had done to the hitherto untarnished character of the English merchant. Some of the wildest of the schemes were ushered into the world with the names of the most respectable merchants and traders of London at their head; and he had been assured, by a gentleman well acquainted with these matters, that one cause of the present difficulty of obtaining credit in the city was, that so many had been engaged in those schemes, that persons knew not whm to trust. As this subject was likely to come shortly before the House, the matter having been taken up by the corporation of London, from which a petition would, in a few days, be presented, praying for inquiry into the late speculations, he would not trespass longer than while he briefly stated the object of the petition before them. It was from a person named Bernard Ross, and it complained of the conduct of the directors of the Mexican Mining Company. The petitioner had purchased shares in that company; but, on coming to sign the deed of settlement, he found that it contained clauses which were extremely objectionable, and which he therefore refused to adopt by signing the deed. In consequence of this, the directors decreed that he was no longer a shareholder. The clause to which the petitioner objected was one by which the directors were to be indemnified against any legal proceedings. This, he thought, was a course not warranted by law, the directors having certainly acted illegally in the sale of shares; for it was well known that persons who were not original shareholders, but had become purchasers, had no remedy for a recovery of their money in a court of law. The petitioner stated, that each of the directors had appropriated to himself 200 shares, and that the whole number divided between directors, solicitors, and others connected with the company was 3,600. So that the purchasers to that number would be deprived of a remedy in a court of law, not being original shareholders. The premium at which the shares were sold was said to be 15 l. per share; so that the whole sum realized by those shares would amount to 54,000 l. This statement, it was but fair to say, was denied by the gentlemen against whom the petitioner
646
complained, and who stated, that the whole of the allegations against them were greatly exaggerated. He had seen some of the parties complained against on this subject, and they denied that they were culpable in the course they had taken. The whole amount of money received for shares by each director was, they said, pocketed from 1,500 l. to 1,700 l.; but even admitting this to be correct, he would contend, that the sale of these shares was not a bona fide transaction, and it was to be greatly regretted that highly respectable individuals should have lent themselves thereto. The prayer of the petition was, that a committee might be appointed to inquire into the formation of Joint-stock companies generally, and into that of the Mexican company in particular. When he had, on a former evening, asked the Attorney-general whether he intended to introduce any legal measures for the better protection of the public against the formation of such Joint-stock companies in future, he was sorry to learn that he had no such intention. The learned gentleman had said, that as the law now stood, no additional measure was necessary; for that directors, as well as others, could be punished for fraudulent transactions, if there was sufficient evidence to prove the fact. Notwithstanding this declaration of the learned gentleman, he could not help thinking that some measure was necessary for the more effectual protection of the public, particularly as the Bubble act, which made the foundation of all such companies illegal, and subject to very heavy penalties, had been repealed. Much mischief was likely to occur from the repeal of that act, unless some more effectual measure were introduced. He did hope that the House would institute some inquiry as to who were the authors of many of those ruinous schemes. He begged to call its attention to the course which had been adopted in parliament after the blowing up of the South Sea bubble. A noble lord, then on the opposition side of the House, objected to any address in answer to the speech from the Throne going up, unless it contained some pledge, on the part of the House, that they would inquire, and punish those who were concerned in that scheme; and an amendment to that effect was moved and carried. Certainly, there was this difference between the case of the South Sea bubble and the late speculations—that the former was directly en-

647
couraged by the ministers of that day. But, though that was not the case with respect to the late Joint-stock companies, still it was, he thought, not less the duty of that House to inquire as to who were their authors. The petitioner, in this case, had mentioned the names of all the parties concerned in this company; but as it would be invidious, at present, to mention those names, he would not repeat them.
Ordered to lie on the table.

BEAR-BAITING AND DOG-FIGHTING BILL.
Mr. Martin of Galway, rose, pursuant to notice, to introduce a bill for the more effectual prevention of bear-baiting, dog-fighting, and other cruel sports. It was, he observed, so very unusual to oppose a bill on the motion for its introduction, that he felt it incumbent on him not to take up much of the time of the House. He would therefore reserve himself to answer any arguments by which his application might be opposed. The bill for which he should move had this recommendation to the representatives of the people, that it was generally approved of by their constituents throughout the country. He held in his hand a list of fifty-two petitions, presented from some of the most populous cities and towns of the kingdom, praying that an end might be put to these cruel sports. These disgraceful scenes were carried on in places called pits, and in no places were they more cruel and disgusting than in that called the Patrician-pit in the neighbourhood of that House. It had become the duty of parliament to put an end to these enormities. He would conclude by moving for leave to bring in his bill.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that the merits of this case had been so frequently discussed, that he felt it would not be necessary to make any further comments upon it. He would therefore confine himself to stating, that he would oppose the bill. [Cries of "Question, question."]
Mr. Martinsaid, he could hardly persuade himself that a case which had come to the House recommended by the inhabitants of fifty-two respectable places would have been met by cries of "question, question." The hon. members who raised those cries could not, surely, be aware of so many petitions being before them on the subject, otherwise they would not have thought it decent to limit the expression of their opinions to that brief
648
negative. He could assure the learned gentleman that he would not recommend himself to that body whom he wished to represent, by opposing the present motion; for there was no Christian minister who would countenance those brutal exhibitions. Both the clergy of the Protestant church, and the dissenting ministers, were unanimous in their wish to have them put down. There was also a petition in progress, of gentlemen who were going about knocking at the doors of all the inhabitants in Westminster, and ninety-nine persons out of every hundred were desirous of signing it. There were also fifty-two petitions from Liverpool, Manchester, Bristol, and Hull; in short, from all the great ports and large manufacturing towns in the kingdom, praying for the adoption of this measure. He would supplicate the Attorney-general, if it were only out of respect for the learned body whom he wished to have for his constituents, to assign the reasons for his opposition to this motion. He had received some affidavits from Oxfordshire, which gave a heart-rending account of a most horrible act of atrocity recently committed at a bull-bait near Oxford. After the bull had been torn and mangled by the dogs, a wretch who was a disgrace to the name of man, thrust some sharp instrument into the mouth of the suffering animal, and cut out its tongue by the roots, and having placed it on a plate, carried it round amongst the assembled multitude soliciting a collection. He could mention a hundred instances of similar acts of cruelty, of which he had been informed on most undoubted authority. A fellow matched his dog to fight with one of a much heavier weight, and after it had won he again matched it against another dog much larger than itself. In this second engagement it was vanquished, upon which its brutal owner chopped off its fore legs with a bill-knife, and having dug a hole in the ground deposited it therein. If the Attorney-general thought it for the good of the country that atrocities of this kind should daily take place, he hoped he would state so to the House. He would give another reason in support of his motion. There was not a magistrate in London, Westminster, or the adjacent counties, who was not desirous that these disgraceful practices should be put down. It was a matter of great concern to them that they had not been able to suppress the brutal

649
contests and exhibitions which were continually taking place at the Patrician-pit in Westminster. In short, he would defy any hon. gentleman to deny that the whole body of the English nation were not against these sports. He trusted, therefore, that the House would not meet the motion with a mere negative.
Mr. William Smithsaid, he should think himself unworthy of a seat in that House if he was deterred by the apprehension of ridicule, from giving his opinion upon a question in which the morals and happiness of the country were much involved. He thought the country much indebted to the hon. member, for exposing himself in bringing forward this measure, to that species of treatment which was very unworthy on the part of those by whom it was practised. Hon. gentlemen must oppose the bill upon one of three grounds. Perhaps they did not believe the stories which the hon. gentleman told. For his own part, he did believe them, because they were published in the newspapers from time to time, and nobody contradicted them. Perhaps they thought the present laws sufficient to put down these sports. If they were, why were they not enforced? If they thought it was of any advantage to the country that these sports should take place, let them say so, and he should then know better how to answer their arguments. He thought there was a great misunderstanding about these matters. Gentlemen apprehended that they rose above vulgar prejudices and were great philosophers, because they considered the lower class of people entitled to their own amusements. Such an opinion, so far from being philosophic or philanthropic, was founded on an unworthy motive. He thought it arose, though gentlemen were not aware of it, rather from a contempt for the lower class of people. It was as much as to say, "poor creatures, let them alone; they have few amusements, let them enjoy them." It was similar to the language which, for a long period of time, was common in the colonies—"As long as they work that is all we want, let them seek their own amusements; what signifies it troubling them about morals; we don't care about these, let them take their own way." He thought these sentiments did no honour to the parties who entertained them. Let those who wished the people to be nothing more than hewers of wood, and drawers of water, entertain
650
such sentiments; but, if they wished to make them rational beings, let them not educate them with one hand, and with the other turn them loose to sports like these.
Colonel Woodsaid, he certainly thought, last session, that the House had gone far enough in legislating upon this subject; but, in the course of the last summer, a most brutal, cowardly, and atrocious scene was permitted to take place at Warwick. He alluded to the lion fight. Every gentleman who had read an account of that disgraceful scene must be of opinion that the laws were deficient; for he was quite sure that, if the magistrates had felt they had power to put a stop to it, they would have interfered. That scene was a disgrace to human nature; and some law ought to have sufficient force to prevent a similar occurrence. The noble animal which had been so tormented was more worthy of protection than its brutal owner.
Sir Robert Wilsonwished to know whether such horrible crimes could not be punished by the existing law, without an expensive process, which rendered the punishment extremely difficult.
Mr. R. Colbornesaid, he was one of those who did not like this system of legislating. If these sports were to be put down, there were sports of the higher classes which should be put down also. It was rather curious that, when the hon. member for Galway got leave to bring in a bill of this nature, he always contrived to have it passed through its stages at one or two in the morning. He would allow that one bill which the hon. member had brought in was of a beneficial nature. He gave him full credit for that bill, inasmuch as it was of his own production, and he stayed in town to put it in execution; but that bill would become a dead letter if it was not for the active interference of the hon. member; and so would all bills framed in this spirit of legislation. It was often seen that where there were public laws to avenge, there was not much private interference to protect, and the animals were worse off than before. He wished the hon. member would withdraw his bill, in order to revise it, and include in its operation some of the sports of the higher orders.
Sir John Brydgessaid, he was not disposed to treat a subject of this importance with levity. Having witnessed the good effects of a former bill of his hon. friend, he could not but vote for this measure.

651
It was said, that this was a contraction of the pleasures of the poor. Now, he contended that those who enjoyed pleasure from these sports rendered themselves worse than brutes. Allusion had been made to the University of Cambridge. If he knew any thing of the sentiments of that learned body, and had the opportunity of seeing them assembled to morrow in the Senate-house, he should find them unanimous, or nearly so, in support of this measure.
Mr. Martinsaid, that the fact of tearing out the tongue of the bull was authenticated to him by the clergyman of the parish where the occurrence took place. The hon. member for Oxfordshire could confirm what he said.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he could not approve of those personal appeals which the hon. member for Galway thought proper to make to his hon. and learned friend; and, as to the insinuations that his lion, and learned friend would injure himself in the estimation of those whose suffrages he was about to court, he could only say, that if his hon. and learned friend stood up, as he always had done, in a fair and manly way, to avow his princiciples, and if, when a proposition was submitted to the House, which appeared to him to originate in a mistaken notion of humanity, he expressed his disapprobation of such measure, there was little danger that he would lower himself in the estimation of those whose support he should solicit. He felt the more anxious to express his disapprobation of the way in which his hon. and learned friend had been treated, because he entertained the same opinion with him upon this bill. If this measure were now for the first time submitted to the consideration of the House, he should perhaps have thought it expedient to entertain it. But it was by no means a novel question. It had been discussed six or seven times in former sessions, and the House was now as competent as it would be at any future time to come to a sound conclusion upon it. God forbid that he should treat with levity the instances of atrocious cruelty which had been detailed by the hon. member. Nothing could be more disgraceful than levity upon such an occasion. He abominated those deeds of disgusting cruelty as much as any man could do. But the question was, whether or not, upon individual cases of abuse, the House was prepared to make an enactment of
652
general application. Where was legislation to stop, if one gentleman wished to protect lions, another to protect dogs, and both would have an act declaring lion and dog fights illegal? There was scarcely an animal that was capable of being ill-treated in favour of which an act of parliament would not at last be sought. Let these hon. gentlemen state some positive principle upon which they would correct such abuses, and which would apply equally to all cases of cruelty. Let them take, for instance, pigeon-shooting. Why was that practice to be permitted to one man, whilst another was punishable for doing what amounted to the same thing in principle? If abusing a dog for sport was punishable when practised by the lower orders, there was no reason whatever why pigeon-shooting should be allowed to the higher orders. Let then the House, before it went farther, determine upon the principle on which it was disposed to legislate. To say that selecting a fine thriving pigeon, setting it in a trap to be shot at at twenty yards distance, when in all probability it will be either killed or maimed; to do all this in cold blood, and to say that such wanton cruelty was a perfectly innocent pastime, whilst dog-fighting and bull-baiting were held infamous and punishable, because practised by the lower orders of the people—was a course of legislation to which he for one would never consent. Such were the reasons which induced him to disapprove of the present bill. He owned he was swayed very much by another consideration. He feared, though he was very anxious to suppress abuses, that the means of doing so might in itself be a source of new abuse. He doubted very much whether we could purchase the due punishment of such outrages, except at the risk of creating fresh instruments of individual oppression. He feared the result would be, that animals would not be protected, but that human beings, from piques or wantonness, would be prosecuted. He opposed the motion, not because he less abominated the cruelties recounted by the hon. member, but because he considered that appeals to the feelings did not constitute a sound basis for legislation. The measure was partial in its objects, and inexpedient in its principles; and he therefore should oppose it.
The House divided; for the motion 37; against it 76; majority against the motion 39.

CATTLE ILL-TREATMENT BILL.
Mr. Martin, of Gal way, next rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the 3rd George 4th, c. 71, entitled "An Act to prevent the cruel and improper Treatment of Cattle." The hon. gentleman said, that he wished to extend the protection which was granted by former measures to cattle, to all domesticated animals. Why was not a dog entitled to the same protection as a horse? He was prepared to show, by affidavits, that there were numerous instances of dogs being flayed alive. It had been asked, were they to legislate upon individual instances of monstrous cruelty? He would reply by stating a case which had been mentioned to him by Mr. Halls, the magistrate of Bow-street. That gentleman had informed him, that he had seen a parcel of wretches take a dog, flay him alive, taking the skin completely off, put a collar about his neck, and after dragging him a mile, throw him into a river. Mr. Halls added, that, so much were his feelings wrought upon by this exhibition, that he did what was certainly a violation of the law, but was highly to the credit of his humanity—he took the boy who was holding the collar, and flung him into the river after the dog. He (Mr. M.) stated nothing now but what he gave chapter and verse for. As to the fact which he had stated relative to the cutting out of the tongue of a bull, and its being severed from the surrounding integuments by a brutal fellow who had thrust his hand into the animal's mouth for the purpose, and lastly, as to the tongue being handed about the crowd in a plate for money, the person who held it, saying, "please to put something on the tongue," he would appeal for the truth of the statement to the hon. member for Oxfordshire, before whom the offenders, he understood, were brought. Could any one, after hearing such a statement, refuse their protection to the unfortunate animal, who was so often subjected to such treatment? He had taken the opinion of his majesty's Attorney-General on the subject, and, he was happy to say, that the opinion of that learned person, beyond all doubt a good one, was decidedly unfavourable to the legality of such proceedings. The Attorney-General conceived that it was as unlawful to hurt a bull in that manner, as it would be to maim or torture any other animal [The Attorney-General here indulged in a smile]. The learned gentleman might laugh, and no doubt he
654
considered him and his case as a fit subject for ridicule, but he could tell him it was not a matter of ridicule elsewhere. It had been observed, both of the bills, which he had carried, and of those which he meant to pass, that he legislated on particular cases. While, however, he admitted he had selected cases of animals tortured through the means of the skin, as those best fitted to convey to the House the nature of the torments which poor dumb creatures were forced to endure, because it was well known that no part of the frame was so sensitive as the skin; still he could produce many other instances of the most horrible tortures inflicted upon every species of domesticated animals, with every refinement upon cruelty. He contended, however, that the proof of one such act was as good as a thousand: what had happened to one dog might, and probably had, happened to hundreds; the business of the legislature was to prevent, not to punish; and, in defiance of the dicta of the late Mr. Windham and all his patrician supporters of the present day, he would maintain that the dog and the bull should be equally protected from the savage ferocity of an ignorant mob; and that the legislature, listening to the unanimous sense of all the character and respectability of the country, should interpose its authority, and guard against the recurrence of such scenes as had been described. His purpose was to alter and amend the former act, as far as regarded domesticated animals; and he would, in addition to the clauses contained in the bill of last year, which had been lost, propose another clause, granting magistrates the power to compensate individuals in a humble station, for the loss they might incur by giving information of the perpetration of the crimes which it was his object to punish or prevent. He hoped the Attorney-general would not consider a fine of three or four pounds, or the imprisonment of a week, a sufficient punishment for such offences as he had described; and that if he held the maiming other people's property a felony, he would not object to making the wanton torture of animals, even if they were a man's own property, a high misdemeanour, somewhat different from the punishment allotted to the over-driving of a horse; and, if he objected to the power being granted to a magistrate of summary conviction, he would at all events allow the case to be fairly tried at the quarter sessions. It

655
would remedy a defect in sir James Macintosh's bill, which made it necessary to prove malice against the owner before a conviction could be obtained against any person who maimed and wounded cattle. As he saw the hon. member for Oxfordshire in his place, he should like to know the reasons which had prevented him from punishing the person who had baited the bull, and maltreated it in the manner he had described. If the hon. member had any doubts as to whether the bull was privileged by his bill, he could tell him that the Attorney-general had given it as his opinion, that it was, and had further added, that bull-baiting was illegal. The hon. member, after some further remarks, concluded by asking leave to bring in the bill.
Mr. Butterworth, in seconding the motion, said he considered the suppression of such nuisances as that which this bill was meant to suppress, of minor consideration, compared with those scenes of outrage and brutality which attended the practice of prize-fighting. When men were hardened and brutalized, by habitually witnessing the violence and bloodshed which accompanied prize-fighting, it was impossible they could think of treating inferior animals with tenderness. He regretted that such exhibitions, instead of being denou ncedby the authorities, were in too many instances allowed to proceed, if not directly encouraged. He had reason to believe, that two years ago a prize-fight took place at Warwick, When the magistrates of that county not Only declined to interfere to prevent such a scene, but caused constables to attend it for the purpose Of preserving order. If this statement were true, nothing could be more disgraceful to those authorities. Such abominable outrages were calculated to brutalize the minds of the mass, and to render them insensible to the quantity of pain which they inflicted on inferior creatures. He trusted the hon. gentleman would turn his attention to the prize-ring, as by suppressing that source of demoralization and depravity, he would be doing more good than he could possibly expect to effect by all his acts against the ill-treatment of cattle.
Mr. Ashurstsaid, that he was not present when the hon. member for Gal way had addressed the House on the subject of the bull; but he had been informed that the hon. gentleman had said, that aft individual had torn out the tongue of the bull,
656
placed it upon a plate, and had then gone about collecting money upon it. Was that a correct statement of what the horn member had said?
Mr. Martin.—Yes.
Mr. Ashurstbegged leave to say, that a complaint had been made to him of conduct similar to that which the hon. member stated; but when the parties came before him to substantiate that complaint upon oath, it assumed a very different aspect. It appeared that, during the time the bull was getting baited, a ferocious dog, which had been tied up in a House adjoining to the spot where the baiting took place, escaped from his kennel, attacked the bull, and actually bit off a small portion of its tongue. On the witness who, saw this circumstance, being asked whether the tongue had been cut out, he said, that if it was, he did not see it.
Being further asked, whether he had seen the tongue put upon a plate, and carried round the meeting, he said that he saw no such thing done, and that he did not believe that it had been done. He then asked the witness, whether he could mention any person who had set a dog upon the bull after its mouth had become covered over with a bloody foam. To that question he got no answer upon which he could act officially as a magistrate. The hon member had asked him, whether he conceived bull-baiting to be illegal. For his own part, he must say, that he knew of no law by which bull-baiting had been prohibited; and, as long as he knew that lands were held at Windsor, at Oakingham, and at Stamford, on condition of keeping a bull for baiting, he could not believe that it had been prohibited. Besides, he knew of no case in which it had yet been decided that bull-baiting was illegal. No person who knew him could charge him with being guilty of giving encouragement to the practice; but he did not believe it to be prohibited by any law at present in existence.
Mr. Martinsaid, he had an opinion of the Attorney-general, which he would get published, declaring the illegality of bull-baiting.
The Attorney Generalsaid, he did not rise to object to the motion of the hon. member. What precise object he sought to attain by the present bill, he could not comprehend from the hon. member's speech; but, if he thought that his former bill wanted amendment, it was only fair that he should have an opportunity of

657
amending it. In answer to the question which had been put to him, he would reply, that he was of opinion that the offence of bull-baiting was punishable by the existing law. There was no occasion to introduce a bill to render prize-fighting illegal, as it was so already. He conceived that the recent assembly at Warwick to bait a lion was a riotous and illegal assembly, and as such it might have been dispersed by the magistracy. To those persons who did not know him he would say, that he was the last person in the world who would become an advocate for cruelty; and that he opposed these motions, not because he loved cruelty, but because they would not answer the objects which the hon. member for Galway had in view; because they would give rise to numberless petty vexations; and lastly, because he did not know where the House would stop, if it once began to legislate, not with regard to the security of property, but with regard to the feelings of the animal. His hon. friend ought not to introduce his measures in detail, but should introduce them upon some general principle, which could be fairly discussed and decided on by the House. His hon. friend, on each of his motions, brought forward instances of cruelty which he believed to be true, but which generally turned out to be either false or greatly exaggerated; as had been the case that night with regard to the tearing out of the bull's tongue. Nothing could be so unsafe as to legislate upon the statement of one or two individual members, and not upon some great and general principle. He would not object to the bringing in of the bill, but he did not by so doing pledge himself not to oppose it hereafter.
Mr. Martin, in reply, stated, that he had a letter from the clergyman in whose parish this bull-baiting had taken place, describing the particulars of it in the terms which he had used.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

CONDUCT OF MR. KENRICK, IN THE CASE OF FRANKS.
Mr. Denmanhaving moved the order of the day for taking into consideration the Minutes of Evidence taken on the 17th instant,
Mr. Butterworthrequested to know, whether Mr. Kenrick still held the situation of recorder of Dover, or whether he had been removed from it?
Mr. Peelreplied, that he did not know
658
whether Mr. Kenrick did or did not hold the office, nor whether he discharged its duties in person or by deputy; but he could answer distinctly, that that gentleman had not been removed from the office by the authority of the government. He thought that the hon. gentleman, who himself represented Dover, was quite as likely as any person to know whether Mr. Kenrick was the recorder of that borough.
Mr. Denmansaid, it was not easy for the member for Dover to know any thing of the recorder of Dover, as there was no such officer. There was a high steward in Dover, the nature of whose duties was similar to that of recorder; but before a person was eligible to that situation, it was necessary that his majesty should express his approbation of it. Now Mr. Kenrick had never been nominated by his majesty.
Counsel were then called in, and Mr. Gurney was heard at the bar in defence of Mr. Kenrick. Mr. Bolland then appeared at the bar, as junior counsel for Mr. Kenrick; and being asked by the Speaker if he wished to urge any thing in behalf of the accused, he declined addressing the House, upon the ground of the full and satisfactory manner in which Mr. Gurney had made his defence. The counsel being ordered to withdraw,
Mr. Denmansaid, he rose at a period when it was permitted him to explain, in detail, the grounds upon which the motion had been made; and he felt that it was peculiarly necessary to do so, because, in the course of the preliminary discussion, misconceptions had been betrayed by hon. members, beyond any thing which he could possibly have conceived or anticipated. He little thought that any one in that House could be ignorant that it was the duty of the two Houses of parliament to watch with jealousy the conduct of the judges; and, in case of their betraying any dereliction of duty in the administration of justice, it was their business to address his majesty to remove them from their situations. In former periods of our history, the commissions of the judges were held by a very different tenure from that by which they were held at present. The office of judge was formerly held by a commission, dependent upon the good pleasure of the Crown. They were sometimes appointed, as their commissions expressed it, during their good behaviour, quamdiu se bene gesserint. Between the reigns of James 1st and the Revolution, the former tenure prevailed, and the judges were not

659
removable for ill behaviour, but at the sole pleasure of the king. With such a tenure, he need scarcely say, that the most capricious and unjustifiable removals took place, when judges had sufficient virtue and fortitude to perform their duty to the public. Thus, that very conduct which reflected lustre on the bench, was often the source of the displeasure of the Crown; and judges were removed from those seats to which they did the utmost honour. After the Revolution, this nefarious practice was happily put an end to, and the judges' commissions were directed to be made out by the present tenure of quamdiu se bene gesserint. This was permanently enacted by the act of Settlement, but, at the same time, it was expressly declared, that, upon the addresses of both Houses of parliament to the throne, the judges should be removed. In the first year of the reign of his late majesty, that sovereign being desirous that the judges should hold their offices by a tenure still more independent of the Crown, had addressed the parliament to this effect from the throne, and had provided that the judges should not be removed in the event of the demise of the Crown. But, in the settlement of this question, it was especially provided, that his majesty, his heirs, and successors, should remove any judge upon the address of the Houses of parliament.—All the preliminary attacks upon the present course of proceeding had been, therefore, thrown away; for it was the obvious duty of that House to make such inquiries into the conduct of judges, and to exercise their constitutional privilege of addressing the Crown to remove any judge who should conduct himself in a manner to disgrace his office. This was the tenure of office of the twelve judges of England; and, with reference to the eight judges of Wales, their tenure of office he conceived to be precisely the same. They held their seats by the 34th of Henry 8th which expressly gave them the same power of holding all manner of pleas of the Crown as the English judges; as well as the power of holding all actions and writs as the judges of the Common. Pleas. In addition to this, they exercised the same equitable jurisdiction as the lord Chancellor of England. Thus, throughout the whole principality of Wales, every judge of great session held the same power as the judges of the courts, of King's-bench and Common Pleas in England, and they also exercised
660
that enlarged and over-ruling equitable jurisdiction in Wales, which the lord Chancellor possesses within the realm of England. This immense power held by the Welch judges furnished the same reason for the House to watch and supervise their conduct with the same degree of jealousy with which they were constitutionally bound to watch the conduct of the English judges; and the manner of appointing individuals to the office of judge, in Wales, by no means made it less necessary for the House to be vigilant in the exercise of their duty. This being the case, he had only to remind the House, that Mr. Kenrick came before them as a judge of great sessions in Wales: he also filled the office of a justice of the peace, or magistrate, for the county of Surry, and he was called by himself, although not quite correctly, recorder of the town of Dover; for he believed his title was not quite complete, although formerly his appointment would have received, without any difficulty, his majesty's approbation. By the act of Settlement, and by the first of his late majesty, the patent of a judge would be repealed, in consequence of any crime proved against him before a jury, as a breach of the tenure by which he held his office, the quamdiu se bene gesserit becoming void on any proof of crime; but, at the same time, the discretion which had belonged to the Crown became Vested in parliament. This being the case, he quite agreed with what had been stated upon a former occasion, that the question before the House, and all similar questions, must be questions of degree; and it was entirely for the House to Consider, whether the present case was of sufficient magnitude, and whether it brought a sufficient scandal on the administration of justice, to require the interference of parliament. After the animadversions passed upon the character and conduct of the person who filled this high office, and who was now before the House, he thought that to depart from an investigation of the case, upon any of the grounds which had been urged in the preliminary discussion, would be for the House to give up one of its most valuable privileges, and to fly from one of its most important duties. It was incumbent upon the House to decide, whether Mr. Kenrick bad not forfeited all right to the good opinion and respectability of society, and he should therefore proceed to animadvert upon the case. It

661
had been stated, in the speech of the learned counsel at the bar, that the Morning Chronicle had animadverted upon the conduct of Mr. Kenrick, and that the articles in that paper had constituted a most atrocious libel. These supposed libels were published in August 1824. Between that month of August and the ensuing Michaelmas term, Mr. Kenrick had to consider of his application to be made to the court of King's-bench for a criminal information against the editor of that paper, as, the author of the libels in question. Most undoubtedly it was the paramount duty of any man who regarded his character, to have brought forward an application of this sort. It sounded, however, most strangely in the ears of the world, that a judge should have made application to the court of King's-bench for a criminal information, in consequence of libels of this atrocious nature, and that redress should have been refused by the Court [hear, hear!]. He might also here animadvert upon the fact, that the same judge had prosecuted a poor individual for stealing a scrap of wood of the value of less than twelve-pence; and, upon his proceeding to the sessions, the man charged was instantly dismissed, and the costs of the prosecution were refused to the prosecuting judge. These were two very singular situations for a judge to be placed in. It was notorious, that a rule existed in the court of King's-bench, that any person applying to the court for a criminal information against the author of a libel, should distinctly deny upon oath every imputation cast upon his character in the libel. The more atrocious was the libel, the more easy would it be to deny its aspersions. What were the libels that were the ground of this application to the court of King's-bench? They were all printed; and it was essential to the understanding of the case, to compare the libels with Mr. Kenrick's vindication. He (Mr. Denman) entirely dissented from many of the observations which the articles in the Morning Chronicle contained, although there were others that he approved of. But, the alleged libels would be indeed atrocious, if they were untrue; and, for that reason, when he found that Mr. Kenrick had applied for a criminal information against the alleged libeller, he looked very anxiously for the contradiction which his affidavits might contain to the libel. What was the substance of the charge brought against Mr.
662
Kenrick, in the Morning Chronicle? The articles in that paper not only accused Mr. Kenrick of prosecuting unnecessarily and unjustly a poor man of his neighbourhood, but they said, "you have done this because you wanted to get possession of his land" Mr. Kenrick did not deny this, except in one general phrase at the end of the affidavit. In this affidavit, all he said was, "I did not tamper with the wife of Franks, for the purpose of obtaining the freehold." But he did not say, that he did not prosecute the husband for that purpose, though that was the very charge. He did not say that he did not induce the magistrate to send the poor man to gaol, in order to wear him out, and terrify him, and get possession of his freehold. He did not deny this imputation. He did not deny the charge, that he used all means to induce the poor man to plead guilty, that he might get possession of the freehold. He made no such denial. He only denied that he tampered with his wife. It was not denied that he sent Franks to prison—to that miserable gaol, to be corrupted, and contaminated, and ruined, in order that he might fall an easier victim, and give up his freehold. Mr. Kenrick had the opportunity of answering all these charges, and he never denied any of them. So far from it, in another part of the proceedings, he virtually admitted the charges. In his letter to Mr. Collett, which appeared in the Stamford newspaper, he owned his having sent the man to gaol, and he never denied that he wished to obtain his freehold. He said, "About four or five years ago, I offered him, in exchange, another house, which he declined; and, from that time to the time of his coming out of gaol, I had never, directly or indirectly, treated with him, or made any offer, or, in any manner, endeavoured to purchase his cottage; I had bought another, which answered my purpose, and was indifferent about either of those, otherwise than to get rid of a bad neighbour." Thus, he admitted that he wanted to get rid of a bad neighbour; and he tried to effect his purpose by means of this piece of dirty plank [hear, hear!]. Let any man read the libel, and the depositions, and if he could say that he entertained the slightest doubt of the innocence of Franks, he should, indeed, look upon him with wonder. The slab had been lying as worthless in a ditch, and in its dirty state it was found, not in the possession of Franks,

663
but merely upon his premises. There was not the slightest evidence on the depositions that Franks had ever seen the slab. If Franks had seen it, he had evidently esteemed it a matter of so little value, that he had left it exposed to the view of Kenrick's men, who lived in his neighborhood. Thus this respectable man, the father of seven or eight children, was committed to gaol upon evidence in-sufficient-to have-committed the most dishonest character in the world. It did not require the slightest knowledge of law—it only required the exercise of common sense—to determine, that there was no case against Franks. The learned counsel had said, "God forbid that any undue influence should have been exercised by Mr. Kenrick over the mind of the magistrates who committed Franks!" But it was clear that, when a judge of the land came to swear before a magistrate against a poor man, he did come with a degree of authority that a magistrate might find it difficult td resist. It had been stated by Mr. Burgess, that he had committed Franks to gaol with considerable regret. Mr. Burgess having committed him, he would say; that nothing but the influence of a judge could have induced a magistrate to commit a man upon such a charge. Mr. Kenrick said, "My own carter saw Franks putting this slab upon his premises" that is to say, it was resting against a rabbit-hutch; where it had been placed by one of the children. Contrast this case with that of Cantor. In reference to that case, he' wished that counsel were allowed to address juries in cases of felony. In the case to which he alluded, there was a valuable article found in the possession of the brother of Mr. Kenrick's bailiff, but Mr. Kenrick had refused to inquire into the loss of this valuable sheep, although it had been traced into the possession of the prisoner [hear, hear!]. These two cases ought to be taken together; and, when the House found Mr. Kenrick's conduct so different in the one Case, from what it was in the other, it would excite the strongest suspicion that dome improper motive did actuate Mr. Kenrick in this most unjust prosecution against Franks; He must be allowed to observe, that the affidavits from which he was quoting were solely the affidavits which Kenrick had produced, in order to obtain his rule for a criminal information. There had been several others filed in answer to these, bat it had been argued,
664
that it was unjust to produce them against Kenrick, because he had had no opportunity of answering them, and they were, therefore, ex parte. But, omitting the affidavits that had been filed in answer to Kenrick's, these last themselves became ex parte. Mr. Kenrick had nothing to complain of in the mode of bringing forward this case. It was the most unfounded charge that was ever made, and the House had a right to inquire into the motives. It was the province of common sense to look for some extraordinary motive in the conduct of an individual, so contrary to his duties and station in society, and to his means of information. What was the motive imputed to Mr. Kenrick, in the articles which appeared in the Morning Chronicle? That he had violated his public functions, and had availed himself of his station, in order, unjustly, to dispossess Franks of his freehold. It was not denied that Mr. Kenrick looked to the consequences of his proceedings, and that he calculated they would dispossess Franks of his freehold; but he had stated that his motives were only to get rid of a bad neighbour. It would be well to inquire whether this was the real motive for such extraordinary conduct; and, if this turned out to be a mere pretence, the inference against Mr. Kenrick would be plain. In order to show that this was not his object—that it was a mere pretence, it would only be necessary to refer to Mr. Kenrick's own conduct. Mr. Kenrick, in order to establish that he wished to get rid of Franks, solely because he was a bad character, proceeded to state what the character of Franks was. The character of Franks was highly important in estimating the motives by which Mr. Kenrick was actuated. Mr. Kenrick had felt the necessity of making out something against Franks. It had been stated, that a bloody knife, wrapped in some paper, had been found, belonging to Franks; from which he wished it to be inferred, that Franks had been guilty of stealing a sheep, and of which he had not been even accused and, for which no affidavit had been filed against him. This appeared in Franks's letter to Collett, which appeared in the Stamford News. Collett attributed it to the author, Mr. Kenrick, excepting that Mr. Drakard had made a few alterations to the extent of admitting the direct charge of felony. It was to be observed that these attacks were going on whilst the Morning Chronicle was receiving

665
small sums of money for Franks, and public compassion was excited in his favour. The insertion of Kenrick's letter in the Stamford News was at this precise time, and had a tendency to check the compassion and bounty of the public. The House had a right to discover these circumstances by a judicial and inquisitorial inquiry. They had a right to expect an explanation from Mr. Kenrick. Mr. Collett might have been called to have produced the letter. Kenrick might have disavowed it when it was shown to him by Mr. James. To-day, the defence was, not that he did not send the letter with an intention of its being published, but that he was goaded to do so by the observations which were daily appearing in the Morning Chronicle. This excuse was not satisfactory to him. When a gentleman was called upon to vindicate his character, if he offered no evidence on the subject, it was quite clear that he had nothing to offer. The letter was evidently intended by Kenrick for publication; for, if Collett could have proved that it was delivered to him only for private information, Kenrick would have required him to have given such evidence. The absence of all evidence on the subject made it quite clear that the letter was written for insertion in that paper. If Kenrick knew any thing of the bloody knife, he ought to have sworn it in his affidavit; for all depended on the character of Franks. So far from swearing any thing against him, he only states, in the letter to Collett, that, "When I first came to my present residence, I found Franks in the employ of persons who were preparing my house for my reception. I received hints of his misconduct which excited my suspicions; and finding them well founded, I dismissed him." This was rather a queer way of dealing with the character of any human being, particularly as he had an opportunity of swearing to any particular fact. He then went on to state one of the most cruel things done by one man to another. He said— "I had, or rather my wife had, sent one of his daughters to school, and she was employed at needle-work, which occasioned her to have access to the house; various articles were missing; lace, stockings, clothes, silver-handled scissors, &c. were missing, belonging principally to the house-keeper, and much jealousy and suspicion was occasioned amongst my servants, till they all agreed on suspecting Franks's daughter,
666
when they acquainted roe with the circumstance, and I directed application to a neighbouring justice for a search-warrant, in the execution of which, all the articles were found in a box, in the bedroom of Franks and his wife, under their clothes; the magistrate requested my interference with the parties, on account of the tender age of the girl, to take their things again, and drop any prosecution. This was before the late act, giving a power to prosecute the abettors, had passed." Thus an imputed offence of a child ten years of age was brought forward many years after, when she was a young woman in respectable service, so as to cite her character before the public, injuring her reputation and feelings, merely because she happened to be the daughter of a poor man, against whom a Welch judge happened to make an unfounded accusation. As to the fact of the articles being found under the clothes in Franks's room, the child slept in the room with her parents, and the clothes were found in a deal box in her bed. So far Kenrick's case was disproved; but the most malignant part of the assertion was, that "this was before the late act giving a power to prosecute abettors;" as much as to say, that Franks was an abettor, and would have been prosecuted as such [hear, hear!]. This would have been proved, had it been true, when he moved, upon affidavits, for an information before the court of King's-bench. The inference was, therefore, plain. The House was bound to interfere, when it was so important for Mr. Kenrick to justify what he had stated in his letter to Coliett.—Well, next came the statement of the killing of the sheep and, because, forsooth, a bloody knife and a piece of paper were found in a particular spot, the unfortunate Franks was held to be guilty. Would the House for a moment entertain a belief that an individual was to be charged and confined to a prison upon such grounds? Again, it was said that Franks had for ten years been in the habit of nightly depredations in his neighbourhood; but not the slightest proof was brought forward in support of this assertion, and therefore he had, he conceived, an undoubted right, to say, that the assertion was unfounded. This had been repeatedly asserted in the Morning Chronicle; and that journal justly set forth, in contradiction to the statement, the very excellent character given

667
to Franks by the parties called upon his trial. Mr. Kenrick felt this; and, in the criminal information for which he moved against that journal, and the affidavits of the three or four neighbours whom he brought forward, not one word was said about Franks being a man of bad character. If, then, (he statement of Franks having been a man of bad character was true; if Mr. Kenrick was right in stating, that Franks had for years been in the habit of committing nightly depredations upon the neighbourhood, why did not that fact appear upon the face of these affidavits? After the evidence which had been given at their bar—after the admissions made upon all hands—he asked any hon. member to put his hand upon his heart, and say whether there was not before him sufficient ground for the course of proceeding which he had felt it his duty to adopt?—But it was said, and it was, he understood, true, that Mr. Kenrick had applied to Mr. Lawson, the clerk of the peace, to withdraw the proceedings, against Franks, upon the score of his former good character, although he had, on a former occasion, stated that his character was a bad one. From what had transpired, it was clear that Mr. Kenrick had involved himself in some such dilemma. In Mr. Kenrick's affidavit, he said, that he had written to Mr. Lawson, the clerk of the peace, a letter, of which he kept no copy, stating, to the best of hit recollection, how the said John Franks was circumstanced, and praying that the proceedings, against him might be withdrawn, upon the ground of his previous good character. If the previous character of Mr. Franks was so good, why was he committed to prison upon such light and inconclusive grounds? Even if the charge of taking a slab of timber of such trifling value were true, why should a man of such character be committed to prison? And, if his character of being a nightly depredator was true, why was he to be protected by the interference either of Mr. Kenrick or the clerk pf the peace? Was it consistent with the duty of a magistrate—wag it consistent with the character and dignity of a Welch judge—either to oppress an innocent individual in the one ease, or screen a guilty one in the other? Nay, more, was it consistent with the character of such an individual to keep back the witnesses necessary to support and prove a charges of felony? If the magistrate had found it necessary to
668
have the daughter taken before a magistrate, upon a charge of having stolen a pair of scissors and a little bit of silk—if he felt it necessary to proceed against Franks himself, under a conviction that lie had been a nightly depredator upon the property of his neighbours for the last ten years, why was it found necessary to tamper with public justice, and make efforts to screen a guilty individual from the punishment which he deserved? Why should this magistrate try to screen this nightly thief from the operation of the law, "if it could be done without his forfeiting his recognizances?" Was it not clear that Mr. Kenrick was, throughout, actuated by a wish to rid himself of a person whom he considered a troublesome and inconvenient neighbour, and get possession by some means of his freehold? He would put it in this way—Mr. Kenrick having this object in view, thought he would best accomplish it, first by getting Franks into prison, and then letting him know that he would best relieve himself by pleading guilty to a charge of which he knew himself innocent. By this means his little freehold would become forfeited to the Crown, and being close in Mr. Kenrick's neighbourhood, every man knew how possible it was for a person so desiring, to get possession of it. He maintained, that there was abundant proof of such an intention on the part of Mr. Kenrick. In his letter to the gaoler of the prison in which Franks was confined, he said, "Sir, I shall be obliged to you to inform me in what manner John Franks, committed by Mr. Y. Burgess, for stealing a plank, my property, has conducted himself since he has been in your custody. The facts of the ease are so short, and so clear against him, that, I cannot suppose he can entertain any have of acquittal. I have no animosity against him, and if I find he has conducted himself with propriety since he has been in your custody, and his ready to acknowledge his guilt, and is sensible and sorry for his misconduct, I shall be ready to do all in my power to induce the court to be as lenient to him as it can be when convicted, or he shall plead guilty." He (Mr. Denman) was amused when he first read this pompous promise of an effort to mitigate the sentence of the court upon an admission of guilt. It was in substance saying that if Franks would only confess his culpability he might escape, perhaps some, seven or fourteen years'

669
transportation. This attempt to extort a confession of guilt was, in his view, without a parallel. He did, then, impute to Mr. Kenrick, when he sought to obtain this confession of guilt from the unhappy Franks, that he had it in his own contemplation to induce him to abandon his freehold. In another place, when the unfortunate prisoner mentioned what was likely to be the conduct of the Benefit Society to which he belonged, in the event of his conviction, Mr. Kenrick said, he would use his efforts to procure the most lenient sentence, upon an avowal of guilt. The offer was refused with the indignant feeling of an innocent man. Then came the story of the rabbit-hutch, &c, of which they had heard so much. He was now talking, not of a magistrate of the country, not of a judge of the land, not of a judge of the great sessions of Wales, or of a recorder of a borough—but of the wrongs and sufferings inflicted upon a poor and unprotected individual. The hon. and learned member adverted again to the facts stated in the Morning Chronicle, relative to Mr. Kenrick—facts which had never been rebutted by that gentleman or his friends—and Went on to ask whether, if a person so Convicted of improper conduct, as that person had been, were now to be recommended to the office of magistrate, or Welch judge, or recorder of a borough, his majesty's ministers would feel it right to appoint him to any of those offices? Assuredly they would not; and, if he was unfit to be so; appointed, was he not unfit to be continued in any one of those offices? If all which he bad stated was true, and they had undeniable evidence of the facts, was it not a public scandal to continue Mr. Kenrick any longer in the high and important office of an administrator of justice? Let the right hon. gentleman opposite speak. Would he give to such Ma person the power of life and death, the whole extent of the judicial authority—which would be the case in the present Instance, if the colleagues of Mr. Kenrick were absent? Would any man be secure of fair trial before Mr. Kenrick, for a plank of wood, if the prosecutor was a respectable person? If the motive were toot corrupt in the present ease, it nevertheless showed a defect of judgment. It had been truly said that if the conduct of an individual, was such that he ought not to be appointed to a situation, he ought, for the same reason, to be removed from
670
any situation he might fill. Would Mr. Kenrick, he asked, be included after what had transpired, in a commission for an adjoining county? Would his majesty's approbation be given for his appointment to a higher post? If not, how could the government, having the power of displacing this person, and being called upon by duty to do it, continue him in office? Was it necessary that he should actually disgrace himself on she bench before he could be removed? In reply to the objection which he had heard, that a lawyer should not bring forward such a question as this, it should be followed up by a resolution to occlude lawyers from sitting in parliament; for it was such persons who took the liveliest interest in these questions. He had also been told, that a person holding a judicial office ought not to have preferred this charge; but he hoped he could say that no 'member could be more free from improper motives, or less disposed to take up such a subject unnecessarily than himself. He hoped that gentlemen would feel themselves called upon to entertain this motion. He had performed what he conceived to be a solemn duty, in bringing it before the House. He considered that the charges were all proved, except that which related to Mr. Kenrick's application to withdraw the prosecution on account of Franks's good character; and he would accordingly move, "That it appears to this House, that the charge against William Kenrick, esquire, one Of his majesty's justices of great session in Wales, has been fully established by evidence, except so far as it imputes to him that be applied for leave to withdraw his prosecution against John Franks, on account of his good character."
The Attorney Generalsaid, he rose to oppose the motion, giving his hon. and learned friend, at the same time, full credit for having introduced it solely from a pure and conscientious sense of public duty. But, at the same time, after all that he had heard, he felt bound to come to a conclusion very different to that at which his hon. and learned friend had arrived. He felt that his hon. and learned friend had no right to bring into that House one grave and specific charge, and then turn round and call upon them to convict the accused party upon another. His hon. and learned friend stated, that he did not wish to proceed upon his first charge against Mr. Kenrick, but that there was another and a graver charge of which that

671
gentleman had been guilty. He begged the House to bear in their recollection the original charge. It was, that Mr. Kenrick had preferred a charge of felony against Franks, and, without giving sufficient evidence, had had him committed and brought to trial. There was no accusation of corrupt, motives or of malice; yet his hon. and learned friend said, not that this charge was proved, but that another charge of a deeper character had been substantiated, which Mr. Kenrick had never been called upon to answer. Had this proceeding taken place before another tribunal, his hon. and learned friend would have been told, that he was not competent to adopt this course, that he must confine himself to the record. The course was unjust to Mr. Kenrick, for this obvious reason: could the House be sure that if the charge had been differently worded, Mr. Kenrick would not have adduced evidence to refute it? This was enough to show the unjust course pursued by his hon. and learned friend. But, was it any offence to prosecute a man on insufficient evidence? Could any civil action be maintained, could any verdict be got, against a man on account of such an act, unless malice could be shown? The terms of the charge contained no crime cognizable by law. Mr. Kenrick was charged with having preferred an accusation on insufficient evidence; but, this very evidence was adduced before Mr. Burgess, who committed the prisoner. It followed, then, that Mr. Burgess must be charged as well as Mr. Kenrick. On that very evidence, too, the grand jury found the bill. No undue influence over the witnesses was imputed; there was nothing to impeach their character: they told the same story to Mr. Kenrick, to Mr. Burgess, and to the grand jury; and the House was now called upon to say that Mr. Kenrick was actuated by malicious motives. His hon. and learned friend said, that the property was of trifling value; it might be so: the owner of the property was the fittest person to judge of the propriety of prosecuting. The law said, that the act of taking it was a crime; and if the party prosecuted in a legal manner, and without corrupt motives, where was the crime? With regard to the slab, it was admitted on all hands that the property had been found on Franks's premises, and the conduct of the different branches of his family was of a nature to excite the strongest suspicions. When the bailiff or
672
servant of Mr. Kenrick first proceeded to Franks's, he measured the slab of timber, and returned to his master, On his going there a second time, the wife of Franks asked him, in a bullying tone, what business he had there? and added, before a word respecting Mr. Kenrick had been spoken, "that the timber did not belong to Mr. Kenrick." The son of Franks, too, a lad about fourteen, blustered and said, that the piece of timber had been the property of his father for years. To this, the servant of Mr. Kenrick answered by cutting a piece of the slab, and pointing out that, from its green state, it could not have been more than a month cut. It was not asserted now, that the father stole the timber, but the conduct of the family was of a nature to cause a suspicion that it had been taken by some of his family, with his privity. Now, with respect to the cottage, what was the evidence upon that subject? Why, Mr. Kenrick stated, that at one time he had offered to purchase the cottage; but that afterwards, on Franks's refusal to sell it, he had abandoned the intention altogether, and that took place six years ago: and so completely had he abandoned the intention, that though a better and more convenient cottage, immediately contiguous to the spot, had been offered, he declined to purchase it. Yet, although such was the fact, it was now stated, that he had instituted this proceeding against Franks for the purpose of obtaining possession of this cottage. Still, although Mr. Kenrick swore he had no malicious or corrupt view, but that he acted solely from a sense of the public duty he had to discharge, this charge was still persisted in, contrary not only to the probability of the case, but to the positive affidavit of Mr. Kenrick. The other alleged ground was, Mr. Kenrick's wish to make a footpath over Franks's ground. What was stated on oath on this subject by Mr. Kenrick? Why, that he had given a portion of his land in exchange for some allotments given to Franks and Gates, of less value than his own portion of land, and that he had told Franks, a pathway ought to be made across his allotment, in order to enable Gates, whose cottage was immediately contiguous, to enjoy more fully his own allotment. Yet, this had been insisted on as a proof of a corrupt motive on the part of Mr. Kenrick, and of hostility towards Franks.—Another circumstance stated was, that Mr. Kenrick had tampered with Franks's

673
wife, attempting to induce her, during her husband's confinement, to make an application for relief to the overseers, by which she would be compelled to sell the cottage. This statement was also positively denied. Its truth, if there was any truth in it, might have been established by witnesses at the bar, and yet there had not been any evidence on that subject. If, therefore, the House asked whether Mr. Kenrick's motives were malicious and corrupt, was not the whole charge negatived? In his opinion, it was. So much, then, for the first part, which, he thought, had been negatived by Mr. Kenrick's testimony, to impeach which, not even an attempt had been made.—This brought him to the consideration of the second part of the charge: that which imputed to Mr. Kenrick that he had published a libel on the character and conduct of Franks. Now, that it was a libel, was yet to be proved; and he had always understood that the burthen of proof lay upon the prosecutor. Because it was not proved, the House was not to draw inferences on the subject; they were not to call on Mr. Kenrick to answer that which had not been established against him. Yet such appeared to have been the doctrine of his hon. and learned friend, who had said, "though, it is true, I have not established the charge of the publication of the libel by Mr. Kenrick, in the Stamford newspaper, yet Mr. Kenrick is bound to clear himself from that charge." What was now stated, and that, too, by his hon. and learned friend, was, that a man was bound to clear himself from a charge not made out against him by the public prosecutor. Even though that charge had been made out, he apprehended there was no very great crime in writing a letter to a private connection, in explanation of a circumstance respecting which he had requested information. Mr. Collett had written a letter to Mr. Kenrick, and this alleged libel was the letter written in answer to that of Mr. Collett. Before he adverted to the terms of this letter, he wished to call the attention of the House to part of the evidence relating to the question whether it had been published by Mr. Kenrick. The met was, that it had been published by Drakard, under the direction of Mr. Collett; but Drakard did not state that he had been authorized by Mr. Kenrick to publish the letter. The attorney for the Morning Chronicle had called on Mr. Kenrick, and had asked him whether
674
that letter was his—not whether it had been published by his authority or with his knowledge, but whether it was his—and Mr. Kenrick refused, as he was at liberty to do, to answer the question. Mr. Collett, on being applied to, said he would not give up the original, and lie himself would take the consequence. In his opinion, there was no evidence whatever of publication. What was the nature of this letter? An application had been made to Mr. Kenrick to explain some circumstances which had been stated respecting him, and he had written an answer which was subsequently published. Now, when there was no evidence that that letter had been published by the authority of Mr. Kenrick, was it for that House to take notice of it, written, as it had been, under such peculiar circumstances? Did his learned friend mean to say that Mr. Kenrick was bound to give evidence that he had no concern in the publication? But, after all, suppose he had, was it not too much to say, that when he was goaded as he had been, day by day, he was to be strictly called to account, because, in a moment of irritation, he had gone beyond the letter of what was capable of proof? What were the charges in this letter? One related to a petty theft committed by the daughter, in which the father was stated to have been an abettor. That charge was not one got up by Mr. Kenrick for the purposes of the moment; for it appeared, by the statement of Franks himself, that when the charge was first made, Mr. Kenrick had got up in a great passion, and had said, that if he could get hold of Franks, he should be made an example of. All this had passed in a room in a small cottage, and that the articles alleged to have been stolen by the daughter, were articles of petty theft, which could hardly have been concealed from the knowledge of her parents.—He admitted that with respect to the sheep the charge must be allowed, on the testimony of Mr. Peters, to have been unfounded. But though that charge was not true it did not follow that Mr. Kenrick might not honestly have believed it at the moment. He said this injustice to Mr. Kenrick, or tie should rather say, as declaring to the House his own impression on the subject. He thought there was no sufficient evidence to support the present charge. In the first place, there was none that the letter had been published by the desire of Mr. Ken-

675
rick. He merely now, as an individual, impartially stated the evidence on which he founded his own opinion. No man felt more than he did the great importance of keeping the seat of justice pure: no man was more fully convinced how much depended on the character of the individuals who filled the seats of public justice, nor of the absolute necessity that their motives and conduct should be unsuspected; and he would be the last to support any individual who had proved himself unworthy of administering justice to a free people. His right hon. friend behind him had reminded him of one point of the evidence which he had omitted, and which regarded the conduct of Mr. Kenrick after Franks had been committed to prison. It was suggested in the Morning Chronicle, that Mr. Kenrick, after five or six weeks had elapsed, found himself in an awkward situation, and was desirous to get out of it. Now, the evidence on that point showed, that a few days before the sessions commenced, Franks's wife applied to Beall, to intercede with his master on behalf of her husband, and on his representations, Mr. Kenrick said he would write to the gaoler to know how Franks had conducted himself; for that if he had manifested any signs of contrition, he would take care the sentence should be lenient. If the House believed that Mr. Kenrick thought Franks innocent, and yet wished him to plead guilty, undoubtedly it would be a serious offence; but there was no evidence of that, while, on the other hand, the case was very different if Mr. Kenrick believed Franks to be guilty. In that case, he might be of opinion that, though guilty, Franks had been sufficiently punished by the three months' imprisonment he had already suffered, and that after such a punishment it was likely he would return a reformed member of society, and, for that reason, Mr. Kenrick determined to use his influence to obtain a very lenient sentence. This had come to the knowledge of Franks's wife, and she had said, that the leniency of the sentence would be utterly unavailing, for that Franks was a subscriber to a benefit fund, and that if he was convicted, he would, by that conviction, forfeit all title to relief from it. Mr. Kenrick then said, he would interfere to prevent the prosecution being pressed. Under similar circumstances, what gentleman was there in that House who would not do the same? Franks had
676
already suffered punishment, which Mr. Kenrick deemed sufficient to have reformed him, and therefore, to prevent his conviction taking place, he wrote a letter to the clerk of the peace, who sent an answer, that the prosecution could not be given up without the recognizances being forfeited. His learned friend had said, that Mr. Kenrick ought to have persevered strictly in the prosecution. From that opinion he differed. The two witnesses were bound to appear, but there was no such obligation on Mr. Kenrick, and he was therefore fully at liberty to say, that the witness who was under his control, and whose testimony was most material, should not attend the trial, and that he would not employ counsel against the prisoner. He did so, and when the case was called on, as there was no counsel to press for a conviction, nor any witness to give testimony, Franks was discharged. There was no gentleman in the House who would not do the same, when there was no obligation to continue a prosecution, that, if successful, must end in the ruin of the prisoner's family. Was this, too, to be imputed to Mr. Kenrick, as proceeding from a corrupt and hostile motive towards Franks? The statement that Mr. Kenrick was desirous Franks should plead guilty, could not be reconciled with the fact that he would not pursue the prosecution, and that he kept back a witness who could swear to that most important circumstance, of the slab having been in Franks's possession. How could it be said, therefore, that he had desired Franks to plead guilty, when he did not use the means in his power to pursue that prosecution with success? This was the third and last charge against Mr. Kenrick, and this, he thought, was answered as fully as the other two—Before he sat down, he would allude to the prejudice which had gone abroad against Mr. Kenrick, upon what had been done in the court of King's-bench. It was generally supposed that the judges of that court had investigated the matter, and had given their judgment against Mr. Kenrick on the merits of the case. Such was not the fact. One counsel only, and that counsel employed for the defendant, had been heard, when the court decided the question on a ground foreign to the merits of the question. Their ground of decision was, that as the alleged libel on Mr. Kenrick had been published, that gentleman had his remedy by indictment

677
for libel, to which they would leave I lira. As to the costs, when the court were asked to grant them, their lordships said, that if the defendant insisted on having his costs, they must hear the other side; the question of costs, therefore, was not pressed. He said this by way of removing a prejudice which had gone abroad against Mr. Kenrick, as if the court of King's-bench had, in fact, decided against him on the merits of the case. He had now only to observe, that he had known Mr. Kenrick in early life, and afterwards in courts of justice, and had never known him to do any thing that was improper. He had also been employed as an advocate against that gentleman in the court of King's-bench. He did not know what were the exact limits of the duties of a counsel, but his impression was, that it was the duty of a counsel zealously to fulfil the charge consigned to him, without prejudice or partiality, and without regard to consequences, whatever they might be. With such ideas of the duty of a counsel, he had appeared against. Mr. Kenrick, discharging from his mind all partial recollections; and now, acting as a member of parliament, and called upon to give his opinion on a grave and serious charge, he felt himself bound to say that he considered it not proved, and that he must therefore give a decided negative to the motion.
Mr. Denmanshortly replied. He said, that under all the circumstances of the case, he should not press the House to a division; but he was, at the same time, bound to declare, that his opinions remained unaltered, and that if he had the giving or refusing of judicial offices, he would not confer any situation on Mr. Kenrick, Neither had his hon. and learned friend ventured to declare, that if he had such power he should consider Mr. Kenrick a fit object of judicial nomination. It was easy to anticipate what would be the result of his motion; but he was nevertheless sure that the people of England would not consider themselves well used, if Mr. Kenrick was continued in office. He decidedly differed from the hon. and learned gentleman as to the effect of the evidence in the case; particularly as to the fact of Mr. Kenrick's having kept back the material witness at Franks's trial. He did not believe that that witness could have proved any thing more than had been proved in his absence. If the House had not been already annoyed by the length
678
of these discussions, he would have pressed this proceeding further. His opinion, he repeated, remained unaltered. He had done what he considered to be his duty, and should leave the case with the House.
The resolution was then put, and negatived.

NAVY ESTIMATES.
The report of the committee of supply was brought up. On the question, that it be read,
Sir F. Ommaneycomplained of the low rate of remuneration which clerks in the Admiralty received, and also of the difficulty which the widows of assistant-surgeons experienced in procuring pensions. He meant on a future day to move for an account of all widows of assistant-surgeons who had applied for pensions between 1805 and 1809, when the new regulations were carried into effect.
On the first resolution, "That 30,000 men be employed for the sea-service, for the year 1826, including 9,000 Royal marines,"
Mr. Humesaid, that he must oppose the naval or any other establishment being formed on so large a scale as ministers seemed inclined to propose at the present moment. They had had an opportunity of examining the whole scale on which it was intended that the military establishment should be kept up, and he was justified in saying, that no such establishment was ever thought of at any former period of peace. He therefore wished to know whether there was any prospect of a return to what might fairly be denominated a real peace establishment? At this awful moment, when distress and difficulty threatened the land in every direction—when no immediate relief appeared in view—and when thousands and tens of thousands were in a state of destitution and want, it would become his majesty's ministers to reflect a little on what they were about. He was quite sure that the estimates, so monstrous did they appear, were agreed on at a time when ministers were not aware of the real state of the country. In former times, this country maintained a very different peace establishment, both with respect to the number of men and the magnitude of the expense; and he was anxious to know what were the circumstances at the present moment which required so disproportionate an establishment, as compared with antecedent pe-

679
riods of our; history. When the late war was terminated, that House had appointed a committee to inquire into the state of the finances generally, and also into the management and expenditure of every particular department; and he regretted to say, that the recommendations contained in the reports agreed upon by that committee, and approved of by ministers, had been, as it appeared to him, uniformly neglected. They were now going on increasing the burthens of the country, without any reason whatever being assigned for their conduct; and he believed if 12,000,000 l. instead of 6,000,000 l. were demanded for the naval service, it would be at once voted, although 2,000,000 l. had been found sufficient at the end of former wars. In 1817, immediately after a long war, when Europe was in an unsettled state, and America was in such a situation with respect to this country, that it was scarcely possible to guess how the scale would turn, only 19,000 seamen were called for. In 1818, there was an addition of 1,000. In 1819, the same number, 20,000, was continued. In 1820, it was raised to 23,000. In 1823, there was a further increase to 25,000. In 1824, the number was 29,000. Last year it was continued at 29,000; and now, without any reason whatever being assigned, parliament was called on to vote 30,000 men, with all the accompanying, expense. An hon. baronet had just alluded to the situation of a number of unfortunate widows, whom he had kindly taken under his protection. Certain it was, that very many persons who had claims on the government were plunged in deep distress and could procure no relief, whilst they saw young men of rank and family, who needed no assistance, amply provided for. Such individuals were too often hoisted over the heads of men of talent and experience; and, while the labours of the latter went unrequited, the former were quartered on the public purse. Not a promotion took place, in which, if, gentlemen examined the list, they would not see that persons who had no claim to rank, were advanced, before those whose services deserved a different recompense. The navy and the army were filled with instances of this kind. It was indeed, nothing more nor less than a mode of pensioning individuals; and he regretted to say that there appeared to be a disposition in the aristocracy of the country
680
to get their friends and relatives thus pensioned on the public. While the great mass of the people had scarcely bread to eat, taxes were imposed on them without number, to keep up this useless expense. The promotion at present going on in the army and navy would be found to be greater than what had taken place at any period of the war; due allowance being made for the difference in the number of men employed now and formerly. Such a system ought no longer to be suffered. He regretted very much that the claims of the meritorious individuals who had been alluded to by the hon. baronet had not been attended to; but he believed the fact to be, that neither they, nor any other set of persons, unless they had interest with the lords of the Admiralty, were likely to receive pensions at their hands. Five officers were kept up, where one would be sufficient; and that, it seemed, was the mode in which the people were to be relieved from their taxes. From the estimate now before the House, they learned, that a sum of 6,135,000 l. was to be expended on the navy for the current year. This was more than the estimate for the last two or three years; and surely it was monstrous that they should thus proceed, year after year, in thus burthening the people, without making an effort to correct the system. This extravagance was not confined to the navy. It was still more glaring in the army; and he must say, that he would willingly reduce the army one half, to keep the navy on an efficient, but not a uselessly extravagant footing. This was a naval nation, and that arm of our strength ought to be kept pre-eminently powerful. The system of wasteful expenditure which was now adopted could not be carried on, unless ministers made up their minds, ere long, to rob the public creditor. It was shameful, in times of public distress, to extract from fifty-five, to sixty millions a year from the pockets of an impoverished people. He was sorry he did not see a minister in his place, because he wished to impress on the minds of those who were at the head of affairs, the necessity of their giving these estimates a reconsideration. They ought to look to the situation of the country, and extend some substantial relief to the people. He would not, on his own authority, state any thing against the mode in which any particular department was conducted: but he felt himself borne

681
out in this instance, with respect to his charge of wanton extravagance, by the reports to which he had alluded. He was anxious, if he stood alone, to record his opinion as to what the House ought to do in this period of suffering; and what, he would add, if they had a reformed parliament, that House would do; namely, compel ministers to reduce those estimates, and to revise the expenditure of all those departments which weighed heavily on the people, and of which they most justly complained. Was it not dreadful to see 27,000,000 l. annually wrung from the people to keep up our military and civil establishments—exclusive of the charges connected with the national debt? They would, in a few days, hear from ministers a statement of the financial situation of the country. He wished they would announce their intention of reducing the burthens of the people; but he feared there was no hope of such a communication being made; for, had it been intended, the House would before this have heard some intimation of the matter. The motion with which he should con-elude appeared to him to be so reasonable, that he should hope for its success under almost any circumstances, but more particularly when the accounts from every part of the country must have directed the attention of gentlemen to the extreme distress which existed in all quarters, and which imperatively called on them to reflect on the result that before long might take place, if they did not adopt a change of system. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving as an amendment,—"That this House cannot take into consideration the reports of the naval estimates of this, the eleventh year of peace, amounting to 6,135,004 l., without expressing their concurrence in opinion with the committee of Finance of 1818, expressed in their eighth report in the following words:—'This, although a head of very large expenditure, is one on which your committee do not consider themselves competent to judge. They conceive that the amount and preparation of ships of war must be left to the sound discretion of the government generally, and of the board whose duty it is, more particularly, to manage this most important department of the state. Always bearing in mind that not ships and stores and military arrangements are alone necessary for the safety, or for the glory of the country, in the event of war; but
682
that finances recruited during peace, and wealth, and industry generally diffused through the nation by all practicable savings of expense, and consequent diminution of burthens, are, at least, of equal importance; while they mainly contribute towards the happiness and comfort of all classes of society at the present time.' And this House recommends to the ministers of the Crown their reconsideration of the estimates, with the view of reducing their amount, consonant to the opinion of the Finance Committee, and the better to suit the present circumstances of the country." He did not mean to cavil at particular parts of the estimates. He had already done that in the committee; but, seeing the aggregate amount, and seeing how little suitable they were to the present state of the country, he made his present motion to call on the House to stop the extravagance of his majesty's ministers. If they were determined to persist in their career, he, at least, should have done his duty.
Lord John Russellseconded the amendment. The navy estimates were, he said, framed on a most inordinate scale, and he believed that the army estimates would be found still more extravagant. He would therefore divide the House with his hon. friend.
Sir G. Cockburnsaid, he was surprised that the hon. member for Aberdeen should have asserted, that no reason had been assigned for the increase in the navy estimates. He begged the hon. member to recollect, that his hon. friend, in bringing those estimates forward, had stated, that the increase this year was owing to the war in India, and to the necessity which existed for keeping up a naval force in various parts of the world. The general state of the commerce of the country was such, that ministers could not withhold this force, without creating general discontent amongst the merchants. There was no part of the world in which the commerce of Great Britain was not going on at that moment; and armed ships had been sent for abroad for the purpose of protecting that commerce. It was the duty of the Admiralty to see that those vessels were properly distributed. They were obliged to send ships up the Mediterranean, where the British were likely to be attacked by the belligerents on both sides. Again, it was necessary to station vessels of war in the West-Indies; and they were likewise called for on the coast

683
of Africa. There was no part of the world in which a British naval force was not looked up to for protection; and they had acquitted themselves wonderfully well wherever they had been employed. Their naval officers, he admitted, were no great diplomatists; but in their intercourse with the newly recognized states they had acted wisely. They had insured peace and quiet wherever they appeared; and they had maintained the honour and reputation of the British flag. If that House were filled with merchants, he was convinced they would all rise with one accord, and bear testimony to the benefits they had derived from the system pursued by the Admiralty. The money now called for would be most advantageously laid out; since it would enable this country in spite of the wars of other powers, to carry on a flourishing commerce with every part of the world. The hon. member for Aberdeen had advanced one assertion, which he would meet with a direct contradiction. The hon. member had stated, that the claim of no man was listened to at the Admiralty, unless he possessed family interest. He denied the charge altogether. He attended himself at the Admiralty in rotation; and he would say, that no person, from the highest to the lowest, ever asked to see him, whom he did not see, and whose business he did not hear. And he would tell the hon. member in the face of the House and of the country, that he paid less attention to a man who had family interest than to one who was without it. He would say more. He would tell the hon. member—and many officers could bear witness to the fact—that when men without interest had stated their cases to him, he had done his utmost to bring them forward. The charge, therefore, of the hon. member was most unjust and unfair. He could assert, without fear of contradiction, that in proportion as the Admiralty brought forward persons of rank, they, with equal readiness, assisted others, who had no recommendation of that kind. Length of service, and a knowledge of the profession, were never overlooked, let the situation of the individual be what it might. The services of the father were very frequently considered in the promotion of his sons; and it could not be denied that this was a fair and proper course of proceeding for the Admiralty to observe.
Mr. Robertsoncomplained, that on so important a vote there was not a minister
684
of the Crown in his place. The apology for keeping up a large naval force made by the hon. lord of the Admiralty was totally inadequate; namely, the war in India. Now, the war in India no more required an increase of the navy than would a war in the middle of Germany. It was totally impossible that a naval force could act in the Burmese war. Such a reason could only have been offered on the presumption of the utmost ignorance among members of the seat of war in India. There was no warlike navigation among those nations. True it was that in the mouths of rivers there were occasionally forts which were accessible by boats; but the weakest vessel that could swim, if she could only hold out the voyage and the landing of the troops, would be powerful enough for any maritime purposes of that war.
Mr. Crokersaid, that the hon. member for Grampound attributed to the Admiralty the most perfect ignorance of the geographical situation of India.
Mr. Robertsonsaid, "No:" his expression was, that the Admiralty presumed on the ignorance of the House.
Mr. Croker.—Well, then, it was not the Admiralty who were ignorant, they were well enough acquainted with the business; but they came down to impose upon parliament with a falsehood ["No, no," from various quarters]. Well then, a fallacy; which was, that some part of the naval force was to be employed in India. Now, he had one short fact to state, in answer to the representation of the hon. gentleman. That very morning it had fallen to his lot as secretary to the Admiralty, to receive despatches from a commander in India. That officer mentioned, that he had collected a naval force to act on the rivers of Rangoon, which he expected would be of the greatest use; and that it consisted of a greater number of men than the total increase of sailors demanded by the present vote.
Sir C. Coledefended the Admiralty from the charge of an unfair use of favour and affection in promotions. He would mention a proof of the contrary, within his own knowledge. He had taken two deserving youths by the hand, who had done themselves honour in the service; they were the sons of an officer of distinguished merit, but they were for a time over-looked. He no sooner made their case known to the Admiralty than their promotion was secured to them. From

685
all that he had seen, this was the usual character of their proceedings. As to the necessity of a naval force in India, he had been for many years on that station, and it had astonished him that we could hold so vast a dominion with a naval force so small as was kept there. The House would recollect the limits taken in by that station. It was a full quarter of the earth's surface, reaching, in direct longitude, from the coast of Arabia to the Pacific Ocean. True it was, that there were no powerful fleets in those seas; but, there were many forts upon the mouths of rivers which gave occasion for the employment of vessels of war and boats. But, there were reasons for keeping up a considerable force in other quarters. The Mediterranean station evidently required a considerable force to protect our commerce; especially while a piratical war was raging between the Greeks and Turks. He thought the service could not be properly maintained with a less number of men.
Mr. Wyvillwould vote for the amendment, in order to compel ministers to observe the strictest economy.
Mr. Herriessaid, that the object of the amendment was not so much to negative the vote for the navy, as to put a stop to the grant of supplies generally; which, of course, the House had the power to do, though it was a power rarely exercised, and not without the statement of more cogent reasons than those urged by the hon. member for Aberdeen. So far from its being true that ministers had no regard for economy, they had evinced, from year to year, the utmost anxiety to promote it; and the time chosen by the hon. gentleman for bringing forward his amendment was not a little extraordinary, recollecting that it was upon bringing up the report of the committee whose resolutions had been agreed to unanimously. With regard to the absence of ministers, he denied that it was necessary that they should attend to listen to the often repeated recommendations of the hon. member. They had observed the most rigid economy in every department, and had carried reductions to the utmost extent. Year after year, and item by item, the navy estimates had been scrutinized with the utmost patience, and the increase of the present vote above that of 1817 had been frequently justified; so that nothing could be more absurd than to treat it as if the augmentation were en-
686
tirely new, and required arguments in support of it.
Colonel Daviesthought, that this was a fit opportunity for the exercise of that great economical check which lay in parliament. No good reason had been given for keeping up so enormous an establishment. Were they, in a time of peace and in a season of universal distress to go on voting away large and unnecessary quantities of the public money? Ought they not rather, as guardians of the public purse, when that distress was likely to be aggravated by the measure now in progress, to restore the currency, to force upon government the most rigid economy? He would vote for the amendment, and when the report of the army estimates should come up, he would oppose the reception of it, unless it was accompanied with some pledge of serious reduction on the part of ministers.
Captain Gordonadverted to the charge, that branches of families of rank and influence were placed in the navy, in order that they might receive pensions out of the pocket of the public. How stood the fact? Any person entering the army must serve six years before he would be entitled to half-pay at all. He knew of several officers of acknowledged gallantry and merit, who, after serving thirty years or more, received a pension of about 1801. Surely these allowances were not burthen-some pensions, but limited rewards for services performed to the country.
Mr. Tremayneconceived that the strictest economy was necessary in all the departments of the state, and therefore he should vote for the amendment.
Mr. Hobhousebegged it to be understood that he did not object to the navy estimates generally; but he could not, in the present condition of the country, approve of money being voted without the strictest necessity for it. In thus expressing himself, he trusted he should not be charged with a wish to embarrass ministers. The measures which they had brought forward this session, with the exception of the one last night, had met with his approbation; but, on that occasion, certainly, he thought it to be his duty to vote against them, inasmuch as he conceived they had departed from their own principles. With respect to the necessity of a reduction in the expenditure, he was satisfied, that throughout the country there was but one opinion, that such establishments could not be kept

687
up, especially if ministers persevered in that measure, which he must deem an eminently wise one, of returning to a metallic currency. It was every man's settled conviction, that with the contraction of the circulating medium which that measure would occasion, it would not be possible to keep up those establishments; unless, indeed, ministers had made up their minds to the desperate alternative of breaking faith with the public creditor. The speech from the throne assured the House, that no rupture of the peace of Europe was expected; and the tranquillity of Ireland rendered any additional force in that quarter unnecessary; therefore it would be absurd for ministers to come to parliament this year and demand the same amount of supplies for the army year after year. He imputed no blame to the lords of the Admiralty. He made no charge of partiality or undue influence personally against them. He objected to the system—to the representative system—to maintain which, ministers found it necessary to court the support of the great, by providing for their dependants. One gallant officer, to disprove the charge of improper influence, had told the House of his taking two deserving youths by the hand down to the Admiralty, and introducing them there with success. Why, this was the very case of his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen. Their merits might have claimed and acquired for them promotion without the recommendation of the gallant officer. But, then, what was the effect of his introduction? Surely he ought to recollect how the public would view this transaction. They would not forget that the gallant officer was a member of parliament, and that by some accident or other, he always found himself at liberty. In short, it was clear, that his recommendation was strong, because he was a member of parliament. He knew a captain in the navy, who had frequently declared that it was ridiculous to suppose that any claim made by individuals would be listened to, unless there was parliamentary interest to support them. There were exceptions, he knew, to this; for many gallant officers had risen to the head of the profession without such aid. However, it was a fact well known, that the current of favour generally set the way of parliamentary interest. This was the general impression, not only in the naval service but among the people at large.
The House divided; for the Amendment 15, Against it 43.

List of the Minority.

Allen, J. A.

Russell, lord J.

Cavendish, H.

Taylor, M. A.

Denman, T.

Tremayne, J. H.

Evans, W.

Wyvell, M.

Grattan, J.

Whitbread, S,

Hobhouse, J. C.

Wood, Alderman

Monck, J. B.

TELLERS.

Palmer, F.

Hume, J.

Robertson, Alex.

Davies, Col.

On the resolution, that 896,000 l. be granted for defraying the expense of the half-pay of the unemployed officers of his majesty's fleet,
Sir C. Coleexpressed his regret at the hardships which half-pay officers of the navy underwent, in consequence of their being obliged to employ themselves in other professions, owing to the inadequate provision afforded to them by government. Many of those officers had adopted other professions; some had gone into holy orders; and he could not but consider it as a great hardship that their half-pay, which they had so well earned in the service of their country, should in consequence be taken from them.
Mr. Humebeing the first person who had introduced the subject of officers going into the church, could not help offering a few words. He was anxious to learn what steps government would take with respect to officers entering the church. They did not seem to know how to act on the subject; for an order in council had passed taking off the half-pay of officers in holy orders, and a subsequent order had restored it to them again. He could not but consider it a hardship that in this latter order, an exception had been made with respect to marine officers. It was certainly not fair to give half-pay to one class of officers, and to take it from another. On what principle of justice or policy were officers who had served in the marines to be exempted from the benefits enjoyed by others? From all he could learn, there were but four retired marine officers who were in a situation to claim it.
Sir G. Cockburnsaid, that the system which had always been adopted by the Admiralty was this—that no person in the naval department should be allowed to enjoy half-pay, unless he consented to join the navy again, should his services be required. It was impossible always to act upon this system, government had been attempted to be imposed upon in more than one instance. A person who came

689
in turn to be employed, had written to the Admiralty, requesting to be allowed to go upon the reserve half-pay list; but it being discovered that he was in holy orders, his request was at once dismissed. Another person had been struck off the half-pay list, when it was found that he bad taken holy orders. Not very long since, it had been the practice in the army to suffer half-pay officers who had gone into the church to retain their half-pay; but when the principle came to be considered, the army saw the necessity of the measure adopted by the Admiralty, and it was now an established rule, that every person so situated should forthwith dispose of his commission.
The several resolutions were then agreed to.