Commons Sitting of 4 June 1830

MINUTES
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. O'CONNELL, an Account of the number of Proof-gallons of Spirits imported from Guernsey and Jersey, with the Duly paid there since l826:—On the Motion of Mr. HUME, Contracts concerning the reserved Crown Lands in Canada.
Petitions presented. To Postpone the Court of Session Hill to another Session, by Mr. W. DUNDAS, from the Writers to the Signet, Scotland. For encouragement to Historical Painting, by Mr. A. ELLIS, from B. R. Haydon. Against the Paupers (Irish and Scotch) Removal Bill, by the same hon. Member, from the Overseers of the Parish of St. Marlin's-in-the-Field:—By Lord STANLEY, from the-Constables and Borough-reeve of Manchester. Against the Monopoly of the Apothecaries in Dublin, by Mr. GRATTAN, from Robert Cassidy, an Apothecary at Bray:—By Mr. O'CONNELL., from the Apothecaries of Clare. Against the Employment of Persons by Night in Cotton Factories, by Sir M. S. STEWART, from curtain Cotton Weavers of Glasgow. Against the Sale of Beer Dill, from the Publicans of Uttoxeter. For Freedom of Trade to China, and the Abolition of all Monopolies, by Mr. JOHN WOOD, from the Members of the first Co-operative Society, Liverpool. Against the Administration of Justice Bill, by the same hon. Member, from places in the County Palatine of Chester. Against the Northern Road Bill, by Mr. N. CALVERT, from the Trustees of the Wadesmill Road. Against Stamp Duties (Ireland), by Lord KILLEEN, from a Society at Kilkenny:—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from two Societies in Dublin; from the Inhabitants of Ballybay and Tullycorbet; and from the Inhabitants of St. Catherine's, Dublin. For restricting the Sale of Spirituous Liquors, by Lord STANLEY, from the Salford Temperance Society. For obtaining the Freedom of the Borough of Carlow, by Mr. O'CONNELL, from certain Inhabitants of that place. In favour of the Emancipation of the Jews, by Mr. JOHN WOOD, from the Unitarians of Walmesley, near Bolton. For the Abolition of all Regulations relative to Cotton Factories, by the same hon. Member, from the Spinners of Preston. Against the Medicine Stamp Act, by Colonel PEEL., from the Druggists of Norwich. For the abolition of the Punishment of Death for Forgery, by the same hon. Member, from the Common Council of Norwich.

NEW STREET FROM WATERLOO-BRIDGE.
Mr. Agar Ellispresented a Petition from Samuel James Arnold, the proprietor of the late English Opera-house, in favour of a New Street from Waterloo-bridge to the northern part of the Metropolis. The hon. Member took that opportunity to inquire of the noble Lord (Lowther) what were the views of Government with regard to the subject. In doing so, he did not mean to impute any blame to the noble Lord, who was himself a great improver, for being reluctant to take up the matter. At the same time he was strongly in favour of opening a New Street, to commence at Waterloo-bridge, and extend towards the northern part of the town. The feeling of the public generally, but particularly of the immediate inhabitants of the metropolis, was decidedly in favour of such an undertaking.

1349
He begged to suggest to the noble Lord, that the proposed improvement would correspond well with other improvements which were now carrying on under his auspices. The great proprietors in the immediate neighbourhood of the proposed opening, were anxious to further the plan. He might mention that the Duke of Bedford was ready to make a considerable sacrifice, in order to facilitate it, and the Marquis of Exeter was equally anxious on the subject. Those were the proprietors whose properties lay more immediately in contact with the opening from Waterloo-bridge, and he believed that other proprietors of ground nearer to the British Museum were alike desirous of having the object effected. He hoped that Government would look at the undertaking with a favourable eye. Every body must see, if the opportunity now presented by the destruction of the English Opera-house were lost, and if the theatre were re-built upon the old site, that there would be no chance of opening the new street. In conclusion, the hon. Member asked the noble Lord, whether Government had it in contemplation to lend its assistance in the construction of a new street from Waterloo-bridge to the northern part of the metropolis.
Lord Lowthersaid, he was sensible of the advantage of making the proposed opening, and felt strongly the beauty and convenience that would result from it. However, there were reasons which induced Government to hesitate as to aiding the undertaking in the manner required. The first principle on which Government had acted with respect to improvements in the metropolis was, as far as possible, to confine its exertions to the property and estates of the Crown. This had been the case with regard to Regent-street. An application was made to him in reference to a new street from Waterloo-bridge northward, and he had been induced to represent the matter to the Board which possessed the superior control in such affairs. The members of it conceived, that the only mode in which they could properly lend their assistance would be, with regard to that part of the proposed improvement which might be contiguous to Crown property; and he thought that he might have ventured to propose to the House to advance a sum of 25,000 l., to be employed for the improvement of the Crown property, and in aid of the under-
1350
taking. He feared that beyond that they would be unable to go. If the great proprietors of the adjoining districts, whose interests would be promoted by a new street, were willing to adopt a similar course, and make a correspondent exertion; if other parties (the Waterloo-bridge Company for instance) exerted themselves, the point might be attained. Or the matter could be effected in a different manner, if a general rate were imposed on the public, or on the adjoining parishes.
Mr. Hobhouse, having already presented a Petition from the parish of St. Paul Covent Garden in support of the project, could not but express his regret, that it had not received more encouragement from the noble Lord. The noble Lord must be aware, that unless Government came forward with assistance, partial even though it might be, the undertaking could never be effected, and that if it were not accomplished now, it never could. In consequence of the English Opera-house having been consumed, an opportunity was afforded of making an opening which would be equally useful and ornamental to the metropolis; but if the theatre were allowed to be rebuilt on the original site, the object would be defeated. He must object to his constituents being rated as proposed by the noble Lord; they were taxed quite enough already; the extra rates to which parishes in the metropolis had been subjected amounted to very large sums—too large to admit of any addition, even for the accomplishment of an object so useful as that now proposed. The establishment of the metropolitan police (an exceedingly useful object, he admitted) had added heavily to the parochial rates. The parish of St. George, Hanover-square, in addition to a rate of 76,000 l. for parochial expenditure, would have to raise 12,000 l. for the purpose of defraying the expense of the police alone. He therefore left it to the noble Lord to judge, with how bad a grace a proposition for an additional rate for the construction of a new street would be received. As to the Waterloo-bridge Company, the House had too perfect a knowledge of their condition, from what had been formerly stated by a gallant Admiral opposite, to believe that they were willing, or able, to put their hands into their pockets, for the promotion of a merely national object. If a new street were ever to be opened, it should be attempted now, but the attempt could not

1351
be made successfully without the assistance of the noble Lord and the Government.
Mr. J. Woodbelieved that the noble Lord mistook the feeling of the public upon the subject, if he thought that they would not willingly devote a part of their revenues to so beneficial an undertaking. They looked with great anxiety to the commencement of the work, which would be most useful as well as ornamental.
Mr. Warburtonhoped, that Government would feel disposed to consider the sum small that would be required to effect the object, and the public convenience great, that must result from it when accomplished; and that such being the case, it would lend its assistance to the undertaking. He was peculiarly and personally interested, but he thought that being so did not bias his opinion in declaring that the measure would be very advantageous.
Sir R. Inglistrusted, that at least there would be no objection to the appointment of a committee to consider the conditions and security upon which Government might advance a certain sum for the completion of the plan. At the same time he admitted that Government was justified in pausing and weighing the matter well previous to taking any step.
The Petition to be printed.

SCOTCH AND IRISH VAGRANTS.
Mr. C. Calvertpresented a Petition from St. Olave, Southwark, against the Bill for the removal of Scotch and Irish Vagrants. The hon. Member took the opportunity to say, that he was happy to hear that the noble Lord (Stanley) had postponed the measure until next Session, and he should be still happier if he would abandon it entirely.
Sir R. Wilsonsupported the prayer of the Petition. The time would soon come when Ireland must sustain some part of the burthen of the maintenance of her poor.
Mr. H. Grattansaid, that the bill of the noble Lord was not to be tolerated. If it were entertained, it would have the effect of sending back to their own country all the Irish poor, and ought to be followed up by a bill to send back all the Irish rich. Since 1811 no less than 1,150,000 l. had been collected and spent in Ireland upon the maintenance of paupers.
Mr. N. Calvertsaid, the question at issue, which this bill was to solve to the
1352
advantage of the parishes in the country was, whether London or the country was to pay all the expense of the removal of the Irish and Scotch paupers. At present they made jaunts at the public expense from one end of the country to the other. He would try and put a stop to the practice, by not providing them with the means for carrying it on.
Mr. S. Bourneremarked, that the existing system grew out of the report of a committee of the House, as long since as the year 1817. It had appeared to that committee, that paupers might be removed like vagrants, by passes, and for some time the plan worked well; indeed so well, that a magistrate of Shadwell Police-office had assured him, that the effect had been to compel seventy families in that district to support themselves, instead of coming upon the rates. In time, however, it became liable to abuse, and the result was, the evils now the subject of such general complaint. The proposed remedy of the noble Lord was, however, no remedy at all, and he (Mr. S. Bourne) had made a suggestion to the Secretary for the Home Department, which he thought would be effectual; and that was, that the overseers of every parish should be allowed to give relief to any persons who applied, who seemed to be fit objects of charity, let them belong to what parish they might. This would, of course, preclude compulsory relief upon the orders of magistrates, as it would render them needless. Paupers might then be permitted to go to and fro, from parish to parish, without being interfered with; and a provision being made for the necessitous in every parish, the expense of passing paupers to their places of settlement would be avoided. It seemed to him by far the most equitable principle that residence (say for five years) should give a settlement, and he was confident that the parish authorities would be desirous of affording relief in all cases where it was deserved, without any further compulsion than that of circumstances.
Mr. Dohertysaid, considerable misapprehension existed in Ireland—in Dublin among other places—with respect to the provisions of the bill. It appeared to be supposed, that the bill would introduce a different degree of power with respect to Scottish and Irish Vagrants and their removal, from that at present granted by the existing law; whereas, in point of fact,

1353
the noble Lord's bill went simply to alter the mode of laying on the expense of removal, but effected no alteration in the power of removal. By the law as it stood, there was a power of sending vagrants back to Ireland or Scotland; the proposed bill threw the expense of removal only on the district from which paupers were removed, instead of throwing it on all the counties through which they passed. He had seen reports in some of the Irish newspapers, according to which this was a bill which gave or revived the power of whipping Irish vagrants. As he interpreted the bill, it would have no such effect. The only object of the noble Lord was, to effect a new arrangement as to defraying the expense of removal, leaving the power of transmitting vagrants exactly where it was under the existing law. It seemed to be thought that the power of whipping a vagrant was only conferred in cases where the vagrant was an Irishman. Such was not the case. If a vagrant were sturdy and disorderly, he could be sent to the House of Correction at present, and whipped, whether he were Welsh, Scotch, English, or Irish. The noble Lord's bill did not add to this power. He should be the very first to oppose the bill, if it enacted (as was imagined) that Irish paupers should be whipped before they were sent out of the country. He was glad to have this opportunity of setting the matter right. This was simply a bill to arrange the expense of transmission: was it not a cruelty to endeavour to persuade the people of Ireland, that such a disposition existed in the House of Commons as to induce them to pass a bill for whipping Irishmen, because they were Irish?
Lord Stanleyrose, to explain the course he intended to take with respect to his bill. His intention was, to give up the measure for the present year. In the next Session he should bring forward another measure on the same subject, which, if the House would permit him, he should read a second time, and then refer it to a select committee up-stairs.
Mr. O'Connellwas sure, that the noble Lord had no intention of reviving the practice of whipping Irish vagrants, but that certainly would be the effect of his bill, if any body chose to carry it into execution, for it went to repeal the comparatively recent Statute, which made whipping no necessary part of the operation of send-
1354
ing home Irish vagrants; and by so repealing that, revived the Statute which it had repealed, and under which the Irish vagrants were liable to be whipped. Nothing, it was clear, could be easier than to obviate that inconvenience in the form of the bill. But he would still assert, that n its present shape the sending to the House of Correction, and the whipping, formed a necessary part of the proceeding preliminary to the paupers being sent to Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman then adverted to the proposed introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland, and observed upon the faulty condition of the system in this country. The Parliament of Great Britain had been endeavouring to amend the Poor-laws during a period of 300 years, and at the present moment, they were, if possible, more faulty than ever. Those who were not strenuous advocates for the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland, ought to remember that the Subletting Act was one of the causes which placed the population of Ireland in its present condition—that Subletting Act might be exceedingly convenient to gentlemen of large landed property, who wished, in the language of the day, to clear the estates—yes, the clearing of estates was spoken of as familiarly in Ireland as the clearing of land in America—in the one country, trees, and in the other human beings, were treated in the same manner.
Mr. Littletonthought, that the measure might be further matured this Session, and even referred to a select committee, in order that it might pass at an early period of the next Session. It was now the season of the year when the Irish labourers came to this country, and the bill, in order to be brought into just and effectual operation, ought to be made known to the parties interested before they left their native country. He therefore recommended the noble Lord to advance the measure further before he allowed the present Session to pass away.
Mr. J. Grattanexpressed his satisfaction that the bill was to be given up, for he was prepared to give it his most strenuous opposition.
Mr. G. Dawsonthought it very unfair that the Irish and Scotch poor should be saddled upon the English landholder. He thought the only way to prevent this was to pass a declarative act, to the effect that such poor should not be of right entitled to relief here. If the emigrants from Ire-

1355
land knew that they would not be passed back at the expense of this country, he was sure that they would not come here. He therefore concurred in the views of his right hon. friend (Mr. S. Bourne) near him.
Sir G. Philipsthought that the measure proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Bourne) opposite would meet all the difficulties of this subject.
Mr. Estcourtwas of opinion that the suggestion thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Bourne) ought to be attended to.
Mr. R. Palmerconcurred in the proposition of his right hon. friend (Mr. S. Bourne), and thought that a measure on that principle should be introduced this Session.
Mr. C. Calvertwas glad to hear that the noble Lord intended to postpone this measure. With respect to the measure of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Bourne) he could not, until he heard more of it, pledge himself to support it.
Mr. S. Bourne, after repeating the nature of his proposition, said, that the learned member for Clare was quite mistaken in supposing that the Act respecting whipping would be revived by the bill of the noble Lord. That Act was altogether repealed, and no case of whipping could possibly arise, even if the noble Lord's bill, as it now stood, should pass into a law.
Lord Stanleywas glad to hear that the hon. and learned member for Clare was wrong in his law on this subject, because nothing could have been further from his (Lord Stanley's) intention than to revive such enactments. Under all circumstances, he thought the course he had already mentioned would be the best he could follow—namely, to withdraw the bill for the present, and to refer a measure of the same nature to a select committee in the next Session.

ABOLITION OF SUTTEES.
Mr. S. Wortley Mr. S. Wortley moved, that there be laid before the House copies of Despatches from the Governor-general of Bengal in Council, the Governors of Madras and Bombay, containing copies of any Proclamation in those Presidencies for the Abolition of the practice of Suttee. The hon. Member stated, that the House would see by these despatches, that the order for the abolition of this practice had been already issued in Bengal and Madras, and though it had
1356
not, at the date of the last despatches, been issued in Bombay, it was probable that it had been issued since.
Mr. F. Buxtoncongratulated the House and the country on the abolition of this barbarous custom, and thought the noble Lord at the head of the government of India was entitled to great credit, for his humanity and firmness in doing that which other Governors-general had been afraid to attempt.
Motion agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS.
On the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Order of the Day was read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Ways and Means.

FOUR-AND-A-HALF PER CENT DUTIES.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that as he was anxious at all times not to impede the public business, and most anxious at all times not to obtrude his observations unnecessarily on the House, not having in any motion of his any factious object, or any merely party purposes, and being convinced that the Motion he intended to submit to the House related to a great constitutional question—before he brought it on, he wished to make a proposition to the right hon. Gentleman. His proposition was this:—That his Majesty's Ministers should undertake, without loss of time, to bring in a bill to limit the prerogative of the Crown to import commodities free of duty, to such commodities as were for the use of the Crown, and not allowing it to import commodities free of duty, for sale, particularly the sugar which was sent here in payment of the 4½-per-cent-duties, from Barba does and the Leeward Islands. If Ministers would accept his proposition, and bring in such a measure, it would take away the necessity of making the Motion of which he had given notice, though he should reserve to himself the right, if he were not satisfied with the measure, to bring forward a Motion on the subject hereafter.
Sir Robert Peelwas glad of the opportunity of making that statement before going into the committee, which his right hon. friend would have had to make. It appeared, that according to the principle of the Constitution, nothing was more clear than that it was the prerogative of the Crown to bring into the country any commodities without the payment of any

1357
ordinary duties; and it was quite clear that this prerogative extended to the sugar which the Crown received in payment of the 4½-per-cent duties. It was, He asserted, quite clear, according to the constitutional law of this country, and the common law, that this sugar was not subject to pay Customs' duties. That was the fact in point of law. The proceeds of those duties (the 4½-per-cents), though evidently belonging to the Crown, were not appropriated to any personal, but to public objects; and were applied to diminish the charges on some other public funds. At the same time, he was not prepared to contend that the Crown could import commodities for sale in the market, except on payment of duties, like other persons. Neither was he prepared to say, that the prerogative, though existing constitutionally to this extent, might not lead to public inconvenience. He was not prepared to say, that the prerogative, if wholly unlimited, might not lead to abuse. It was therefore the intention of Ministers to place the prerogative under such a limitation, that the sugar for sale should not be brought into the market without paying the Customs' duties. His right hon. friend would have to introduce a legislative measure on the subject to the House. He should reserve himself for further explanation when the measure was submitted to Parliament, and then the hon. Baronet would have an opportunity of seeing if the enactment merited his approbation.
Sir James Grahamsaid, he should not consult the feelings of the House if he did not accept the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman. He hoped, when his Majesty's Ministers brought in a measure to limit the prerogative, that it would be such as would command the assent of Parliament. He was glad to see the Ministers undertake this from a sense of what was due to constitutional principles; and in particular the measure gave him satisfaction, as it prevented him from trespassing on the House at some length. It would be more satisfactory to the House and the public also to see the Ministers do this, not from compulsion but a sense of duty.
Mr. John Stewarttook the opportunity to call the attention of the Colonial Minister to the monopolies which existed in Ceylon. They had been adverted to the other evening, and must be, he was quite sure, inimical to the prosperity of the colony and. destructive of its revenue,
Mr. Huskissonexpressed his unfeigned satisfaction at what he had heard from his right hon. friend, the Secretary of State, and that it was his intention to bring in a bill to avoid trying the question of extreme right. With his right hon. friend he held that the right was clear and unqualified in the Crown to bring in all the articles that were required for the consumption of the Crown, free of duty. Such was unquestionably the prerogative of the Crown; but it was one thing to state that prerogative as a question of a constitutional character, and another to stand on the exercise of an extreme right, when that might tend to public inconvenience. It was clear that by the law the sugar sent in. payment of the 4½-per-cents might be exempt from duties, but he denied that the order given two years ago, to exempt those sugars from the payment of duty, was consistent with the public advantage. Let the House look at the practical result of such a measure. A person went into the market and bought some of this sugar that was sent here in payment of the 4½-per-cents; he would buy it at the market price, and he would pay for it what was called the long price, which included the duty; the broker who sold the sugar would hand over the proceeds, duty and all, to the agent for the 4½-per-cents, but the purchaser might go immediately afterwards to the Custom-house, and, if he exported that sugar, demand the whole drawback. That was a state of things that was open to many inconveniences, and ought not to be suffered to continue. He hoped, therefore, that the measure would limit the right to import commodities duty free to such as were for the use of the Sovereign himself.
Sir Charles Wetherellcontended, that the Sovereign had the right to import whatever he pleased for his own use, duty free. He had several other rights of property of this kind, such as the right to the Droits of Admiralty, to wrecks, and others—and the Ministers, if they pleased, might give up these and all other rights, but he hoped they would not give up his opinion. To contend that the Sovereign had not the right to import commodities without paying duties, was to say that his Majesty must not travel from London to Windsor without paying tolls on his own roads. The House could no more levy duties on the articles for the Sovereign's use, than it could make him pay a shilling or a six-

1359
penny toll. The hon. Baronet supposed a case, that the Crown descended from its dignity and commenced trader; and if such a case were brought before the Parliament, he should express his opinion on it, but that was only a case supposed by the hon. Baronet. The Crown could not descend from its dignity to be a trader. Several Members of that House had rights similar to those of the Crown. If the hon. member for Cumberland had a manor with sea coast, and the Crown had given him the right to wrecks which might happen, he might, if a cargo of sugar or rum came by that means into his possession, bring it into the country without paying any duty whatever, because he did not import it as a merchant. When the bill mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman should be brought in, he should have an opportunity of delivering his sentiments on that; he would for the moment content himself with affirming, that the Crown had the right to import what it liked duty free, and that its rights had been frequently acknowledged by the Courts.
Mr. Brightthought the prerogative of the King in this respect was much more extensive than the hon. and learned Gentleman had described it to be; and, although it was not always exercised, there could be no doubt of its existence. He was very much afraid that the bill now announced to the House, so far from limiting that prerogative, might, perhaps, enable the Crown to devise new means for its being called into operation, and therefore, he now gave notice of his intention to watch its progress, and examine thoroughly its details.
The Attorney Generalcould assure the hon. Member, that the bill meant neither to encroach on the prerogative nor to extend its privileges; its object was to adjust that portion of the royal privileges by which certain commodities were imported, and might subsequently be sold, duty free, to the level of existing usages and institutions. The sugars alluded to stood on a different ground from other articles which the Crown might import free of duty.
Mr. Baringhad, from the very first, looked on this exercise of the prerogative of the Crown with great jealousy, and he rejoiced at the prospect of a full and complete settlement of all the questions to which it gave rise. Notwithstanding what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, in this
1360
case there had been an actual importation for sale on the part of the Crown. The Crown had descended to be a merchant, and against future acts of the same kind it was necessary that the Parliament should guard. It might, if it pleased, import wine duty free, it might import the spices it monopolised at Ceylon, it might import the wool of the King's flocks from Hanover, and, in short, it might, if the principle were admitted, become, as was the case in some countries, the one great merchant. He looked, therefore, on this exercise of the prerogative of the Crown with great jealousy, and he trusted that it would now be defined and abridged.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, he had always endeavoured, as much as possible, to support the just prerogative of the Crown, but he could not conceal from himself, that the exercise of a power of this kind should be dispensed with, and that it was necessary to put an immediate termination to all the speculations or suspicions which it might call forth.
Mr. Brougham, approved of the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel), and declared, that a proper limitation of the prerogatives of the Crown was the surest method to fix them on a permanent basis.
Mr. Humethought, that the time was come, when the exercise of prerogatives of that kind should be put an end to for ever. He did not see, too, on what principle the ambassadors of this country, who were so well paid for their services, should possess a privilege beyond the rest of his Majesty's subjects, and he hoped that the practice with respect to them would also be abandoned. The right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) admitted that he had received 50,000 l., being the amount of two years duty on these sugars. He (Mr. Hume) hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, as he was going to bring in a bill to abolish the practice, would also refund the 50,000 l.. which it appeared he had appropriated without the consent of Parliament.
Sir C. Wetherellsaid, in explanation, that the only object he had in view in the few observations which he had addressed to the House was, to vindicate the official law opinion which he had delivered with respect to the West-India sugars, which, he still maintained, the Crown was entitled to import and sell duty free.
The House went into a Committee.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved a Resolution to the effect that a sum of 4,000,000 l. sterling should be granted to his Majesty out of the consolidated fund, to make good the supplies of the current year.—Agreed to.
The House then resolved itself into a

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.—MINT COINAGE.
Mr. G. Dawson Mr. G. Dawson moved that 19,000 l. be granted for the charge of Gold and Silver Seignorage for the year ending January, 1831.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsubmitted to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the propriety of making some alteration in the present mode of doing business at the Mint. At present there was no charge for seignorage, and the expense of coining for individuals from bullion was defrayed by the public. He thought it would be much better were some charge affixed which would save the public this expense, and at the same time not hold out a bounty to melting the coin of the realm. He should object, however, to any seignorage exceeding the cost of the coining, as that would be pro tanto a depreciation of the currency.
Mr. Warburtondid not agree with his hon. friend, the member for Dover, that there ought to be the imposition of this seignorage, for such a charge would be equivalent to a depreciation of the intrinsic value of the coin of the realm to the amount so imposed. In the French Mint, a charge amounting to 100,000 l. a year was levied for seignorage of gold and silver coin, and the expenses of the Mint of France were nevertheless greater to the public than were those of the establishments in this country.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonexplained, that he was misunderstood by his hon. friend. He had never intended to impose an expense calculated to depreciate the coin; but merely required a payment, in the shape of seignorage, equivalent to the expense incurred by the public in performing the work of coining for individuals.
Mr. Davies Gilberthad a great objection to any plan of seignorage, for the effect would be, that the amount, be it one or two per cent, or whatever other sum, would fall on the last holder of the coin, in addition to his loss by the depreciation of weight.
Mr. Humewished to know in what manner the profit of eight-and-half to ten per-
1362
cent upon the coinage of silver was appropriated for the public service. It was known that this profit was considerable, and it ought to go in reduction at all events of the 19,000 l. a year which was expended at the Mint.
Mr. Herriesreplied, that there had not been of late any silver coinage, except about 100,000 l. for the Colonies, during the year before last. At one time there had been a considerable profit on the coinage of silver at the Mint, but the amount was duly carried to defray the expense of the gold coinage. The latter had always been charged to the public (without seignorage) since the reign of Charles 2nd. It was obviously necessary to maintain the establishment for its prompt fabrication, to guard against the difficulties to which the transactions of the country might be exposed upon an emergency arising out of any fluctuation of the exchanges. The 19,000 l. now required, he must observe, was not for the establishment of the Mint, but to pay the expense incidental to the gold coinage.
Mr. Baringlooked upon the present plan at the Mint as not only one by which the public sustained an unnecessary loss, but as furnishing likewise a premium to the party who brought his bullion to the Mint for coinage, at the expense of the country. The question of seignorage was, he knew, a difficult one; and there were many different opinions concerning it, but he believed that there could be but one opinion of the plan followed at our Mint. Whenever parties took bullion there they immediately received coin in its place, so that if the market price of bullion were equal or a little lower than the settled price given at the Mint, the owners of the bullion made a large immediate profit at the public expense. This was absurd. At least, those who carried bullion to be coined should wait till it was coined, and not receive money for it immediately. To keep a large quantity of money ready coined to meet such demands was a great expense. The system ought, in his opinion, to be altered.
Mr. Herriessaid, that the business of the Mint was governed by fixed regulations, which were deemed salutary for the public. Formerly the mode of transacting it was such that the Bank of England became the sole great importer or monopolist of bullion, and enjoyed from that situation a profit upon procuring coin for individuals.

1363
Having the monopoly it never gave more than 3l. 17 s. 6d. per ounce for bullion, while the Mint price at which it received coin in return was 3l. 17 s. 10½d. The Bank sent its bullion to the Mint, and could afford to wait a short time to have it coined, because such a corporation must always have a quantity lying idle in its coffers, and the interest of the money was therefore no object to it. Not so individuals; they could not afford to lose the interest of the value of their bullion for four or five weeks, while it was in progress of coinage at the Mint, and the consequence was, that they were obliged to deal for this money with the Bank. This course had, however, been of late altered, and, as he believed, beneficially for the public. In the committee of 1819, the House would probably recollect the valuable evidence given by Mr. Mushett, of the Mint upon this subject, which suggested a great improvement in the Mint practice and price. On the occasion when the change in the currency was soon after carried into operation, it was deemed right to act upon Mr. Mushett's suggestion. The Government was then naturally anxious to afford every facility to the public to meet the new state of things which that change must cause, and they had prepared a large issue of metallic currency to meet the withdrawal of the paper-money as speedily as possible. A good deal of the silver at that time provided was not eventually wanted, and the funds so employed were afterwards used in promoting the supply of gold coin, so that all the arrangements providently tended to suit the public wants. By thus throwing open the facilities to the public at large, which were previously enjoyed by the Bank, the importing merchant became a gainer to the amount of nearly one-half per cent, and the expense of the Mint was still only the same to the country that it was when the Bank, from the circumstances he had already stated, enjoyed the whole profit of the supply of coin. Surely, then, the present practice was preferable for the public generally. If the country returned to the old system, the Bank would gain all the advantages, it would again become the monopolist of the coin, and would make a profit at the expense of individuals.
Mr. Baringexplained, that even this advantage was given to individuals at the expense of the public; and why, he again asked, should the latter be called upon to
1364
give a premium to people to import bullion for individual profit? He denied this alleged advantage of coining for nothing, and thereby giving a premium of that kind. He knew very well that Mr. Mushett was an able, and excellent public officer, and he knew also that he had acquired (honourably and fairly it was true) a handsome private fortune. It appeared from the evidence which he gave before the committee, that his office at the Mint derived a profit from the quantity of coin there provided. By the change in the system, the right hon. Gentleman had taken the public money from the Bank and given it to individuals. The right hon. Gentleman had done that on mistaken principles, for the Bank never had a monopoly, and could not have had without a very great sacrifice of capital. It derived certainly some advantage from the former practice, but not sufficient to tempt individuals to enter into competition with it, which they might have done. On the subject of the silver coinage he would beg leave to make a few remarks. In his opinion, the silver coinage of the country was placed at this moment in a very awkward predicament. He did not mean on so inconvenient an occasion as the present to go into the comparative merits of a gold or silver standard for coin, but he must remark, that the current value of the silver coin, and the market price of silver, stood at this moment in a totally different proportion towards each other from that in which they did when the last Act passed, and yet the Act was expressly founded upon that mutual relation. The Act regulated that 66 s. should be coined out of the pound weight of silver, worth at the market price intrinsically 62 s., and it was founded on the opinion that this difference of value would not be a sufficient inducement to the coiner to produce false money. But what was the case now? The difference was as 59 s. to 66 s., so that the relative value between the metal and the money, which was the whole foundation of the bill, had of late entirely altered in favour of the fabrication of a spurious coin, and the subject must, he had no doubt, in another Session be entirely looked at and revised. He had heard something of the excess of the new silver coinage which had been prepared at the Mint, and he thought that first the manufacture of the money and then the withdrawal of this great load of silver, was a clumsy, awkward, and

1365
absurd operation. Where was the bulk of this silver now? It clearly was not in circulation, for it was admitted not to be required. Was it in the Bank or the Mint? The right hon. Gentleman talked of the value of affording facilities to the public to obtain specie. But, he would render much more advantage to the community would he enable persons to import the precious metals from the States of the New World, at a less expense than at present, than he could render by this gratuitous plan at the Mint. It was very material to reduce the expense of freights, and much more good would be done by that, he was convinced, than by employing the funds of this country to coin bullion free of seignorage for individuals. Besides, he had heard there was a spurious silver coinage in circulation, concerning which, he should be glad to obtain some information.
Mr. Herriesexplained, that there had not been within the last three or four years any new silver coinage, except that for the Colonies. The coinage alluded to was that prepared after the passing of the bill for putting an end to small notes and to facilitate its operation for the public. He was at the same time willing to admit that he believed there was at present a larger silver coinage than the wants of the country required, and he apprehended the surplus was accumulated at the Bank, for there was none in the Mint. As to the rumour that there existed a spurious silver coinage which had found its way into circulation he meant not a counterfeit or false coin but one of silver, of the same quality and fineness as the Mint coinage, which was supposed to have been fabricated in a foreign country and introduced into this to secure the profit which might be derived from the difference between the nominal value of the coin and market price of the silver. He had not the leas reason to believe there was the smallest truth in this supposition; indeed, from all the information which he could obtain, he thought there was no truth in the rumour, and for this reason, a quantity of silver coin had been selected as spurious, and sent to the Mint, where it underwent a careful examination, when the result was, that every single piece was ascertained to be the genuine fabrication of the Mint He had no other reason than this for disbelieving the rumour, and he knew that pot a single piece other than the legitimate
1366
silver coin had been detected at the Mint. Many examinations had been made to detect the supposed imposition, but in no instance had any thing been discovered different from the true coin. He had already said, that the expense to the public was now the same as when the Bank had the chief business of providing bullion in its hands, but the public generally had greater facilities than formerly, to get bullion coined, and now shared in the advantages that were formerly the exclusive possession of the Bank. The public certainly could not lose by the Government keeping prepared a considerable supply of coin ready for the public service; it must always have large balances in its possession; and was it not just as well, if not bettor, that these should be in the shape of gold coin ready for issue than lying dead at the Bank? There was no additional expense, and there was a provident arrangement for the public service.
Mr. Huskissondid not mean to argue that the expense of this Mint process was greater than the advantage derived from the increased facilities afforded to the public in the manner mentioned by his right hon. friend; but he quite agreed with the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Baring) that great public benefit would be derived from decreasing the expense which was at present attendant upon conveying the precious metals into this country. By increasing the facilities of transport a real advantage would be derived, and a saving of at least one half per cent assured for the importing merchants. Why should the merchants who speculated in the import of bullion have a duty of two per cent, and sometimes, if the vessel touched at Jamaica and other places of 3 or 3½-per-cent imposed upon them for its conveyance in Government packets or ships of war? He knew for a certain fact, that the importation would have been infinitely greater from South America, if it had not been for the existence of this tax. Merchants were quite ready to pay the same freight as was paid for public treasure brought in the King's ships.
Sir G. Cockburnsaid, that the tax was not so great as the right hon. Gentleman had stated. Its average was formerly only about one and a half per cent, it was at present at most two per cent. The reason of the imposition of the tax was, because the naval officers had often to make good great losses to the merchants. He

1367
knew a case in which an officer had to make good to merchants the fourth part of the invoiced treasure. It would be most unjust not to give such a remuneration to the officers as would cover the risks they ran. Another reason for increasing the charge was, that the Admiralty desired to discourage the practice of sending bullion by the King's ships. The advantages of that were so great, that captains sometimes ran after freights rather than after pirates. He had, however, to add, that henceforward, the freight was to be the same from Rio Janeiro as from Jamaica; and that it was intended that in no case should the freight be more than one and a half per cent.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, that any naval officer carrying public treasure would consider himself well paid at one per cent. He therefore thought that the freight paid by merchants ought to be much lowered. In the case mentioned by the gallant Admiral, the captain had himself to blame, as it was his duty to see that the bullion shipped accorded with the invoice. He did not think that the responsibility of the commanders of packets would be found of much avail, should the treasure they were intrusted with be found deficient.
Sir G. Cockburnobserved, that there was a great difference between officers carrying money for the Crown and for merchants. If an officer used every proper care of the money intrusted to him on the part of the Crown, but should by misfortune lose it, the Crown would absolve him from repayment. But in cases of money intrusted to him by merchants, he was responsible to the whole extent of his fortune for its safety.
Mr. Alderman Thompsoncomplained of the high rate of freight imposed on merchants, inasmuch as there was an invariable agreement that the naval officer should only be responsible to the amount of one quarter of the sum intrusted to him. As to the other points brought under discussion—the advantage of individual importers of bullion—that was much exaggerated. The advantage which the Bank gained was trifling, as it was always obliged to keep a large balance in hand.
Mr. Maberlythought the Government had a right to charge a freight for money imported in King's ships, but he thought that the profit ought to be put in the public purse.
Mr. Humereminded the House how often he had pressed the subject upon the Government. If a naval officer were a Member of the House, or connected with Government, he was immediately put into a fast-sailing frigate, which sailed along the coast of South America, took in one or two millions of dollars, and thereby put into the pocket of the officer 20,000 l. or 30,000 l.
Mr. Baringremarked, that the only return for British manufactures from South America was gold and silver, and unless bullion were brought home upon fair terms, the effect would be, to destroy the trade.
Vote agreed to.

LAW EXPENSES OF THE CROWS.
Mr. Dawson Mr. Dawson moved, that a sum not exceeding 7,000 l. be granted to his Majesty, to defray the expenses arising out of Prosecutions relating to the Coin of this Kingdom for 1830.
Agreed to.
On the question, that a sum not exceeding 15,000 l. be granted to his Majesty, to defray the expenses of Law Charges for 1830, being put,
Mr. Gordonwished to know whether these expenses were incurred by the Treasury, for the prosecutions, or rather persecutions of the Press during the last year. In 1829, the sum voted for fees of Counsel was only 2,289 l., while the Estimate for the present year was 3,139 l. He also observed on the practice of employing a great number of Counsel. In the prosecution of Mr. Alexander six Counsel, he believed, were employed for the Crown, while a private individual would perhaps only employ two or three. He hoped the hon. Gentleman opposite would give a detailed estimate of the manner in which the sum voted last year was expended, previous to bringing up the Report.
Mr. Dawsonsaid, that the sum for fees of Counsel was lower this year than last. The vote for this year was not proposed upon a calculation of the probable expenses, but upon the average expense of the three preceding years. With respect to the number of counsel employed, probably his learned friend (Sir J. Scarlett) would give the House a good reason for that. He must, however, state, that the fees paid by the Solicitor of the Treasury were much lower than those paid by private individuals.
The Attorney Generalthought he was bound, on the occasion of the prosecution which had been adverted to, to give his Majesty the benefit of the Counsel whom he considered most efficient. He was perfectly ready to show, that the charges in this instance were usual and reasonable, and he was ready to meet any motion which the hon. Member might bring forward on the subject. It was a matter of great, and he might add, indispensable convenience to the Attorney General to have the assistance of King's Counsel in cases of this description. He and the Solicitor General were often called out of Court on such public occasions, when it was important that they should be present, and it was necessary in such instances to have Counsel ready to take upon them the management of the case. If the hon. Member himself should happen to be engaged in an important suit, and if such an humble individual as he (the Attorney General) should be fortunate enough to be employed as his Counsel, and if he should be called out of the Court at the critical moment, as he frequently was, to attend his public duty in the House of Lords, in the Court of Exchequer, or before the Privy Council, the hon. Gentleman might then find the necessity and convenience of having Counsel employed to assist him and to take his place in his absence; now what the hon. Member would think right and proper in his own case, he should concede to be right in the case of Government. As to the number of Counsel, it was not greater than was usually employed in such cases. That was his answer to the hon. Gentleman, and it was all the answer he was prepared to give to him on the subject. As to the fees that had been paid in these cases, they were not equal to the fees which were often paid in private prosecutions. He thought he had now answered all the questions and the statements of the hon. Gentleman. He might be allowed, however, to tell the hon. Member, that if he was anxious to make personal attacks upon him, he ought to do so in the regular way, by bringing a specific motion before the House. Let him do that, and he would be then ready to meet him. Let him do that, and not assai him by those side-wind attacks, and by calling prosecutions, which he in the discharge of his duty felt himself bound to institute, "persecutions." He thought it
1370
was an unworthy use, for any Member to make, of the privilege which he possessed in that House, thus incidentally to make attacks upon an individual for which he was not prepared at the time, and with the full refutation of which he could not upon such an occasion occupy the time and attention of the House. He was most willing, most anxious, that the whole line of his conduct should be submitted to the decision of a vote of that House, and he would be ready to stand or fall by the vote of the majority. He should be sorry, indeed, to find any thing like a large minority against him, but he was confident that such would not be the case. He should be very sorry indeed if many Gentlemen in that House participated in the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Cricklade, and at all events he should derive some consolation from the reflection that his conduct did not meet with the approbation of that hon. Member. He would say, that it was not fair, upon asking a question, to make a public attack of this kind, and that a question of finance should not have been introduced by an expression conveying a sarcasm and a sneer. Something had dropped from the hon. Gentleman which seemed to insinuate that he received a great portion of the fees paid for those prosecutions. Now he was ready to meet the hon. Member, if he would make a specific motion on the subject, whenever or where-ever he pleased. Of the fees which were paid to Counsel in all the various departments, and of which he could assure him that the Attorney General received a very small portion, the hon. Member would have an opportunity, by a return which would be laid before the House in a few days, of seeing the amount; he would then find that the office of Attorney General was one that was not overpaid, and that the labour of the office was considerable, while the remuneration was comparatively small. And as he was now on his legs, he would take the opportunity to remove a mistake which had gone abroad on the occasion of a bill lately passing through that House—he alluded to the notion which appeared to have been taken up by the public, that the Attorney General would derive considerable emoluments from a demise of the Crown. He had taken some pains to ascertain the fees which would in that case be received by him, and by the Solicitor

1371
General upon every patent which would then possibly be renewed. It was only fair to assume, that not more than two-thirds of them, that is to say about 200, would be renewed; in that case he hoped the hon. Member would just attend to the kind of work which the Attorney General had to do in each of those instances where patents were renewed. The Attorney General had to prepare the bill; copies of the bill when prepared were sent round to the different offices, and after the bill was approved of and signed by his Majesty, it was carried round to the various offices, and for all that the Attorney and Solicitor General, who prepared and arranged the bill, received only a fee of 5l.; and the whole of the Patent Clerk's fees amounted only to 3l. 15 s. He believed that the whole amount charged was far less than would be charged by a Solicitor for doing an equal quantity of business for a private individual. He hoped the House would forgive him for making that explanation on such an occasion. The bill from which had originated the misapprehension which he was desirous to remove was generally discussed at three or four o'clock in the morning, so that he had no opportunity then of disabusing the public mind of the erroneous impression that the Attorney General would derive great emoluments from a demise of the Crown. It should be recollected that the sum charged in this estimate was for Treasury business, which branched into a variety of departments, and he thought that the estimate was, under such circumstances, a very small one indeed.
Mr. R. Gordonwould in the first instance say a word as to what had been said by the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Treasury, as to the amount of those fees to Counsel charged in this estimate. The hon. Gentleman had said, that 3,139 l., the amount charged, was not taken upon the expenditure of last year, but was the average of the three preceding years. Now the hon. Secretary for the Treasury was exceedingly unfortunate in that statement, for it appeared that the amount of fees charged in the three preceding years was as follows:—in 1829, 2,189 l.; in 1828, 2,819 l.; in 1827, 2,700 l.; so that he (Mr. Gordon) was perfectly at a loss how to make out that 3,139 l. formed the average amount of the fees charged in those three years: so much for the arithmetic of his hon. friend
1372
the Secretary for the Treasury. A word now as to his Majesty's Attorney General, if indeed so humble an individual as he was might venture to say anything in the presence of that great personage. The learned Gentleman had complained of his having used the word "persecutions," and he had maintained that it was unfair to apply that epithet to what were only prosecutions. Now he would venture to tell him, Attorney General though he might be,—that as long as he retained a scat in that House, he would never fail there, as well as every where else, to call those prosecutions "persecutions." He would use that term whenever and wherever he pleased, and he would not be put down by his Majesty's Attorney General for using it. The learned Gentleman complained that he had preferred an accusation against him in reference to those prosecutions, but could he say that he accused him in his absence? The learned Gentleman was present, and he had every opportunity afforded him to answer for his conduct. If he had not been present, then he might have justly complained that he had been making charges against him, and attacking him behind his back. But he had pursued an opposite course, and he had stated fully and fairly, in the presence of the learned Gentleman, and before the House, that he considered those prosecutions persecutions. The learned Gentleman had talked about the propriety of his (Mr. Gordon's) bringing forward a specific motion on the subject, and he said that an opportunity might be easily found in that way for arraigning his conduct, when he should be prepared to meet whatever charges might be preferred against him. Why the thing had been done already, and what was the result? A majority of that House, which his Majesty's Attorney General could seldom fail of commanding, pronounced a decision in his favour. At present, indeed, and for some time past, he had heard rumours of other motions on the subject. The hon. member for Newark had been whispering about a motion of the kind, but he had never brought it before the House. He would tell the learned Gentleman, that if he had been more constant in his attendance in that House, he would not have heard now, for the first time, that accusation preferred against him of which he so much complained. During his absence from the House on various occasions, hon.

1373
Members on that side of the House had expressed an opinion similar to that which he (Mr. Gordon) had expressed with regard to those prosecutions; and if he had used a strong word, in calling them "persecutions," he was sure that his constituents and the country at large would sympathize with him in that feeling. He should only add, that when the House resumed, he should take advantage of the facility offered by the Secretary for the Treasury, to move for a detailed account of the charges incurred for those prosecutions. The learned Gentleman said, that if he (Mr. Gordon) should happen to have a suit, and should employ him to conduct it, that he would join other Counsel with him certainly; but he would retort the comparison on the learned Gentleman; he would consider this charge against the public as he would consider a charge in his solicitor's bill, and he must object to that to which he should object if he found it in the bill of his solicitor. It was quite plain, of course, that the Attorney and Solicitor General could not each he in two places at once; but were they to be paid for being so? Were they to receive fees for being there when it was impossible that they could attend? He conceived that this estimate was well worthy of the serious consideration of the Committee.
Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, that they had been told, that a portion of this money had been issued for the payment of fees in suits. He inferred from that statement that the suits in question were suits in Chancery; and he was anxious to obtain information as to the number of suits of this description which had been instituted by the Treasury, and the amount of property which had been thus acquired for the Crown. It was well known that all the effects of persons who were born illegitimate, and who died intestate, devolved to the Crown. He believed that large estates of that character had devolved to the Crown. His attention had been called to the subject by a professional gentleman, who acted as solicitor for an individual who claimed as the legal descendant of the deceased, but who was defeated. In that case the sum of 90,000 l. came to the Crown. He should wish to know what was the amount of the sums so received, and how those estates had been disposed of; for as they were in general extremely profitable, they should
1374
at least pay the costs incurred in the suits instituted for the recovery of them. The Attorney General had stated that they would speedily have laid upon the Table of the House a Return of the fees paid to the law-officers of the Crown, and that it would be seen from that, the Attorney and Solicitor General were very moderately paid. It. would be well for them to have such a Return laid before the House, for it would go far to remove the erroneous impression which prevailed throughout the country, and in which he (Mr. Harvey) would confess that he participated, that those parties were not too much employed for the emoluments which they received. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated truly and candidly, that the whole of the fees paid to the law-officers of the Crown were not so great as were paid to Counsel when employed by individuals. But still they were paid in many cases for doing nothing, and that was a great tax and a great hardship upon the public. He would refer the learned Gentleman to the case of charities. Before any individual could present a petition under Sir Samuel Romilly's Act to file an information, it must first be considered and approved by his Majesty's Attorney General. He could speak of one individual case, and there were, no doubt, many such, in which the Attorney General received his fee, to give his fiat to a petition for an information in the case of a charity, and he finally determined that no information should be filed in that case. Here was the Attorney-General of England enabled, in his private character, to act as the party, and as the judge, without the responsibility which attached to the discharge of the functions. The learned Gentleman, though he disapproved of the information, was enabled to retain his fee in this instance. This was conduct which he did not at all mean to charge as peculiar to the present Attorney General. It was the line of conduct which had been uniformly pursued by his predecessors in that office, but it was at the same time a great blot upon the administration of justice in this country, and one which ought to be removed. He would contend that when persons applied to the Attorney General to file an information in the case of a charity, and when they had it certified by eminent Counsel that it was a fit case for an information, it was a great hardship that the Attorney General should have the

1375
power of refusing to allow such an information to be filed. He should in a few days have a petition to present on the subject, and might then perhaps go into it more at length. As the Attorney General had stated that the law-officers of the Crown were not over paid, he would say that he agreed with him that they were not over paid for what they did, but he certainly thought that they were over paid when they were paid for what they did not do, as in the instances of charities. The system with regard to them was a cruel one; in all instances of charity-cases in the Court of Chancery the Attorney General was not present, and yet in every one of them he took a brief. It was no wonder, then, that the impression prevailed in the country that these officers were rather too well paid. He had moved for Returns of the amount of all the fees in all those suits in the Equity Courts, into which he believed the present Attorney General never went, and in which, therefore, he had nothing to do, though he received fees in all those cases. As the practice of the hon. and learned member for Plympton lay in those Courts, when he was Attorney General, he was of course present at those cases. He (Mr. Harvey) had no objection to the Attorney and Solicitor General receiving large fees for that which they did, but he was of opinion that they should not be paid for merely receiving money.
The Attorney Generaltrusted, that on the present occasion he was entitled to claim the attention of the House, while he replied to the statements made by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. With regard to the subject of charities he had this to say—the power of investigating and regulating public charities was vested in the Crown, and that power was delegated to his Majesty's Attorney General; and whether it were right that such a power should be so delegated or not, he would not now say; but this he would say, that so long as it was vested in him, as it was, he would keep that right, and he would not allow the hon. Member or any other person to take it from him. If the hon. Gentleman should choose to apply to file an information in the case of a charity, and have the certificate of a Counsel in support of it, and if the facts should not afterwards appear to warrant such an information, he should only be doing his duty by preventing him from filing it. He
1376
felt that he only did his duty in that way in regard to the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred. There had been sent to him from several quarters, copies of a circular letter which had been distributed throughout the country amongst the trustees of the various charities, of which letter probably the hon. Gentleman knew something, and which was to this effect—"You (meaning the trustees to whom it was addressed) are in the receipt of funds for some charity, and we are desirous to have an account from you as to how those funds have been expended; and we are ready to impart to you important information with regard to the charity in question." The letter concluded with a threat, that if it were not met in a corresponding spirit, they would file an information against them at the suit of his Majesty's Attorney General. Such a circular letter had never been authorized by him, nor by the Commissioners for inquiring into charities; and if any individual entertained such a mistaken notion, he wished to take this public opportunity to disabuse him of it, and to set the public right upon the matter. If any individual, a party to this letter, filed an information as a kind of adventure to bring a person into Chancery, and the Attorney General should discover that the information so filed was a wrong one, it was his duty to keep the proceedings in his own hands, the authority being vested in him. He had done his duty, in cases of that kind to the best of his judgment, and if similar cases should occur again, he should endeavour to examine them to the best of his ability, and not to allow any man, under any pretence whatever, to take from him that power which had been placed in his hands. He knew that in one or two cases in which the hon. Gentleman was concerned, objections had been taken by him to the filing of the informations, and into the details of those cases he should not enter at present, as they were not before the House. He would content himself with remarking, that he had examined them to the best of his judgment. He wished it to be generally understood, that the Attorney General never sanctioned the circular letter to which he had called the attention of the House; it had never been authorized by him; and if any trustee of a charity had been so far misled, as to suppose that it had been sent round by the directions of the Commissioners of

1377
Charities, or of the Attorney General, he was anxious, by this public contradiction, to set such individuals right upon this matter.
Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, that the learned Gentleman had made a strange exhibition on this occasion. To any Gentleman who heard him it must have been evident that the Attorney General appeared to be under the impression that he was in a court of law, and not in that House, for he seemed to think that he might deal out to individuals here the same treatment which he did to the unfortunate parties who came under the lash of his forensic talents in a court of law. The hon. and learned Gentleman had complained of what he called the sarcasms of the hon. member for Cricklade. He (Mr. Harvey) would not accuse the hon. and learned Gentleman of employing sarcasms against him, for that would be giving him credit for wit which he did not possess, but he had certainly dealt out a great quantity of coarseness against him, which the House might estimate as it deserved. It was rather odd that the learned Gentleman, who put forward assumptions to a purity of intention which he would not concede to others, should have on this occasion so completely perverted the spirit of a printed letter which could scarcely have been misunderstood if it had been read to the House. In doing that, the hon. Gentleman with his usual dexterity, had diverted the attention of the House from that point with regard to which he (Mr. Harvey) had required an answer from him. He alluded to the amount of fees charged for those suits with respect to charities in Chancery, in which suits the hon. Member had been in the habit of taking fees for doing nothing, though it had been recommended by the law-commissioners as one remedy for the abuses in courts of justice, that learned Counsel should confine themselves to the court, and not go into other courts to scramble for fees for doing nothing. That was what the learned Attorney General had done, for he had taken fees in those suits in Chancery where he could do nothing, as his practice did not lie in that Court. But the hon. Member alluded to a circular letter which had been sent round to the trustees of charities. He (Mr. Harvey) gloried in being the author of that letter. He would venture to say, that the Attorney General would never be the author of such a letter.
1378
[Laughter and cheers from the Ministerial benches.] He was glad to hear that cheer before he assigned his reason for the assertion he was about to make, for it proved that it was given without any reason for it. He would say, that the Attorney General would never write a letter in such a spirit—it was not a letter written to bring fees to its author for doing nothing. He had never made to the amount of 6s. 8d. in that way by it. His intention in writing it was to call the attention of the various trustees of the different charitable corporations in the country to the plunder and waste which was made of those funds which were destined for the poor. The country had paid from 200,000 l. to 300,000 l. for Commissions of Inquiry on this subject, and yet he (Mr. Harvey) could not file an information when he had discovered an abuse in the management of a charity, and wished to apply the remedy to it, without obtaining the leave of his Majesty's Attorney General. He could refer to many cases to show what he had done to remedy such abuses. He should instance one which a worthy Alderman opposite (Alderman Thompson) must be aware of—he meant the case of the Ironmongers' Company. The funds of this corporation were very large. It had an accumulation of upwards of 100,000 l. arising from an estate of 3,000 l. a-year, which had been left to it originally to be applied to the rescue of English slaves captured on the coast of Barbary. Happily for this country such a condition was not now required to be fulfilled; and the question was, whether this money should not be applied to some charitable purpose, instead of being left to accumulate in the hands of this most famous toast-drinking and turtle-eating Company in the city of London. It was for that purpose that the inquiry had been instituted by him with regard to the charitable funds vested in that Company. It was for a similar purpose he (Mr. Harvey) had written the letter which had been mentioned; and he should continue to write letters in that spirit, however they might be characterized by the hon. and learned Gentleman, who would no doubt continue to receive his large fees in the Court of Chancery, where he never practised, and consequently, where he did nothing for the money which he received.
The Attorney Generalsaid, if the hon. Member were prepared to bring forward any

1379
motion on this subject, he should be prepared to discuss it with him on the proper occasion. The hon. Member said, that he had written the letter in question, and that he did so through the purest motives. Of course every Gentleman in that House would give him credit for such motives when he claimed it. It might so happen, however, that the letter would be the means of securing to him some profits. At all events, lest it should be misunderstood, he would repeat that no such letter had been authorized by the Commissioners of Charities or by the Attorney General.
The Solicitor Generalhoped that the House would allow him to say a few words in reference to the case of the Ironmongers' Company, to which allusion had been made by the hon. member for Colchester. He begged leave to say, that as to the result of that case, the hon. Member appeared to be entirely mistaken. No pretence existed to justify any one in stating to the commissioners that there was any intention on the part of the Ironmongers' Company to mismanage or misapply this money; on the contrary, it was shown that all their regulations with regard to it were framed to meet the intentions of the original founder. The only difficulty was with regard to the application of the money, so as to comply with the conditions specified by the founder. He must say, that it appeared upon investigation, that the money had been managed by the Ironmongers' Company in the best possible manner. The hon. Member had no reason whatever to take credit to himself, for having by his vigilance obtained the proper application of that fund. With regard to the controlling power possessed by the Attorney General as to the filing of informations in cases of charity, he would observe, that when the Legislature thought proper to confide that power to the Attorney General, without the authority of a relator in Chancery, it was done so in order to guard those individuals who might be connected with charities from any improper bills being filed against them. The hon. Member for Colchester expressed a wish that this state of the law should be altered, and no doubt there were many others who shared in that opinion. But if bills could be filed in any case without such a control, the number of such bills would be vastly increased, and the public would have to lament the result. He did not wish to impute any personal motives to the hon.
1380
member for Colchester; it might be quite true that he had written this letter from the purest motives, but one object of the letter which had been sent out would ad-pear to be to get cases. He did not say that there was any thing wrong in his doing so, but he did not see what right that hon. Member had to get up in that House and assume to himself the credit of nothing but pure charity and benevolence in writing that letter. The fact was, that the hon. Member who had written that letter had filed more informations against the trustees of charities than any Solicitor in London. He must object to that hon. Member's bringing his private business in this way before the House. What was his complaint against the Attorney General? That in the execution of his duty he had taken an information off the file, by which he had suffered great loss. The Attorney General, seeing that the information was an improper one, would not allow it to be proceeded with, and it was natural that the hon. member for Colchester should feel sore upon that point. It was to guard the Trustees of Charities against the filing of vexations bills and informations against them that this controlling power had been confided to the Attorney General. If such a protection did not exist, it would not be possible to get gentlemen throughout the country to undertake the office of Trustees to charitable institutions. It would be an important object for the hon. member for Colchester to achieve, to get rid of that control, for, as it was, he had filed more informations than any solicitor in the United Kingdom. He (the Solicitor General) had already stated that he did not impugn or attack his motives: he was only desirous to show the feeling which actuated the hon. Gentleman, and which was, no doubt a very proper and a very fair one,—namely, to bring grist to his own mill. In pursuing his professional career that might be a very fair and proper course; but it was right that the House should be aware of the objects of the hon. Member. He contended that the chief inducement to any man of professional eminence, in taking office, was not the pecuniary remuneration, but the rank and station which he derived from it. Pecuniary remuneration there certainly was for the office which he had himself the honour of holding; but he assured the Committee that he should receive twofold the pecuniary remuneration which he

1381
now received as Solicitor General, if he were to give up to his private clients the same amount of time which it was now his duty to devote to his public functions.
Mr. Alderman Thompsondefended the conduct of the Ironmongers' Company, and contended that they had not been guilty of any misapplication of their funds. He wondered how the hon. member for Colchester could bring forward charges in that House, when he knew that the whole case must shortly undergo judicial investigation elsewhere. The hon. Member had told the Committee that a bill had been filed against the Ironmongers' Company. Why had he not told the committee that the Company had put in its answer, and that the Lord Chancellor had ordered that the funds in question should be distributed pendente lite as they had been distributed for the last fifty years? Those funds had never produced more than 200 l. a year; and had never been expended in eating and drinking, as the hon. Member had so boldly averred. An account had been kept of the manner in which they had been expended; and if the hon. Member would inspect it, he would discover that nothing could be more unfounded than the invectives in which he had indulged. He begged pardon for intruding upon the attention of the committee during this irregular discussion; but connected as he was with the great Corporation which had been so unexpectedly attacked, he felt that he should have neglected his duty if he had allowed the observations of the hon. Member to pass entirely unnoticed.
Mr. Humesaid, that if any person were justly liable to the accusation of irregularity upon this occasion, it was his Majesty's Attorney General, who had introduced a letter into the discussion which had not the slightest connexion with it. The hon. and learned Gentleman had been asked, why he condescended to take fees for suits instituted in his name in the Court of Chancery, when he never went into that Court, or took any part in conducting them. It was a plain question, and admitted, as he (Mr. Hume) thought, of as plain an answer. But the hon. and learned Gentleman, instead of giving the Committee a plain answer to a plain question, did not vouchsafe to give it an answer at all, but endeavoured to divert attention to a very different subject, by going into a letter of which he hinted, more than
1382
stated, the substance. The hon. member for Colchester had made no accusation against the hon. and learned Gentleman: he had only said that certain measures went through the hon. and learned Gentleman's hands, for which he received a certain amount of fees without performing any amount of duty. The hon. member for Colchester deserved well of his country for the exertions which he had made to restore to the defrauded poor their property; and of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite would therefore have acted more prudently by assigning to him the credit which he deserved, than by loading him with misrepresentations, which had much better have been spared, and by talking of a letter which he had never seen. All that might serve very well to take the attention of the Committee for a time from the subject regularly before it; but he trusted that the Committee would not be deceived by so stale a manœuvre. For his own part, he must say, that he entirely concurred with the hon. and learned member for Plympton, in considering the late proceedings against the press not so much prosecutions as persecutions. He was at a loss to conceive how the hon. and learned Gentleman had been able to justify, even to himself, the institution of them. His imagination must have been strangely perverted, his views of public events and of public principles must have been marvellously altered, by his change of situation, and by the place from which he took them; for when the hon. and learned Gentleman sat upon the Opposition side of the House, he was accustomed to admire him as a friend to freedom and an enemy of oppression. Every speech which the hon. and learned Gentleman had made from that side of the House tended to produce that impression upon his mind: but his actions, now that he had changed sides in the House, were all contrary to the character which had gained him his present situation,—he meant the character of a generous and liberal Whig, who had deserved and obtained a leading influence with his party. He appealed to the Whigs, if a Whig were yet to be found in that House, and he asked such of them as had formerly been the associates of the hon. and learned Gentleman, whether they were prepared either collectively or individually to approve—he would not say to applaud—his conduct in the late political prosecutions. He had never met with

1383
any Whig who had not condemned those prosecutions, and who had not lamented, in the most poignant terms, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had become, at the close of a long life of honour and eminence, the persecutor of those liberal opinions which he had for so many years so warmly supported. He would avail himself of the present opportunity to ask whether the Lord Chancellor had, paid the expenses of the prosecution which he had instituted against certain persons in his individual capacity; or whether those expenses were included in the sum charged in the estimates for expenses incurred in carrying on public prosecutions? That was a point on which he thought it most essential that the committee should forth-with receive some distinct information. He repeated the declaration that the prosecutions recently instituted against the press were persecutions, and said that the best proof of that assertion was to be found in the fact, that they had not ceased until the ruin of the individual against whom they were directed was completely effected. He had heard that such an intention had been avowed on the part of the Government. Now, if such an avowal had been made, how satisfactory it must be to the Government,—how gratifying it must be to the hon. and learned Gentleman and his liberal associates,—a satisfaction and gratification, however, which he did not envy them,—to find that by bringing all their combined influence against an obscure individual, they had at last succeeded in effecting his ruin, by the numerous prosecutions with which they had overwhelmed him.
The Attorney Generalwished to confine himself to a simple answer to the question which had been put to him by the hon. member for Aberdeen, inasmuch as he was convinced that all who were acquainted with his private character would do him the justice to believe that he was not likely to feel gratification at the ruin of any man. The expenses incurred in the prosecutions instituted on behalf of the Lord Chancellor, after it had been taken up as a public prosecution were, he had no doubt, included in this item. He could not positively say of his own knowledge that they were, because he had not the drawing up of this estimate. To the remainder of the observations made by the hon. member for Aberdeen, he would only reply, that he did not know till that evening that in pro-
1384
secuting the individual alluded to, he had been prosecuting an individual who advocated liberal principles. Neither did he know that that individual was a Whig. If he was, he had taken a most effectual mode of concealing it, by pouring the most unqualified abuse upon that party at all times and upon all occasions.
Mr. Dawson rosefor the purpose of stating that the expenses of the ex-officio information filed on behalf of the Lord Chancellor were included in this estimate.
Mr. D. W. Harveydenied that he had made any such attack upon the Ironmongers' Company as justified the remarks which had been made upon his conduct by the hon. member for the City of London. He believed that the members of that Company thought that they had done as well as the members of other companies of "the great Corporation;" and he did not mean to say that they had done worse. All that he had complained of was, that they had had a large sum of money unemployed for years, or if employed, employed on no visible object save that of eating and drinking. It appeared to him that the learned Solicitor General had upon this occasion run wild very unnecessarily. The learned Gentleman had accused him of adopting his present course for the purpose of gaining popularity; and if he might judge from the exhibition which he had just seen, the learned Gentleman was rather envious of the honour which he fancied was acquired by a reformer of abuses. He certainly, and he was ready to acknowledge it, did wish for some popularity, and he believed that the Solicitor General, much as he disguised the fact, was equally anxious to obtain a share of that; else how was it that an inflated account had been published of certain journies made from Lincoln's Inn to the Fleet Prison, and of certain accounts then and there taken of the sufferings endured by a certain class of prisoners? He repeated what he had said before, that so far was the attempt to remedy the abuses of charitable institutions from deserving attack in that House, that he believed that whoever made it was undertaking a work of great utility. The twenty-two volumes of Reports on Charitable Institutions, which had cost the country upwards of 300,000 l. showed the perversion of funds amounting to 1,000,000 l. per annum, although the commissioners had not yet extended their investigations over half the country. It

1385
was well known that the sums set aside annually by public charities for the relief and education of the poor amounted to more than 2,000,000 l.; and yet almost half of them presented cases of perversion, which required immediate correction. In spite of all that had been said to the contrary, he would still contend that the man deserved great praise who redeemed a single charity from misapplication. He never said any thing against the lawyers, but he expected to have a-hard run made against him by the whole body of them in the House; but though he might get crushed between the heavy waggons of the learned Attorney and Solicitor General, the anticipation of that fate would never deter him from getting up to attack those learned Gentlemen when he considered their conduct to deserve attack, or to vindicate himself when he thought their aspersions rendered his vindication necessary.
Sir E. Knatchbullrose, for the purpose of repeating the question which had been already put by the hon. member for Montrose. He thought that he had heard that question answered in the affirmative. If it had been so answered, he, for one, wished to have a further explanation.
Mr. Dawsonrepeated, that the expenses incurred by Lord Lyndhurst in prosecuting an individual for a libel against him as Lord Chancellor, had been included, as the prosecution was taken up by the Crown, under the charge of law expenses for the last year.
Sir E. Knatchbullwanted to know the grounds on which such a resolution had been adopted. A great constitutional principle was here at stake, and he should like to hear some satisfactory reason, if such a reason could be given, for so unprecedented a proceeding.
Sir C. Wetherellsaid, that unless some of his Majesty's Ministers explained to the Committee, before this estimate was put to the vote, why Lord Lyndhurst's application for a criminal information was abandoned, and an ex officio information filed in its stead, he should move that so much of this estimate as contained the expenses of prosecuting that ex officio information to judgment, should be disallowed. The Committee would recollect that he had had an opportunity of discussing a part of this important question before, and he had then promised, that after he had obtained the papers for which he tad moved, he would renew the discussion
1386
of it in a more enlarged form upon a future day. He had also stated, that it was his intention to bring in a bill to remedy the practice of which he had complained. That bill he had been prevented from bringing forward, owing to the state of business in the House: but he had it ready prepared, and would move for leave to bring it in on the first open day. He would not lose sight of the principle on which it was founded; and if the House should, it would lose sight of that precaution which it was so necessary to keep in view against the improper application of power by Attorney-generals. The Committee would recollect, that upon the occasion to which he had already alluded, he had expressed his opinion that the Lord Chancellor had done right in applying to the Court of King's Bench for a criminal information on his private suit. He had also stated, that if originally an ex officio information had been filed for the libel against him in his public capacity, that course would not have been objectionable. But he had also contended then, as he contended now, that the change of the former of these proceedings for the latter was at once oppressive, illegal, and unconstitutional. Having that opinion himself, he should like to hear the opinions of other hon. Members upon that point: and with that view, unless he received a more satisfactory explanation than any which he had yet heard, he should move that the expenses incurred for the ex officio information should be disallowed.
The Attorney Generalhoped, that the Committee would feel that he was now most unexpectedly called upon to address it at some length upon a subject that was pointedly personal to himself. He had had no previous notice given to him that a question as to the propriety of his official conduct would be that evening raised in Parliament. Not one of the hon. Gentlemen who had that evening thought fit to pass such sweeping censures on his conduct, had had the courtesy to intimate to him that they intended to bring under the notice of the Committee of Supply, that part of his public conduct which had already undergone discussion once, and which was to undergo a discussion a second time, whenever the hon. and learned member for Plympton should think fit to bring it on by moving for leave to introduce a Bill to prevent the

1387
recurrence of such conduct in future. He had promised the House, that whenever his hon. and learned friend should be ready to renew his attack, he would be ready to meet it, and to vindicate himself, as he hoped he had already vindicated himself, to the satisfaction of every just and honourable mind; for he felt that upon this subject, at least, he had a conscience void of all offence. If he were now addressing himself to the judges of his conduct, he trusted that they would act with the impartiality of judges, and listen to his defence before they proceeded to condemn him. He complained that it was a strange and cruel proceeding for him to have to rise in his own defence in a Committee of Supply, without any previous notice that charges were to be made against him. [Hear, from Sir E. Knatchbull]. What was it that the hon. Baronet meant by that cheer? Did the hon. Baronet mean to say, that he had had the courtesy or the candour to give him previous notice of his attack? If a question were to be raised upon his conduct in the Committee of Supply, surely, in common candour, he ought to have had some notice of it. [Confusion, and cries of "Order."] He did not know from what part of the House, or with what intention, the clamour was raised; but he did hope that hon. Gentlemen did not come into that House with an intention to stop their ears against the claims of justice. He took it for granted that the expenses incurred in prosecuting the ex officio information filed for the libel against Lord Lyndhurst, were included, as soon as that prosecution was made a public prosecution, in this estimate; and he took it for granted, because it was quite clear that they ought to be so included. It was now proposed by his hon. and learned friend, the member for Plympton, that they should be disallowed, on the ground that the filing of that ex officio information was illegal and unconstitutional. Now it was necessary to remark that that information was conducted by the public prosecutor. Was it usual, he would ask, in committees of Supply, when Members were called upon to vote the expenses of the Government, to object to them without previous notice, on the ground that the purposes for which those expenses were wanted were unconstitutional? He requested that he might be properly understood. Such prosecutions as those now under discussion might
1388
be unconstitutional; but was it usual to object to them as such in committees of Supply? His hon. and learned friend, the member for Plympton, had brought forward the subject of these prosecutions at an early period of the session, in a shape in which he did not call for a decision of the House upon them, but only for papers to enable the House at a future period to come to that decision. The Committee would recollect that it was at his own instance that those papers were granted, in order that the House might have before it the means of forming and expressing an opinion upon his conduct. He was desirous of haying the opinion of the House expressed in a distinct and intelligible form, instead of having the subject brought forward incidentally, upon all occasions, sometimes when he was present, sometimes when he was absent, but at all times when he was precluded by the forms of the House from replying to the animadversions made upon him. He well recollected the time which his hon. and learned friend, the member for Plympton, had occupied in making his accusations against him, and also in replying to his defence. He well recollected that at half-past 12 o'clock at night, and not till that late hour, was he called upon to reply to his hon. and learned friend's prolix charges. He might deceive himself as to the effects produced by the defence which he had then made: but he thought that he had satisfied not only the House, but also his former and his present associates, if the hon. member for Aberdeen must draw such a difference, that he had not acted in these prosecutions either oppressively, illegally, or unconstitutionally. Since that time he had been waiting for the further explanations which his hon. and learned friend the member for Plympton, and another hon. Member, his ally, had threatened to make upon this subject. His hon. and learned friend, the member for Plympton, said that he had not foregone his avowed intentions upon it,—that he had prepared a bill, involving the principles which he had propounded in his speech, and that he now had that bill in his pocket. If so, why did not his hon. and learned friend bring it forward at once? With respect to those prosecutions he must say, that he had not heard one gentleman, either in that House or out of that House, declare that the libel on the Lord Chancellor

1389
ought not to have been prosecuted. He knew that there were many gentlemen, both in and out of Parliament, who disapproved of all prosecutions for libel. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the opinion was right that there ought to be no public or criminal prosecutions for libel, he would ask hon. Gentlemen to consider, whether, as long as such criminal prosecutions were the law of the land, they ought to let that abstract opinion influence their judgment in deciding upon this, or upon any other particular case? The opinion in question might be a proper opinion; but as it was at present the opinion of individuals only, ought it to be applied to this particular instance? He would ask them to reason for a moment by analogy. It might be, that many of those who then heard him were of opinion that the law of the country as to primogeniture was wrong and injurious; but would they hold that to be a sufficient reason for saying at present that the heir at law should not succeed to his ancestor's estate? Gentlemen might be of opinion that no prosecutions ought to be instituted for libel; but whilst the law of the country remained as it was at present, would they hold that opinion to be a sufficient reason for saying that this particular prosecution was illegally conducted? He next came to another class of reasoners, who thought that no ex officio informations ought to be filed. He would not enter into the discussion of that question at present—they might be right or they might be wrong; but so long as the power of filing ex officio informations was allowed by the practice of the Constitution, ought they to quarrel with the exercise of it in any particular case? He now came to the consideration of what that particular case was. He requested the particular attention of the Committee to what he was going to say, premising, at the same time, that as he had been unexpectedly, without any previous notice, called upon to make a defence a second time—
Mr. Baring roseto order, but was so inaudible, that the Members called upon him to "speak out." He was understood to protest against the irregularity of this discussion. The Committee had already lost more than two hours in the discussion of a subject which had nothing whatever to do with the estimate then before it. In former times it was not usual to talk so much; the consequence was, that they
1390
did more, and proceeded without circumlocution to the business of the State. The single question before the Committee was this,—were the expenses of prosecuting the ex officio information filed by Lord Lyndhurst against the Morning Journal included in this estimate? A reply had been given in the affirmative, and that had led—
Mr. Broughamalso rose to order. He was sure that his hon. friend, the member for Callington could not have heard, or if he had heard, could not have attended to the whole of this discussion. He agreed that upon this occasion the Committee had wandered widely from the real question before it, and he was sorry to observe that that was a practice which was daily becoming more prevalent, both in that and the other House of Parliament. If, however, his hon. friend had determined to call the House back to the question, he thought that he ought to have carried his determination into effect before his hon. and learned friend, the Attorney General had been put upon his defence. He contended that his hon. and learned friend, the member for Plympton had put his hon. and learned friend the Attorney General upon his defence by his mode of proceeding that night. The question which his hon. and learned friend the member for Plympton had raised was this—" I will not vote the expenses of filing the ex officio information on behalf of the Lord Chancellor,"—for the private prosecution instituted by the Lord Chancellor he took it for granted would be paid out of the Lord Chancellor's private funds—"I will not vote the expenses of the ex officio information, until I hear the Attorney General explain why he changed the one proceeding for the other." That might be an inconvenient mode of proceeding for the Committee,—it might be an unfair mode of treating his hon. and learned friend the Attorney General; but as it had been adopted, he did think that his hon. and learned friend ought not to be interrupted now that he had been put upon and had commenced his defence.
Mr. Baring: If there be any question of constitutional law at issue between the two learned Gentlemen, it is hard upon the Committee, which has met for business, to have its time wasted in settling it now.
The Attorney Generalproceeded to state, that no one felt more strongly than he did, the inconvenience which had arisen

1391
from the irregularity of this discussion. He understood that this vote was objected to, on the ground that the expenses to be covered by it had not been regularly incurred. He was going to discuss that point at the very moment when his hon. friend had interrupted him, by calling him to order. He was going to state why the private information filed by the Lord Chancellor had been abandoned, and why the ex officio information had been instituted in its stead. The Lord Chancellor was a high officer of State, an attack was made upon him for his conduct in his office; a charge was preferred against him, that for a sum of 30,000 l. he had appointed the present Solicitor General to his office. On consideration of the matter, he thought that this charge was preferred against the Lord Chancellor in his public capacity; and thinking so, he felt it to be his duty to file an ex officio information against the person who preferred it. That many of his predecessors had exercised the same power was a matter too clear to be denied. Many years ago a libel was published against the Duke of Grafton, then holding high office in his Majesty's councils, charging him with corruption, as falsely, he had no doubt, as the libel in question charged the Lord Chancellor with it. The Attorney-general of that day filed an ex officio information against the libeller; and no objection was urged against him for so doing. So, too, in various other cases, ex officio informations had been filed by Attorney-generals, for libels imputing great and dangerous offences upon other Ministers. Now, if there were any Gentlemen who thought that ex officio informations ought never to be filed, to those Gentlemen he would say nothing: for the question before the Committee was, supposing the right to file ex officio informations to exist in the Attorney General, was the libel on the Lord Chancellor a proper occasion on which to exercise that right. He contended, that it was. He wished to add, that in his eagerness to defend himself the last time that this subject was before the House, he had omitted a case which told very strongly in favour of his recent conduct; that was the case of a public officer,—not a Minister of State,—who had instituted a prosecution against an individual for a libel. When he had the honour to be Attorney General, in 1827, Lord Wallace, then Mr. Wallace, who had been appointed chairman of a commission
1392
to inquire into the mode of collecting the revenue arising from stamps, made an answer in his place in Parliament to a charge which had been brought against him in his public capacity by Mr. Barber Beaumont. His opinion was, that Mr. Wallace ought not to be left to prosecute that case himself, but that he should be defended from a rude and violent attack, in consequence of a speech made by him in that House, by a public prosecution on the part of the Attorney General. He (the Attorney General) was happy that he could cite, not only his own authority in approbation of this course, but that of the hon. and learned member for Plympton, who, when he succeeded him as Attorney-general, sanctioned and adopted the prosecution, and went into the Court of King's Bench, and obtained a verdict. As that prosecution on behalf of a person in a public employment—though it was true he had ceased to be so—had met the approbation of his hon. and learned friend, he must ask why the Lord Chancellor was not to be treated in a like manner, when he was attacked in the discharge of his public functions? If it were a fit subject for public prosecution, he did not see why he ought to have neglected to file an ex officio information; and if he did so, he could not see why the expenses of that prosecution, as in all other similar cases, should not be paid. Whenever any hon. Member should think fit to bring forward a motion respecting the grounds upon which he had instituted a public prosecution, he should be prepared to explain the reasons. He agreed that this was not the best time to make the explanations which he had given to the Committee, but he appealed to its candour and indulgence. The Committee had been invited not to pass this vote without an explanation from him; and he had explained that the transaction was a fit subject for a public prosecution, and he therefore did not think it to be his duty to leave it in the hands of a private prosecutor. Having stated this, he left it to the consideration of the Committee to deal with the vote as it thought proper.
Sir E. Knatchbullhad not been aware, that in discussing the estimates it was requisite to give a previous notice of any topic to be discussed: it was the first time he had heard so monstrous a doctrine. The question arose out of matters which could not be known to him till he was in

1393
the Committee, yet the hon. and learned Gentleman complained of being taken by surprise. As to the propriety of the prosecutions in question, though he had an opinion of his own, he expressed none. AH he wished to know was, whether those prosecutions were conducted at the public expense. The hon. and learned Gentleman had referred merely to that on behalf of the Lord Chancellor; but there were several, and he should be glad to know if those other ex officio informations were at the public expense. On the general question, as to whether the expenses of prosecuting libels on high public officers should be defrayed by the public, he might have something to say; it was a question of much importance; because, if they were to be so defrayed, he did not know how far that circumstance might not operate as an inducement to an Attorney-general to file such informations. That was a constitutional question which admitted of discussion. But he confessed that he was not satisfied with the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
The Attorney Generaldid not complain of the course pursued by the hon. Baronet. The hon. and learned member for Plympton had said, that unless some explanation on the subject was given to the Committee, he should propose an Amendment, rejecting the vote; and he remarked, that in a matter somewhat personal to him (the Attorney General), he thought the courtesy observed in the House called for some previous notice of it. In answer to the question which had been proposed by the hon. Baronet, he stated that the expenses of all the ex officio prosecutions were included in the public estimates. He begged it to be understood, that no information was filed by the Lord Chancellor, it being his (the Attorney General's) judgment that he ought not to proceed in it.
Mr. Wigramsaid, that he could not vote for the estimate: the Lord Chancellor, in his opinion, was in the same situation, when attacked in his private capacity, as another individual, and should defend himself in the same manner.
Mr. O'Connellhoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir C. Wetherell) would bring this question to a decision, by moving his Amendment to strike out of the Estimates the expenses of the Lord Chancellor's prosecution. It was a most unnecessary waste of the public money, not because a foul libel had not been pub-
1394
lished, but because that libel had been put in a way of being prosecuted. The Lord Chancellor had been foully libelled, and he proceeded to prosecute the libeller. He obtained the answer of Mr. Alexander upon oath, and after he had put the defendant to the torture of this proceeding, what occurred? Why, for the first time,—for no case had been cited where an Attorney-general, after a defendant had put in his answer on oath, had commenced a second prosecution—for the first time, the Attorney General availed himself of the discoveries contained in the answer, acquainting himself with the man's defence, and filed an ex officio information at the public expense. He would oppose the vote—first, because the proceeding was totally unnecessary; secondly, because it was unconstitutional, and was a double prosecution for the same offence. Was a British subject ever—he would not say exposed to such persecution,—but placed in such a predicament before? It had been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the person thus prosecuted had not advocated liberal opinions. What consequence was it what that individual's opinions were? He had as much right to his opinions, be they what they might, as the hon. and learned Gentleman. That man was now in gaol: no wonder, as he was prosecuted at the public expense. He did not complain that he was prosecuted. Let him be prosecuted; but let not the public pay for the prosecution. As to the want of notice, was not the vote itself a notice?
Sir R. Peelsaid, that whatever might be the opinion of the House on the question now before it, he was certain that no other Member would be prepared to give his vote on the same grounds as the hon. and learned member for Clare. He had said that the prosecution was vindictive: if so, let the House mark its sentiments, by reprobating the conduct of the Attorney General; but Jet it not degrade itself by such a paltry mode of reprobation as that of reducing the votes on the Estimates. Was there ever such a miserable mode of dealing with a great constitutional question? Was there ever an instance of an attempt to subject a Lord Chancellor and an Attorney-general to censure, by diminishing a vote of 100 l.? And what if the Lord Chancellor had paid out of his own pocket the expenses of the prosecution, instituted by the Attorney General?

1395
Would not the hon. and learned member for Clare be among the first to charge him with vindictiveness on that very ground, and cite it as the strongest instance of an unjust and vindictive feeling? He had never yet seen a gentleman placed in such a situation as his hon. and learned friend beside him. When he had been expressly challenged to justify his conduct, he had been called to order by an hon. Member, and told that he ought not to proceed in an explanation into which he had been forced quite by surprise. He must say-that his hon. and learned friend had not been fairly dealt with. He was called upon, without any public notice or private intimation, to vindicate his conduct in these prosecutions; and he would ask, whether this was a convenient opportunity for discussing that subject? A motion on this question had been made by the hon. and learned member for Plympton, who had protested against a private prosecution being changed to a public one. The House had decided against it. [No, no.] Well, the House had given no vote upon the subject; but the hon. and learned Member had given notice of a motion, which was to bring the whole subject before the House. Not content with this, the hon. member for Newark had also given notice of a distinct motion to a similar effect. Neither of these hon. Members had persevered in his motion; and was it therefore probable that his hon. and learned friend could expect that he was this night to be called on to enter into the whole question? Although it was competent for any hon. Member in a Committee of Supply to introduce any question he pleased, yet, as a matter of convenience, it was desirable to limit questions as much as possible to pecuniary matters, unless distinct notice were given. A pecuniary consideration certainly arose out of the question of the hon. Baronet, whether the expenses of the Lord Chancellor's prosecution were defrayed out of the public purse. If they were, they were defrayed by the vote of last year. He hoped they were, for he thought it far better that the charges of such prosecutions should come from the public funds, rather than from those of individuals. He would say, that although his (Sir R. Peel's) name had been introduced into an information, he would not pay the expense of it. The Attorney General had instituted that prosecution, not out of regard for his private feelings,
1396
but because he had, as Secretary of State, been unjustly libelled. He had done so without communicating his intention to him; and could there be any thing more absurd and unjust, than for him to be required to pay the expenses of a prosecution, in respect to which he was not even consulted? It was the duty of the Attorney General to protect public servants from attempts to run them down whilst in the performance of their public duties; and it was right that the Lord Chancellor should refuse to pay the expenses of such a prosecution. He should propose that, before the report be considered, and before a grant be made to defray these expenses, in order that the House should not adopt a proceeding implying the slightest censure on the Attorney General, or on the Lord Chancellor, or on any individual connected with those prosecutions, that an inquiry should be made, and the facts fully stated to the House, as to whether it were usual for the public to pay the expenses of such prosecutions. If it be the practice, and that practice be wrong, it was certainly competent for the House to alter it. The course he proposed, therefore, was that the vote should pass, and that, prior to the report, the facts should be fully stated to the House.
Sir E. Knatchbullwas satisfied with the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman. It would then be for the House to decide on the sufficiency of the explanation.
Mr. Sadlerstated, that the reason why he had not brought forward his motion might be seen in the state of the Vote-paper. The hon. Member was proceeding to refer to the subject of Ship-money in the reign of Charles 1st, when he was interrupted by violent coughing, and obliged to discontinue.
Sir C. Wetherellwould withdraw his intended Amendment, as the proposal of the right hon. Secretary he thought was a fair one. The information he wanted was, whether any instance could be cited in which a private information had been commenced and abandoned in order to give an opportunity for the institution of a public one. The hon. and learned Gentleman, and the right hon. Secretary, seemed rather to be retiring from this question. He maintained that no such instance had ever occurred in Westminster-hall, and if no such case was brought to light, he should persist in proposing a reduction of the vote,
Sir R. Peelexplained, that he had never contended that a committee might not discuss great constitutional questions; but he had contended that, in a Committee of Supply, and on a vote, it was generally customary for the Committee to confine itself to the pecuniary part of the business.
Mr. Brightexpressed a hope, that the House would look into the question, with a view to ascertain whether a power should be put into the hands of the Ministers of the Crown to vindicate themselves against whatever charges might be brought against them, at the expense of the country.
Mr. Humesaid, that as the right hon. Gentleman opposite had fairly admitted an explanation to be necessary with regard to these charges, and promised to give it before the report should be agreed to, he would not offer any further opposition to the vote on the present occasion, it being understood that it was allowed to pass pro forma.
Resolution agreed to.
The next Resolution, for a grant of 107,986 l. to defray the expenses to be incurred on account of Convicts at home and in Bermuda, for the year 1830, was agreed to without any discussion, as also a vote of 35,000 l. for Captured Negroes.
On the Resolution for a grant of 18,700 l. to defray the expenses of the Commission for preventing the illegal traffic in Slaves,
Mr. Humewished to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite, whether he could not make arrangements to do away with this expense in part, if not altogether?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the commission grew out of treaties made with foreign powers with a view to abolish the Slave-trade, a circumstance which constituted the difficulty of receding. As to the amount of expense incurred on this account, the Estimates bore witness that whenever vacancies occurred, the opportunity was taken to reduce the expense of the commission as far as practicable.—
Agreed to.
On the Resolution for a grant of a sum of 28,000 l. for Missions to the New States of America in 1830, being proposed,
Sir J. Grahamobserved, that this vote and the next to it were liable to great objections. He hoped, as it was his wish to take the sense of the House on the subject, that the Chairman might be permitted to report progress and ask leave to sit again, reserving the discussion upon these items for an earlier hour and a fitter
opportunity.
Sir R. Peelhad no wish to press these particular Resolutions at present, as they were objected to, but trusted that hon. Members would allow the subsequent votes to be proceeded with.
Mr. Humesaid, that almost every vote that followed would be objected to.
Resolution postponed.
On the Vote of 16,690 l. for the Common Law and Real Property Commissioners for 1830.
Mr. Humeobjected to going into the Resolution at that hour, on the ground that the Commissions were likely to entail upon the country a perpetuity of expense.
Mr. Broughamsaid, he could not allow such an observation as perpetuity of expense to be applied to the Law Commissioners, without declaring his intention to share the responsibility incurred by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Peel). It had indeed been, in some measure, through his instrumentality that the expense was incurred, and so far from its being perpetual, he believed that a period of little more than a year, certainly not so much as two years, would be required for the full completion of their labours. The Commissioners had already made a Report embracing all the heads of the subject of their inquiries. This they had done in about a year and a half, and he was confident, if they went on as they had done, that another year and a half would be more than sufficient for the full completion of their labours.
Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, many most valuable suggestions were contained in the reports presented, but not one of them was yet carried into execution. Why were not the useful improvements suggested carried into effect? The only measure yet brought into the House on the recommendation of the Commissioners was the bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General), and that suggestion was the first seized upon because it was attended with expense to the country.
Sir R. Peelagreed to postpone the remaining votes, and the House resumed.

SALE OF BEER BILL.
On the question that the House do resolve itself into a Committee on the Sale of Beer Bill,
Mr. Brightobjected to proceeding further with the present measure till the nature of that for effecting an alteration

1399
in the system of Excise, which was connected with it, should be before the House. He called upon Ministers to say precisely what that measure was, and to what extent it would take off the burthen of the Excise.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobjected to entering into a discussion of one measure, at a time when another measure was before the House. When the present Bill should have been disposed of, he would go into the other, and afford his hon. friend an opportunity of discussing it.
Sir M. W. Ridleyasked, whether the public-houses now in existence, and licensed according to the present system, were to be put under the direction of the Excise in the same manner as was provided with respect to the new houses to be opened under the authority of this Act?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the law would be, that those who sold Beer only as provided by the Bill, should be licensed by the Excise; and that those who combined with the Beer-trade a trade in Wine and Spirits should continue to be licensed as at present.
Mr. Broughamsaid, it appeared to him that those who had the spirit-licences would thereby possess such a preference as would give them a very fair chance, he might almost say a certainty, of keeping their ground.
The House went into Committee.
On the clause being read, restricting the brewers of Porter and Ale from using any other material in the process of brewing than malt, hops, and water,
Mr. Brightproposed, as an Amendment, that individuals should not be thus restricted. As the Chancellor of the Ex-
1400
chequer had introduced this as a free-trade measure, he thought it was but fair, looking to the right hon. Gentleman's argument, that persons in the trade should be allowed to brew from whatever ingredients they pleased. Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, the public would very soon discover where the bad Beer and where the good Beer was sold. Therefore no ill effects were likely to arise from leaving the matter completely open.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that the great object of the Bill was to supply the public with a wholesome and nutritious malt beverage; and it was evident that that object would be defeated, if individuals were allowed to concoct liquor from quassia, coculus indicus, and other deleterious drugs.
The Amendment negatived without a division.
Sir T. Freemantleproposed a clause to enact that any person applying under the Act for a license, should give a notice to be put up for three successive Sundays on the church-door, containing his name and address; and that it should be lawful for any three rated parishioners to apply to a magistrate, and give security to enter an appeal against the granting of the license; and that the magistrates should not be authorized to grant the license if the applicant had been convicted of a felony, or was a man of notoriously bad character, or if the place where the public-house was to be kept was 100 yards from any public road.
The Committee divided: For the clause 42; Against it 72—Majority 30.