Parliament met on Thursday. On that evening the House of
Lords listened to some brief explanations from Lord ABERDEEN as to our 'Greek negotiations ; and last night confined its labours to the expression of an opinion that the House of Commons had too much to do. The House of Commons listened on Thursday to expositions of the absurdities of our Law of Divorce, and of the necessity of admitting Ireland to the benefit of Poor-Laws. Last night the Four-and-a-half per cent. Duties were discussed, previous to the formation of a Committee of Supply ; and in the Committee, the state of the Mint and the late Prosecutions of the Press came under consideration.
It is gratifying:to record, that the ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S measures did not find a single defender. He looked infinitely little, indeed, during the debate ; and his loss of temper' as well as of voice, showed that he was aware of the sort of figure which he made. Mr. R. GORDON, Mr. HUME, and Sir E. KNATCHBULL pressed him with arguments to which he did not attempt to reply ; while Mr. IlAarav, with the clearness and shrewdness which so eminently characterize him, favoured the House with a commentary on the nature of some of the functions exercised by the Crown Lawyers, which did not elevate these functionaries in the opinion of the members.
Dr. PHILLIMORE'S attempt to reform the Law of Divorce was defeated ; and Mr. SADLER'S motion for extending Poor Laws to Ireland was negatived without a division. Yet neither Dr. PHILL1M0RE nor Mr. SADLER were opposed by the shadow of an argument.
Lad ABERDEEN'S talent for diplomacy of a foreign pattern, seems to have led him into a very awkward position. He appears extremely ill disposed to meet Lord HOLLAND on the affairs of Greece; and to a very simple question, urged by Lord LONDONDERRY, he was unable to reply.
I. LAW OF DIVORCE. DT. PHILLIMORE moved, " That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that his Majesty would be pleased to direct the commission now sitting to inquire into the EcclesiasticalCourts. to take into their consideration the state of the law of divorce, the expense of obtaining a divorce, and to inquire into the best means of bringing such a case under a legal jurisdiction." Dr. Phillimore pointed out the differences in the law of divorce in this and in other countries. In the States which owe allegiance to the Roman Catholic Church, marriage is a sacrament ; and indissoluble even in the case of adultery. In the Protestant portion of the Continent, a sentence of divorce gives to the parties the right of marrying again. In regard to England, the history of the law was partly explained by Dr. Phillimore, in the late discussion of Lord Ellenborough's Divorce Bill.
The Ecclesiastical Court could only pronounce a divorce a mensii et thoro, and the party seeking relief entered into a bond that he would not marry again during the life of the other party. Of late years a practice had been growing up of applying to Parliament for each particular divorce. This was strictly a bill of pains and penalties against the offending party; and was not even open to the middle classes of society, who could not afford the vast expense that was incurred in procuring such an act. The first case in which any Parliamentary divorce was applied for, was that of the Marquis of Northampton, in the year 1547. He had obtained a divorce in the Ecclesiastical Court ; but the question arose whether, the Reformation having taken place since the last case, the divorce was a vineulo matrintonii as well as a mensii et thoro. The question was looked upon as so important, that a Commission was appointed, consisting of Archbishop Cranmer and nine others, to inquire whether the Lady of the Marquis of Northampton was still his wife. Their decision was, that it was not safe to consider the divorce as perfect without an act of Parliament. Subsequently to that time, in 1552, or one year before Queen Mary's accession, a law was passed regulating divorce. After the accession of Queen Mary, a bill was brought in to repeal the act of her predecessor, and the country was carried hack under the Romish Ecclesiastical law. In Queen Elizabeth's reign there was another alteration ; divorces were then granted by the Ecclesiastical Courts, and continued to be so for fifty years. The law was then assimilated to that of the Continent ; and it continued in this state till the celebrated case of Lord de Roos occurred, in 1669, when, by a special act of Parliament, a divorce was procured for that nobleman. The Duke of Norfolk's case, which was the next remarkable one, occurred in 1692, and occasioned great discussion, he being an individual of great importance. In 1692 the Duke of Norfolk brought forward his Bill of
Divorce, but the bill was thrown out ; and it was not till the year 1700 that he ventured to repeat his efforts, having previously brought an action for damages at common law ; and the bill was carried, after protracted
debates. For a century and a half, from the Reformation to the accession of George I., there were not more than five divorce bills carried through
Parliament. Divorce was never then granted, except to persons of high rank ; and in the Duke of Norfolk's case it was expressly stated, in the preamble to the bill, that one reason for granting the divorce was, that the Duchess was barren, and it was not fitting that such a noble family should be extinct. After the accession of the House of Hanover, a greater laxity was introduced. From the year 1715 to the year 1775, a period of sixty years, sixty divorce bills were passed ; from 1775 to 1800, a period of twenty-five years, there were seventy-four ; and from 1800 to the present time, there had been ninety.
Many attempts had been made to reform the law of divorce, but they had proved fruitless. Yet all were agreed that the law was bad. Lord Eldon had declared that, in nine out of every ten cases, there was collusion between the parties. The evidence wes never sifted as it would be were it delivered in a court of law ; and the regulations of Parliament itself were on every occasion disregarded, in carrying through divorce bills.
By one of the Standing Orders of the House of Lords it was imperatively commanded that no bill should be introduced which did not contain a clause that neither the adulterer nor the adulteress should marry again. This Standing Order was adhered to ; no bill could be introduced without this clause ; but in the progress of the bill it was regularly struck out. Another Standing Order of the House of Lords, of a graver character, showed how inconipetent the House of Commons was to exercise judicial functions, for that House could carry no such Standing Order into execution. He meant the Order of the 25th March 1798, which declared that, before the second reading of the bill, the party praying for the divorce should attend at the bar of the House to be examined, if their. Lordships should think fit, in order to ascertain if there were any collesion,direct or indirect, or if the act of adultery were known to the husband; or if there were any collusion between the wife and him to procure a sentence of divorce before an Ecclesiastical Court, or procure a verdict at common law; and that the parties might be examined as to how they
mere living at the time of the act of adultery—if they were previously separated, or if the husband performed all his conjugal duties.
The next point was the inequality of the law in regard to expense.
Nothing was better established as a principle of our law than that it should be equal for all parties, for high and low, for poor and rich. He had asked a few days ago the expense of a common divorce bill, which bad nothing peculiar in it; and he was told that the expense was between 600/. and 700/. That was an expense which no person in the middle and lower ranks of life could possibly submit to. What made it more galling here was, that if a man went across the Borders into Scotland, or if his wife committed adultery there, he could obtain a divorce for 10/. or 151.
He now came to the remedy. The impression on his mind was, that the question of divorce ought to be referred altogether to the Ecclesiastical Courts ; and that they who decided the separation a mensei et thoro should also decide on the separation a vinculo matrirnanii. That was his own impression, and he had the satisfaction of knowing that Lord Thurlow held a similar opinion. He had stated so in the debate on Lord Auckland's Bill, in 1800. Or a particular tribunal might be appointed to decide the question of divorce after a decision of the Ecclesiastical Courts. Some persons again proposed to refer the question immediately to the House of Lords, and allow its decision to be final. There were two points of opinion which he was anxious to explain. He wished to have it distinctly understood that it ought to be the principle of the law that marriage was indissoluble. The interests of families, of the whole community composed of families, demanded this. The next point was this, that no other cause but adultery should be allowed to be a sufficient ground for a divorce. Sir C. WETHERELL could never approve of commissions to reformi abstract points of law. The appointment of them involved an admission that something required to be remedied. Sir Charles then referred to the law of other countries on the subject of divorce.
In Rome there was a tribunal, called the Holy Office, which did grant divorces for certain cases, in which the parties were held incapacitated to contract marriage, but never granted it for adultery. The Pope had sometimes granted divorces on political grounds, but never, he believed, a divorce for adultery. The Pope did, however, grant a divorce to our Henry the Eighth in former times, and he bad more recently granted a divorce on political grounds to Napoleon Buonaparte. With these exceptions, however, it was not the custom of the Church of Rome to grant divorces on any account. In this Protestant state no divorce was ever allowed unless by the way of a legislative provision;. and he could not, therefore, avoid thinking, that if they adopted the plan of Dr. Phillimore, they would be letting in a wild, latitudinarian, and mischievous principle, not recognized hitherto by any country in the world. Divorces a vinculo matrimonii had never been allowed in this country unless after a solemn investigation in Parliament ; but if they were once, by the institution of a cheap kind of Pie Poudre Court, to allow all who had a small sum to spend, the privilege of being separated a vinculo matrimonii, it would follow as a necessary consequence that the loWer classes, whose morals were more corrupt, and whose principles on these subjects were more lax, than those of the higher classes, would be continually applying for divorces, while the facility of obtaining them at a small expense would increase the immorality of adultery, and, indeed, give encouragement to the commission of that offence. It was said, however, that almost all the cases which came before Parliament at present were cases in which the parties colluded to procure a divorce. Now if the higher classes did collude in this manner—a fact of which he saw no evidence—if they colluded to procure a divorce, when the cost of that proceeding was great, would they collude less when the expense would become comparatively small ? Mr. O'CONNELL also opposed the motion.
He would willingly equalize the facilities of the poor to obtain divorces with those possessed by the rich suitor, but in a different manner from that proposed by either of the learned gentlemen. He would do away altog,ether with the power in either rich or poor to obtain divorces ; and in doing so he felt he should be merely acting in the spirit of the common law, as it was enforced previous to the Reformation. In the Catholic Church, marriage was an indissoluble contract ; so it was also according to the canons of the Protestant Church, as they had been explained by various commentators. Sir Charles Wetherell was in error in stating that the Catholic Church granted divorces similar in kind to those sanctioned by the Legislature ; and was particularly unlucky in quoting the divorces of Henry the Eighth and of Buonaparte as instances of the exercise of Papal jurisdiction in such cases. It was well known to the readers history, that so far from the Pope having granted Henry a divorce from Queen Catherine, his refusal of it was the probable ground why the honourable and learned gentleman was not in the habit of attending mass, instead of the ritual of the Church of England; at least Clement's withholding that divorce, hastened, if it did not altogether bring about, the separation of England from the Church of Rome.
Mr. SPRING RICE supported the motion. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL and Dr. LUSHINGTON opposed it.
Sir ROBERT PEEL, though he disapproved of the present law of divorce, and certainly was not prepared to pronounce an unqualiBed opinion against the present motion, yet was somewhat surprised at the argument which had been offered in its favour. With respect to the objection taken to the present system on the score of its giving relief only to rich people and excluding the poor from its benefits, he must say that he did not see how that objection was to be removed by any other system. It had been said that -in some courts a divorce might be obtained for 151. He did not think, however, that facilitating the means of obtaining divorces would have anything like a moral effect upon the country. He was opposed to the course of referring the subject to the Ecclesiastical Commission. That commission was appointed for perfectly different purposes, and the gentlemen composing it had given their time and labour gratuitously; Parliament would not be justified in imposing additional labour on them, which might protract their inquiries for two years longer. For these reasons he hoped Dr. Phillimore would not press the motion to a division. (Hear, hear). .r"pr the motion, 45; against it, 102.
2. POOR-LAWS FOR IRELAND. Mr. SADLER moved as a FeS0%don, "That it was the opinion of the House that the establishment of a system of poor-laws in Ireland, on the principle of that of the 43rd of Elizabeth, with such alterations and improvements as the course of time that had since elapsed, and the difference of circumstances between England and Ireland might appear to require, was expedient and necessary to the permanent welfare and prosperity of both countries.' It had been often said that it was fit to assimilate the laws of the two king.. domes; and if In any respect they ought to be so assimilated, he was cer.tam n that they ought to be placed upon an equal footing as regarded themaintenance of the poor. He was not wandering beyond his subject when he said, that if his sole object were to benefit the labouring poor of Great Britain, it would be necessary to begin by ameliorating the condi. tion of the people of Ireland. Lord Kaimes and others had advanced it as a chief objection to the poor-laws of England, that they tended to raise the price of labour : for this very reason they ought to be extended to. Ireland, and it was one of the great advantages of the poor-laws of this country, that they had not only contributed much to give work to the population, but to sustain the value of labour. By the legislative union, increased facilities of communication had been given ; but by the employment of steam, it might be said that the connexion between Ireland and England was even closer than between the metropolis and some of the populous northern counties. Immense numbers had thus been drawn to our shores, who, in consequence mainly of the fatal evil of absenteeship, were unable to maintain themselves on their own. Absenteeship abstracted wealth and diminished labour, but the subordinate agents were far worse than the principal ; among these subordinate agents were the middlemen and the subletting system, with their concomitants. The result was, that in Ireland, multitudes were driven forth without shelter or the bare means of subsistence ; they were dispossessed in masses of the homes of their forefathers without any legal claim to support, and when they could obtain employment, without the means of securing a just price for their labour. Thousands and tens of thousands, for this reason, proceeded eastward, and sought refuge and employment in England. Every agricultural district in the West, and every large manufacturing town, had complained of this invasion, and of its consequences—unnatural competition and depreciation of labour. These considerations were of the gravest moment. Englishmen found their industry in the field and the factory much less productive than heretofore ; yet, while this state of things conferred no real advantage on the peasantry of Ireland, it operated as a boon to the property of that country, by relieving it from the imposts for the maintenance of the poor to which in England it was subjected. Hence it was necessary for him in the outset, and as a preliminary step, to advert to the situation of Ireland, and to the unrelieved condition of the poor. Mr. Sadler then proceeded to establish, by reason and authority, the inherent right of the poor to be supported in the country which they enriched and defended. Much stress had been laid upon the probable effects of education. He was as warm a friend to education as any member in that House, but he candidly confessed he was far from sanguine as to its effects upon the state of the poor. Education might do much, but it could never banish poverty ; it would, he thought, be impossible to banish poverty ; and he would go further, and assert that it would be of no service to society to banish poverty altogether. If all men could be assured of a competence, the spur to industry would be lost—the scourge which stimulated man to exertion would be removed. Then those who did not stand up for education as the remedy for all evil, expected to see the unhappy situation of the poor ameliorated by habits of saving ; they expected to see the Savings Banks do all that was needful. Now he would put it to the House to say if habits of universal parsimony were to be desired amongst the lower classes, even were it practicable ; but for his part he did not see how the poor man could save. Suppose, however, by some unlooked.for change, that the poor Of the empire were enabledto realize any -portion of their earnings, would it not have the effect of desolating our pastures, and ruining the Exchequer ? For they were the chief consumers of the manufactures of the country. Abandoning that argument, they were next told that poverty would find its own level ; but in the present state of things it had no level to find except the level of the grave.
He proceeded to argue, that all the miseries of Ireland arose from the want of poor-laws. He dwelt upon the mortality that prevailed among the poorer classes, as established by certain returns which he quoted. This mortality was peculiar to the poor. He had examined the Peerage List of Ireland with great attention, and could not find that the resident Peers there died a bit sooner than the Peers of this country ; and, therefore, it was but just to attribute this extra-mortality in Ireland to the want of proper nutriment for the poor. But the poor.laws would afford proper nutriment; and therefore, he thought that it was clearly made out that the poor-laws ought to have a trial in Ireland.
He went on to answer objections.
With respect to the supposed expense of such a measure, he was prepared to deny that altogether; for in his opinion it would be the means of effecting a great saving—probably, on a rough calculation, of no less than a million sterling per annum. In the first place, Government would be able to do without that immense body of armed police which was now obliged to be kept up in Ireland. In the next place, the army there might be greatly reduced ; which two, without going further into particulars, would effect an enormous saving. The people of Ireland were the most grateful on the face of the earth; none were there .so susceptible of kindness ; and once bestow on them such a boon as the poor-laws would be, and there would be an end of that reign of terror for ever which had excited so much alarm in the minds of many succeeding Governments. But the great objection to the plan he proposed was, that there was no machinery in Ireland for carrying this natural charity into effect. He could not give his assent to this position ; the people of Ireland were naturally of a most charitable disposition; besides which, if the machinery were not yet there, establish the poor-laws, and that would call back the absentees, who would bring the machinery along with them. If there were to be any cruelty exercised towards the people— if rights were to be taken away, and privileges destroyed—the machinery was always to be found : then why not for this work of charity, which would confer on the people so inestimable a benefit? But he did not understand why it should be said that this system would not work in Ireland—if they looked at England, before the 43rd of Elizabeth, they would find that no poor-laws existed; but that did not prevent the attempt being made, nor its success when attempted. In looking at the amount of the poor-rates, care was to be taken not to confound the matter. A great portion of that amount was to be reckoned as wages to the poor, and could not fairly come under the bead of poor-rates. Another idea, at which the landlords of Ireland had taken the alarm, was, that the poor were continually on the increase ; but this he would also deny, and take Upon himself to assert, that all experience showed that the poor were diminishing rather than increasing. He foresaw the most happy consequences from this measure to Ireland. If it were carried, the poor of Ireland would immediately find employment, and no longer overrun this country, to the detriment of the English peasant ; and instead of the value of Irish estates being diminished, they would, in his opinion, be much increased. Lord F. L. GOWER and Mr. SPRING Rica opposed the motion. There was nothing practical, they observed, in Mr. Sadler's Speech; and a Committee was already sitting on the state of Ireland. Mr. WILMOT HORTON complained of having been kert in town by a notice of a bill for the relief of the poor, which had turned out to be nothing more than a resolution relative to poor-laws for Ireland. Mr. JAMES GRA.TTAN, Sir ROBERT WILSON, and Mr. MONCX supported the motion. It was finally negatived without a division.
3. GREECE. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY observed, that among the papers laid before the House, he did not perceive copies of the despatches of our Ambassador at Constantinople, relating to the mode in which Russia had been induced to give up so large a portion of the compensation claimed originally from the Porte. He also wished to know, whether there was any objection to furnish copies of the cohferences held at Poros ? The Earl of ABERDEEN stated, that the substance of all these conferences would be found embodied in the protocols that had been laid on the table of the House. As to the copies of the despatches, he could not return a definitive answer till he had had time to consider how far the interests of other Powers would be affected by their production. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY remarked, that it was essential to ascertain whether Russia had abandoned so large a portion of the compensation which she claimed from the Turks, in order to induce Turkey to concede the demands of the Allied Powers. No answer was given to this observation. Lord HOLLAND wished to know explicitly, whether the noble Earl meant to lay before the House copies of the conferences that had taken place at Poros. Lord ABERDEEN repeated, that the substance of these conferences would be found in the protocols.
Lord HOLLAND declared, that from the papers already before the House, he really was unable to divine the reasons that had induced the Allies to change the boundaries of Greece, as settled by them on the 22nd of March ; and it was important that the country should learn what these reasons were.
4. Foun AND A HALF PER CENTS. On the order of the day for a Committee of Supply, Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that if his Majesty's Ministers would undertake to bring in a bill to limit the prerogative of the Crown to import commodities free of duty, he should not bring forward the motion on the subject which he had intended.
Sir ROBERT PEEL maintained that the right of the Crown to import commodities duty free was indisputable ; but as he was not prepared to say that the privilege might not lead to abuse; Government was willing to introduce a legislative measure on the Subject to the House. Mr. HUSXISSON expressed his satisfaction at the intimation. Without questioning the right of the Crown, he called on the House to look at the result of the measure. A person might go into the market, and buy some of the sugar sent here in payment of the 4,1, per cents.; he would buy it at the market price, and pay the long price, which included the duty ; the price, duty and all, would be handed over to the agent for the 4:1per cents. : but the purchaser might go immediately afterwards to the Customhouse, and if he exported the sugar, demand the drawback.
Mr. HUME hoped, that as Ministers were about to limit the prerogative on this point, they would at the same time refund the 50,0001. which they had appropriated without the consent of Parliament.
5. THE MINT. The first resolution, for granting a sum of 19,000/. to defray the expenses of the gold and silver coinage at the Mint, gave rise to some conversation as to the expediency of a seigniorage on the gold coin. Mr. BARING observed, that there was some reason for believing that our silver coinage stood at present in an awkward predicament. The proportion between the price of the silver when coined, and the price of silver bullion in the market, was very different from what it was when originally established. At that period it was as 62 to 66 ; now it was as 59 to 56: and the consequence was, the introduction of a great quantity of spurious silver coin.
Mr. HERRIES begged to say a few words in answer to the rumours in circulation as to a spurious silver coinage, of a weight and quality equal to our own, having been fabricated abroad, and introduced into this country. He -believed these rumours to be unfounded. A large quantity of this supposed spurious coin had been sent to the Mint, and been discovered to be genuine.
6. LAW EXPENSES OF THE CROWN. A vote of 15,000/. for the law expenses of the Crown, during the year 1830, having been moved, Mr. R. GORDON observed, that the recent persecutions of the press had swollen the law estimates of the present year to the extent of 8001. more than the preceding. Five or six counsel of eminence had been engaged to bear down a poor printer, who defended himself. It was a serious question how far this monopoly of legal talent by the Crown might prevent a defendant from procuring dffeetive legal assistance. He hoped that a detailed account of the expenditure would be laid before the House. , • Mr. G. Dawsort had no objection to submit such a statement to honourable members. • The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then entered on his,defence. Several counsel were necessary in all cases where he and the SolicitorGeneral were engaged, because both of them were liable to be called away from any trial. If this were the case when they were engaged for private individuals, it was rendered still more neeessary when they were engaged for the Crown. He did not expect to have been called on to enter on these matters. He deemed himself entitled to the benefit of an open attack. He thought the introduction of such questions by a sidewind unfair. He denied that lie had persecuted the press. He was willing to stand or fall by the opinion of a majority of the House. He denied that the Solicitor-General, or himself, were overpaid. Mr. R. GORDON said that his statements were made in the Attorney-General's presence, and were consequently fair. The Attorney-General professed a wish to meet his accusers ; yet when an accusation was made, he wished to submit the question which it involved, to the House, as if the Attorney-General could not always command a majority. Mr. D. W. HARVEY observed, that the public were convinced the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General were paid in a vast number of cases where they ought not to be—in the case of public charities, for instance, every change in which brought fees to these gentlemen. He should on a future day call the attention of the House to this subject. In all the suits instituted by the Solicitor of the Treasury for property devolving to the Crown, the proceedings were for the most part in equity: now hi all those cases the Attorney-General had a brief ; or if he had not a brief he had the fee, which was the better part. (Laughter.) He had the fee, but he never went into an equity court—at least the present Attorney-General did not go into the Equity Courts ; the late Attorney-Ge. neral, of course, was always in the Equity Courts, and for the fee did the duty. With him, therefore, there was no fault to be found ; but the just ground of complaint was, that the money was paid, and no business done. He was not paid for any thino.' but for receiving the money. This remark gave rise to a long controversy between the law officers and Mr. HARVEY as to the mode in which public cha rities were managed ; the latter gentleman contending that the grossest abuses prevailed, in consequence of the power which the e'Attorney-General exercised of controlling these institutions. Among other sharp commentaries, Mr. HARVEY observed that
The Attorney-General throughout the discussion had seemed to argue the whole affair as if he were not in a House of Parliament, standing with
the members of it on the terms on which all members stood, but as if he were in a court of law, with some unfortunate printer -writhing under inflictions proceeding from his superior forensic talents ; indulging, he would not say in sarcasm, for that implied wit, but in that coarseness in
which he fully succeeded. He would ask the Attorney-General how he could reconcile it to his character as a public man, or as a private individual, to receive money and do no business for it I It was admitted universally in every branch of the profession, and in every department of society, that counsel ought to confine themselves to one court, and not be seen going about from court to court scrambling for fees wherever they could be obtained, and doing nothing for them.
Mr. HUME wished to ask, whether the expenses incurred in prosecuting the suit of Lord Lyndhurst had been defrayed by that noble lord, or whether they formed part of the present estimate ?
That the step that had been taken was persecution, he repeated; the ruin of the individual was sufficient proof of the persecution. He had heard, before the trials took place, that the object of the Attorney-General was to persecute him to ruin ; and he therefore c,.uld not help thinking how grateful it must be to the feelings of the learned gentleman, and of those of his friends who were of the same way of thinking, to find that their scheme of ruin had succeeded, and that the man was utterly annihilated.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied, that as Lord Lyndhurst was a public officer, the prosecution had been made at the expense of the public. Sir C. WETHERELL would not have objected to these expenses being defrayed by the public, had not Lord Lyndhurst prosecuted first as a private individual. This change in the form of the prosecution deprived him of the right to saddle the public with his expenses. Sir E. KNATCHBULL concurred in that opinion. He held that a great constitutional principle was at stake. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL entered at great length upon his defence.
He complained that he had been called on most unexpectedly to answer these charges. (Cries of" No! no I") He would only say that he had had no previous notice of any question respecting the propriety of his conduct ; nor had any one had the common courtesy of intimating to him, that such a question would arise for discussion in the Committee. This question had already been discussed in a very full House; and if it was necessary, he was ready to discuss it again ; but he thought that due notice ought to be given of such a step ; in which case he should be able to vindicate his feelings with a conscience void of all offence. If he was to have to address that House as judges, he trusted that they would act as judges, with due impartiality and candour ; and he hoped that the first step which had been taken, and which did not appear to indicate impartiality, would not influence the Committee, when they considered that they had been called on to decide in Committee, without notice of any sort (" No!" from Sirig. Knatchbull). He did not know what the Honourable Baronet meant by that cheer. Did he mean to say that he had given notice of this intention ? He said that he had a right to notice. (Confusion in the House). He did not know from what part of the House there was a clamour to prevent his being heard. (Hear, hear!) He took it for granted (though he had not drawn up the accounts) that the expense of the libel on Lord Lyndhurst was inserted in this estimate ; and they were now called upon to exclude it, because-the honourable and learned gentleman was of opinion that the course that had been adopted was unconstitutional. But was that a just ground for excluding it ? Was it nor a sufficient explanation to say that it had been conducted by the public prosecutor ? Was it usual, in a Committee of Supply, to say that an item was objected to on the ground of its being unconstitutional ? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was proceeding to remark on the unfairness of honourable members declining to bring his conduct once more fairly before the House, instead of confining themselves to insinuations and allusions, when Mr. BARING objected to such remarks as irregular. Mr. BROUGHAM observed, that the question now before the Committee had put the Attorney-General on his defence.
Whether the course raised by the honourable member for Plympton was convenient or not, he would not say; but he had distinctly said that he would not vote for the expense of Lord Lyndhurst'eprosecution till the Attorney-General had explained why he had changed one proceeding to another; in other words, he had put the Attorney-General on his defence. The course might be inconvenient—it might be unfair—he 'would not enter upon that ; but, at all events, he thought that the Attorney-General ought not to be interrupted.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL continued.
With respect to the change that had taken place, all that he could say was, that it seemed to him to be a right one. Lord Lyndhurst was a high
officer of the Crown, and the libel was an attack on his character and conduct as an officer. It charged him with receiving 30,0001. for raising the Solicitor-General to that office ; and he therefore thought, as AttorneyGeneral, that it %vas a fit subject for a public prosecution. Similar cases had formerly taken place, and the House had not objected to the expenses incurred. When he was Attorney-General in 1827, Lord Wallis, as Commissioner of Stamps, made an answer to a charge that was brought against him by Mr. Barber Beaumont for improper conduct. In making that reply he did no more than his duty. For this reply, Mr. Beaumont made a libellous attack on him, and for that attack it was his duty, as Attorney.General, to prosecute him. He had, on that occasion, filed an ex-officio information against Mr. Beaumont, and that information received, the support of the honourable member for Plympton. On his accession to office he found that information filed ; he adopted it, and obtained a verdict against Mr. Beaumont. That charge was made against a public minister for something he had said in the performance of his duty in that House, and, therefore, was a proper case for the public prosecutor to take in hand. The public paid the expense of that prosecution; and as the House had approved of that vote, and had sanctioned the conduct of his honourable and learned friend, he begged to ask why the Lord Chancellor was not to have the same sort of protection ? If the Attorney-General, in the execution of his public duty, thought it necessary to file an exigicio information for a libel against that great officer, why he should be subject to the charge ? It was said that the Lord Chancellor had first filed a private information : he avowed that he had ; but still, if he felt that the libel was a fit subject for a public prosecution, though in its origin he might not think so, he was bound to prosecute it; and he did not know why the expense should not be paid by the public. Sir EDWARD ENATCHBULL had never before heard of an Attorney-General instituting a public prosecution after a private one had been commenced.
Mr. O'CONNELL remarked, that such a course was trying Mr. Alexander twice. It was a double prosecution, and Mr. Alexander had been beggared. If these expenses were to be paid out cf the public purse, he should like to know what private person could withstand such prosecutions ? Sir ROBERT PEEL declared that his honourable and learned friend had been most unfairly treated. If the question were, as it had been declared, a constitutional one, let it not be mixed up with discussions about money. He hoped that the expenses of the prosecution would be paid by the public : he thought it better they should be, as he deprecated the practice of Ministers looking after the libels that might be published against them for what they did in the discharge of their public duties. That was the business of the Attorney-General. He was included in those libels, but he declared that he would not pay the expense of the prosecution. It was not for any gratification to his private feelings that such a prosecution was instituted, but to defend a Secretary of State ; and it would be most absurd and unjust to call on hitt to pay the expense. If the Attorney-General thought proper to institute a public prosecution to vindicate the character of the Lord Chancellor, -was that officer to be called on to pay the expenses ? That would be most absurd. He had something, however, to propose to the House. He would undertake, that before the report was brought up, the precedents for such prosecutions, and for paying the expenses, with all the facts connected with the cases, and the usages and practices in such cases, should be laid before the House; and, having that information, the House might come to a proper decision, and not condemn the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General, by refusing a vote of money. Mr. SADLER professed himself not at all satisfied with Sir Robert Peel's arguments, but the House refused to listen to his reasoning. Finally, the vote was agreed to.
BEER BILL.—In a Committee, last night, several verbal amendments were adopted. NEW STREET IN THE STRAND.—Ill answer to a question from Mr. A. Ez.z.zs in regard to the much-talked-of street from Waterloo Bridge, Lord Lowrilzii stated that Government could scarcely venture to advance more than 25,0001. in furtherance of the scheme, because a very small portion of the Crown lands lay contiguous; but if the great proprietors in that quarter would give similar encouragement, he had no doubt that the measure might be carried into effect Law-srAKING.—While the Irish Bog Drainage Bill was before the House of Lordslast night, Earl DARNLEY took occasion to observe that, from the manner in which business was now transacted in the House of Commons, it was impossible for that House to give due attention to the bills that passed through it. As a proof of this, he referred to the proceedings of last night, when ninety-six different subjects came under consideration, forty-two of which were disposed of after twelve o'clock. Lord WHARNCLIFFE thought that the principle of originating all money bills, or bills with penal clauses, in the Lower House, should be modified.
