SUPPLY—MINT. (Hansard, 27 May 1850)

§ MR. THORNELY
asked the Master of the Mint whether he had made arrangements for an increased issue of florins, and also whether it was intended to issue more of the small coin called threepenny pieces, a coin which he understood had been found to be exceedingly convenient?

§ MR. SHEIL
replied, that with respect to the florin he had already upon a former occasion stated the reason why the issue of that coin was suspended. It was intended to issue the florin in another shape, with those additions which public opinion seemed to demand. With respect to the smaller coin to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded, in consequence of communications he had had from the hon. Gentleman, and also from the hon. Member for Westminster, he had given directions that a large quantity be coined.

§ MR. ALDERMAN COPELAND
complained that magistrates had day by day persons brought before them for passing base coin, and they found that the Solicitor to the Mint alone was the arbitrator as to whether a prosecution should take place or not. Generally speaking it was not respectable tradesmen who were the sufferers, but the poor. Nine times out of ten the sellers of fruit in the streets of the metropolis were the sufferers by this base coin. Last week a case occurred before a Colleague of his, in which the Solicitor to the Mint refused, under any circumstances, to prosecute a party for passing base coin. In many eases where the Solicitor to the Mint had refused, the City had prosecuted, and to conviction. This was not a power which 422 ought to be delegated to the Solicitor to the Mint. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman and the Attorney General would attend to this matter, for it was a growing evil. It was a painful thing for him to sit as a magistrate, and find a poor woman not alone deprived of her goods—only a pennyworth of apples, perhaps—but also of 2s. 5d. in money. Sometimes, finding the deception practised upon her, she took the law into her own hands, and maltreated the man so much that he was kept to his bed for two or three weeks.

§ MR. HUME
wished to know when the changes recommended by the Mint Commission, now a twelvemonth ago, would take effect? The public expected some fruit to arise from that inquiry.

§ MR. SHEIL
said, that in consequence of the report made by the Mint Commission, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government had directed their attention to the subject; and the result was that a representation had been made to the moneyers and assayers, intimating that their relation to the Mint was to undergo a very speedy and considerable change. The Committee would not expect him to go into the details of the change, but no time would be lost in carrying it into effect.

§ MR. HUME
asked if this change could be made without an Act of Parliament. If not, the sooner it was introduced the better.

§ MR. SHEIL
said, the Government had decided on the nature of the changes, and one was that the body called the moneyers were to be deprived of what they called their privileges; and, therefore, whether the business was in future conducted by open contract or otherwise, there would be a great saving of the public expenditure.

§ MR. LAW
said, the subject of the Mint prosecutions was well deserving the attention of the Government officers. The Mint stood in a different position, in some respects, from other bodies. If the magistrates recommended prosecutions, the officers of the Mint, on their own responsibility, either took that course or abstained from it. If they came into court without sufficient evidence, the court had no means of disallowing the expenses, as in ordinary cases; for as the costs of the prosecutions were defrayed by Government, the court had nothing to do with it. Thus, the Mint was in a position to refrain from prosecuting with impunity in cases where they ought to prosecute, and they might prosecute in cases where they ought not, and still be sure of their expenses.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he believed it was the universal practice for no Mint prosecution for felony to be instituted without his sanction. All the cases were laid before him, the circumstances deposed to, together with the character and description of the witnesses by whom they were supported. And inasmuch as it was of the utmost importance, in cases of this kind, to carry public opinion with them, as well as to punish the offenders, all the circumstances underwent a very careful consideration.

§ MR. LAW
said, his observations did not apply to the prosecutions for felony; in none of the cases under the superintendence of the hon. and learned Gentleman had there been anything approaching to irregularly. He spoke of the ordinary cases of misdemeanour, uttering counterfeit coins—though the same offence became felony on its second commission. He had had upwards of twenty years' experience of these cases—he had been one of the counsel to the Mint some years ago, and though these cases had been better conducted of late years, he must say he had seen a great deal which he did not like. He spoke of the discretion which was ordinarily reposed, not in the Solicitor to the Mint, but in a person who was no solicitor at all, or even his clerk, the third party being the person who usually exercised this discretion.

§ MR. SHEIL
said, the course which was pursued in all prosecutions was this: The evidence was laid before the Solicitor to the Mint. He roughly investigated that evidence, and he then appeared before the board to obtain their sanction to the prosecutions. No criminal was ever brought to trial without the sanction of the board. It would be found, upon inquiry, that there was hardly any instance—he believed not one—of a prosecution having failed. A change had been recently effected, by which the Solicitor to the Mint had been got rid of, and the whole of the business transferred to the Solicitor to the Treasury, whose salary was 800l. a year. The business referred to was now confided to Mr. Powell, a gentleman of great experience, in whom the Government had the fullest confidence. The Commissioners had recommended a great change in these prosecutions—amongst other things, that the first offence of uttering should be dealt with summarily.

§ MR. LAW
said, that unless the practice had been totally altered within the last 424 few years, many of the prosecutions had failed.

§ MR. SHEIL
said, that unless he was very much mistaken indeed, there had been no instance of failure.

§ MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEY
said, the complaint was, not that there were too many, but too few prosecutions. In the papers that morning a ease had appeared of a notorious smasher being placed before the magistrates on Saturday; and immediately on his being arraigned at the bar, it was intimated by the clerk of the Solicitor to the Mint that no prosecution would take place. The magistrates had, however, determined to hear the case, and had found sufficient evidence on which to commit him for trial. This was no uncommon occurrence in the city of London. At several recent sessions, when the Mint refused to prosecute, the magistrate committed the prisoners, who bad afterwards received sentence of transportation. The complaint was that the Government should by their officers connive at these cases.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that the Government did not connive at there being no prosecution. It had been the practice so long as he had been in office not to throw the weight of the Government prosecution into cases of a doubtful character; still, if the parties who had suffered, chose to prosecute, it was competent for them to do so. It was a mistake to suppose that the Government, or any other person, had withdrawn the witnesses in the case referred to by the last speaker. During the time he had been in office there had not been a single acquittal on a charge for felony; and he believed the case was the same with the misdemeanours. It was of the utmost importance for the public to know that the Government did not lightly undertake these prosecutions. Other people might do as they pleased; if a prosecutor thought he had a good ease, there was nothing to prevent him bringing it before the court in the usual way.

§ MR. ALDERMAS COPELAND
said, his complaint was not of the Attorney General, but of the Solicitor to the Mint exercising his own discretion whether to prosecute or not. These cases occurred to the extent of a thousand in a year.