Lords Sitting of 6 April 1837

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lords ELLENBOROUGH, RAVENSWORTH, KENYON, STRANGFORD, the Bishops of ST. DAVID, HEREFORD, the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, the Earls HOWE, HARROWBY, the Marquess of DOWN-SHIRE, and the Duke of WELLINGTON, from a great number of places, against the Abolition of Church-rates—By Lord BROUGHAM, from Dunbarton, for the Abolition of Church-rates; and from various other places, for the same Object.—By Earl GREY, from Northumberland, that the Management of the County-rates may be placed under the efficient control of the Rate-payers; and from Berwick-upon-Tweed, for the Insertion of a Provision to alter the Clause which prevents them from transferring certain Debts of the Corporation—By the Earl of RODHN, from Elphin and Clough, for a Revision of the National System of Education (Ireland).

THE MINT.
Viscount Duncannonbrought up the report of the Royal Mint Bill.
Lord Broughamsaid, he still objected, on constitutional grounds, to the 4th clause of this Bill. It was the first time, to his knowledge, that power was given to the Treasury to issue money without limitation. This Bill did, however, authorise the issue of money to any amount out of the Consolidated Fund, for the purpose of purchasing bullion. It might be said, that it was not possible to know what amount of money would be required for the purchase of bullion, under different circumstances: but he conceived that the amount to be issued ought to be restricted to some specific sum, if it were 50,000 l. or 100,000 l., or 150,000 l., beyond which it should not be legal for the Treasury to go. Due provision was not made in the Bill for the payment into the Exchequer of any balance which, after the purchase of bullion, might remain in the hands of the Master of the Mint. It was only provided, that every such issue should be applied to no other purpose than the purchase of bullion. Now, if 50,000 l. were issued, and in consequence of the state of the market, the Master of the Mint deemed it more advisable to purchase, in the first instance, bullion to the amount of only 40,000 l, the balance of 10,000 l. might be still retained by him, because finally, and when
798
opportunity served, it would be applied to the purchase of bullion. There was no provision rendering imperative the immediate payment of such balance. He also objected to that portion of the Bill which provided, that the issues made by the Treasury to the Master of the Mint should be laid before both Houses of Parliament within ten days after the commencement of every Session. That clause of the Bill appeared to him to be very vague and unsatisfactory.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that the object of the Bill was, to bring under the control of Parliament certain acts officially performed by the Master of the Mint, in the discharge of which he was now irresponsible; and to cause the whole of the expenses of this department to be voted annually by Parliament, upon estimates, as had never been the case before. With respect to the objection of his noble and learned Friend, he had to observe that it was absolutely necessary, with regard to the purchase of silver bullion, that a discretionary power such as was specified in the Bill should be vested in the Lords of the Treasury; because it was impossible beforehand to say precisely what amount would be required, or at what period the outlay should take place. He had no hesitation in admitting that the latter portion of the section had not been very carefully drawn, and the noble and learned Lord was quite justified in complaining of its being inaccurately worded. It was apparent, however, that the clause meant that an account of the issue of the preceding year should be laid before Parliament ten days after its meeting.
Lord Broughamdid not by any means object to the principle of the Bill; but he was decidedly of opinion, that if this clause remained unaltered, the Master of the Mint (supposing him to discharge his duty with fidelity) would do so gratuitously, and without the exigency of any statute.
Viscount Duncannonobserved, that a sufficient security was afforded by the circumstance that the Master of the Mint would by this Bill be enabled to draw upon the Bank of England for the amount which he actually required and no more.
Lord Abingerobserved, that the clauses of the Bill were obscurely worded, and that it had passed without discussion through the other House of Parliament.
Lord Broughamsaid, that it was quite

799
clear there had been very little attention displayed in the framing of the Bill.
The Lord Chancellorremarked, that although there was some ambiguity in the wording of the clause, it appeared to him to be sufficiently explained by the words which appeared at its conclusion, and which described the issue as being made to enable him (the Master of the Mint) "to effect such purchase of bullion." The words "to effect" he interpreted to be the same as" to complete;" and this construction of the clause would leave no balance of money whatever in the hands of the Master of the Mint.
Lord Broughampointed out the words in the clause which authorised the Lords of the Treasury" to direct the issue of such money to the Master of the Mint on account," and said the last two words fully sustained his view of the case.
The Lord Chancellor, in reply, observed that the concluding passage of the clause required the Master of the Mint to account to the Lords of the Treasury for the application of all the money advanced.
Report agreed to.

SCOTCH AND IRISH VAGRANTS BILL.
The third reading of this Bill having been moved by Lord Redesdale,
Lord Brougham Lord Brougham moved a clause to the effect, that no person born in England or Wales, and above fourteen years of age, should be removed to Scotland or Ireland, under the operation of this Bill.
Lord Redesdaleobjected to the insertion of this clause, on the ground that the Bill contemplated only the manner of making the removal, and not the persons to be removed.
Lord Broughamsaid, that by the operation of the Act, as at present framed, the injustice might be committed of forcing an adult of perhaps twenty-five years of age, although born in England, to quit this country, simply because he was a pauper, without having committed any offence, in consequence of a parent of his being of Irish or Scotch extraction.
The Lord Chancellorconcurred in the opinion that a grievance might be thus inflicted, but observed, that upon a pauper family being removed (for example) to Ireland, it might be very injudicious to leave a single unprotected individual behind.
Bill read a third time and passed.