Star.
London, England, 1830-06-05 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS-FRIDAY.

111r.W. DUNDAS presented a 'petition from certain writers of
Edinburgh, against the Scotch Judicature Bill.
ENGLISH OPERA-HOUSE. •

Mr. A. ELLIS presented a petition from Mr. Arnold, complain.
ins of the uncertainty which prevailed respecting the opening of a
street front Waterloo-bridge towards Holborn. The petitioner com-
plained that he was at a leas what to do with certain property which
he possessed in the vicinity of the Strand, where the Etiglish Opera
House stood, in consequence of reports which reached him, and for
which there was some ground, that government had some intention
of opening a road over the ground in question. The hon. member
wished to ascertain from the noble lord at the head of the office of
Woods and Forests, what were the intentions of government on this
subject.
Lord LOWTHER said that government were not prepared to
make any advances for this purpose. The improvements which bad
been undertaken by the Office of Woods and Forests were upon
grounds belonging to the Crown, and bethought if the road in ques-
tion were considered necessary, it was the business of private indi-
viduals to undertake It.

Mr. HOBHOUSE, Mr. J. WOOD, and Mr. WARBURTON,
spoke in favour of the new street, which they considered absolutely
neeesaary for the convenience of a rest portion of the metropolis.
Dlr. A. ELLIS presented a pet ti ion from Mr. Haydon, the his-
torical painter, praying encouragement foe the fins arts
Mr. WYNN reported from the committee on the Clyde Naviga-
tion Appeal, that one of the members (Mr. O'Connell) bad not
this morning attended, as ordered by the house, as a member of
that committee.

Air. O'CONNELL said, be bad been up to so late an hour, that
he was not able to get up in time; but he regretted that the com.
mittee had suffered any inconvenience in consequence of bis absence.
On the motion of Mr. WYNN, it was moved that Mr. O'Connell
be excused.

On the motion of Mr. Baowittow, returns were ordered of the
quantity of linen yarn manufactured in Ireland sines 1823.
Mr. C. CALVERT presented a petition from St. Olave's, South.
wark, against the bill for removing poor Irish
Sir R. WILSON supported the petition. relicirb;erved that if
the hon. member for Limerick were to have his attention drawn to
this petition, he would find in it another proof that something must
be done for the Irish poor.
Mr. 11. GRATTAN said that this bill was Intolerable. If this
bill were to be persisted in, to smd back the poor of Ireland, then
lie should feel it his duty to Wag in a bill to send back the rich.
all Mr. DOHERTY complained Mat reports had been circulated in
I tels.;d to the effect, that by this bill Irish vagrants ware enabled to

be whipped, merely because they were Irishmen. He believed there
was no such provision in the bill, and he wished the impression
removed.

Lord STANLEY said there was no foundation for the report.
Mr. O'CONNELL said the legal effect of this bill would be,
however unintentionally, to revive the practice of whipping vagrants.
Mr. LITTI.ETON thought the bill to which the petition refer-
red could not be passed with convenience this session.
Mr. J. GRATTAN would oppose the bill in every stage, unless
it contained a provision for the support of the Irish poor.
Mr. G. DAWSON wished to have a provision in the bill giving
a discretionary power to parochial authorities to relieve Irish paupers.
After some observations from Sir G. Philipps Mr. Estcourt, and
Mr. R. Palmer, the petition was laid on the table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
The usual messengers from the Lords brought up some bills,
which were laid on the table.

Mr. J. WOOD presented a petition from the Co-operative So-
ciety of Liverpool, complaining of monopolies, particularly that in
the East India trade ; and a petition was presented fir Mr. Wood
from a parish in Chester, against the bill for altering the jurisdic-
tion of that county ; one from Bolton, in favour of the Jews; and
one from the cotton spinners in Preston, praying ti.st the rates of
wages should be left free.
Lord BELGRAVE presented a petition from the bankers and
merchants of Chester, against the East India monopoly.
Lord KILLEEN presented a petition from Kilkenny. against the
increased duty on Irish newspapers.
Col. WILSON gave notice that on Monday, or the next vacant
day, he should move a resolution to clear up the doubts which ex-
isted as to the right of Jews to hold landed property.

SUTTEES.
On the motion of Mr. S. NVoart.Ex, copies were ordered of cer-
tain communications issued by the authorities in India, respecting
the burning of Indian widows.
111 r. F. BUXTON was glad this abominable practice was now
likely to be put an end to altogether, and in a great degree this was
owing to the energy of the present Oovernor General.
Sir 31. W. ItIDLEY and Mr. TRANT spoke to a like effect,
which ended the conversation on this matter.
Lord S I'ANLEY presented s petition from a society in Lan-
cashire, complaining of the increasing practice of dram-drinking,
and praying that no additional facilities should be given to this per-
nicious practice.
Mr. BRIGHT wished to know if it was the intention of the
Chimerllor of the Exchequer to proceed to-night with the Beer Bill?
The Right hon. gentleman said his present intention was to pro-
ceed with the supply, and, unless it was too late, afterwards to take
up the beer bill.

In answer to a question from Mr. J. Wool), the Chancellor of the
Exchequer said he should put off the building of churches bill to
Monday.
Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from Dublin against
abuses of charities; from Carljw, against the corporation of that
borough, and of malversation of the funds of the corporation.
Lord TULLAMORE at some length defended the corporation,
and denied the misapplication of their funds. Laid on the table.
On the motion of Mr. O'CONNELL, returns were ordered of the
quantity of Spirits imported from Guernsey and Jersey since 1826.
On the question of Mr. HUME, returns were ordered of the se-
veral sums paid by government to the Canada Company.
SUPPLY.—FOUR ♦ND ♦ HALF Pea CENT. DUTIES.
On the motion of going into a Committee of Supply,
Sir J. GRAHAM said, that previously to going into *discussion
of his proposition respecting the Royal prerogative of importing all
articles free of duty, he was willing to make a proposal to his Ma
jetty's ministers, namely, that if they pledged themselves to bring
in a bill to limit the Royal prerogative, particularly with regard to
the four and a half per unt. duties, and if he received an affirmative
answer, he should leave the matter in the hands of Government,
with the understanding that this measure, if they were to have one,
was to be introduced in time to pass this session.
Sir R. PEEL said it was the intention of his right hon. friend
in the course of the debate to state the intention of government,
which was to place the royal prerogative with regard to those duties
under the control of parliament. Ile wished, however, to remind
the house that these duties were never applied to the private pur.
poses of the Crown, but had always been expended on public ob.
jects, and were different In their nature from all others, as they
were payable in kind and not in money.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he should riot under those circumstances
press his motion, and bore testimony to the conduct of ministers in
meeting the wishes of the country so voluntarily.
Mr. ROBERTSON wished to have a provision in the measure,
to prevent colonial governments from trading on their own account.
Mr. HUSKISSON said that persons might purchase the four and
a half per cent. sugars at what was termed the long price ; that is,
paying the dudes upon them. Now those persons might go the next
day to the Customs and demand a drawback, the Customs not hav-
ing, at the same time, obtained any advantage from the importation
of these sugars. This was an inconvenience. It would therefore be
wise and proper to preserve the privileges of the crown, but at the
same time to limit the importation of articles tb those used by the
sovereign.
Sir C. WETHERF:LL was opposed to any interference with the
privileges of the crown with respect to the importation of articles
free of expense. The crown had as much right to import those su.
gars under the four and a half per cent. duties, as the carriage of the
sovereign was, by right, free of toll upon his own roads.
Mr. BRIGHT said he should look with jealousy upon any bill
introduced upon this subject, as he feared it might revive things that
were in existence, but were allowed through courtesy.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the proposed bill
would by no means encroach upon the prougative of the Crown.
Mr. BARING observed that the object of the bill was to prevent
the prerogative of the Crown from being increased, at the expense of
the general Interest of the public.
Sir R. PEEL said that the true friends of the prerogative of the
Crown were those who were not anxious to push that prerogative too
far. He thought be was maintaining the true interests of the Crown
by checking its abuses.
Mr. BROUGHAM also thought that the best way to preserve
the true privilege of the Crown, was by cramping its power to abuse
its rights.
Mr. 111:316 said that abuses had taken place arising out of those
privileges, and he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
ought to pay back the money paid in consequence of those abuses._
He was certainly favourable to the proposed bill.

WATS ♦ND WEANS.
Upon the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHE-
QUER, the house resolved itself into a committee of Ways and
Means, when it was resolved that four millions be granted to his
Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, towards meeting the supply
for the year 1830. The house then resumed.

$U PPLY.

On the motion of Mi. R.liiwsorr , the House resolved itself
into a Committee of Supply.
Upon the motion that 19,00 W. be granted to his Majesty, to meet
the extraordinary expecses of the Mint, relative to gold and silver
coin,

Dlr. HERRIES, in reply to the hon. member for Aberdeen, said
that the profits that had arisen upon the silver coinage had gone to
meet the expenses attendant upon the gold coinage. He added that
the Government thought it advisable to open the Mint as much as
possible to individual i:nporters of bullion, and by doing so they
took the monopoly in the purchase of bullion trom the Bank of
England. Under the present Act, the individual merchant gained
an advantage of one-half per cent. for gold and silver Imported by
him, more than he did formerly.
Mr. BARING did not think that there was much in what the
right hon. gentleman had stated to the house. Still the public paid
this increased per tentage. He denied that the Bank had any mo-
nopoly in the purchase of bullion. The relative value of the silver
coinage had been changed. and a greater number of coins formed
out of a given quantity of silver. He did not see the policy of this
proceeding.
Mr. HERRIES begged to observe, he had reason to believe that
a rumour which had gone abroad relative to the fabrication of a
spurious species of silver coin in another country, and imported into
this, was incorrect ; foe all the coins brought to the Mint to be tried
were found to have been coined there.

Mr. HUSHISSON thought that greater encouragement should
be given to the South American trade in bullion.
Sir 0. COCKBURN said that the question of freight upon
vessels trading with South America was under consideration.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON said that he was glad to hear that
the question of freight was under the consideration of government.
Mr. MABERLY thought that if a merchant wished to employ
a ship of war to convey his bullion front South America, he bad a
right to pay a proper freightage, and that freightage ought to go into
the public purse.—(Hear.)
Mr. HUME also thought that a reasonable freigh age ought to
be charged on bullion coming from South America. He also thought
that the trade ought to be extended, and not confined to some few
favoured individuals.—The motion was agreed to.
£l,OOO were voted for expences caused by prosecutions relative to
the coinage of this country.
Upon the motion that 15,0001. be granted to his Majesty to de.
fray the expenses of the charges relative to the prosecutions con.
sequent upon the coinage of the country,
Mr. R. GORDON complained of the great increase in the law
expenses relative to this subject. He condemned the number of
barristers that were employed in coin prosecutions. He also thought
that prosecutions in which the Attorney. General had been engaged
In, might be termed persecutions.
Mr. DAWSON maid that the law expenses in this case were ex.
penses incurred at the instance of the secretary of state for the home
department.lt wu due to the law officers:of the crown to say that,
the rum paid to them by the solicitor to the treasury, were much
smaller than those paid by priva.e individuals.
The ATTORNEr-GLNER AL sail that it cost public bodies

much mere for prosecutions than it did the government. It wad
supposed, that the emoluments of the Attorney and t3olkitor.Ge.
neral would be very great upon the demise of the Crown. He had
taken the amble to inquire into the subject, and he bad ascertained
that the extent of the number of patents that would fall into disuse
by the demise of the Crown would be 200. Now the fees derivable
upon each of these to the Attorney and Solichor.Generals would be
but about five guineas. He thought it was unfair in the hon. gent.
to attack him in the way he did, by calling the prosecutions in which
be had been engaged persecutions.
Mr. GORDON said that be should ever consider these prosecu.
dons persecutions. His (Mr. Gordon's) constituents and the coun-
try cui,Nidcred them in the same light.
Mr. I). W. HARVEY said that, if tho emoluments of the At-
torney-General were rot ns runt as tiny were represented, then were
the public very mute ti.cel%ed upon the subject. There were many
cases in which the Attorney-1 ener..l did nothing, and yet he got his
fees, such was the case in tiling bills in Chancery with respect to
charitable institutions ; for talthough the Attorney-General's name
was used, be never appeared in that Court.
The ATTORNLY-GENERAL said he did nothing more in 1
this instance than was done by his predecessor, and he continued to
preserve his privileges in his own hands. Now he had seen a cir-1
cube letter, addressed to the trustees of certain charitable institu.
tions, relative to the funds of the charity, and inviting them to in.
quire and account for those funds; or if not, a bill would be filed
in Chancery against them. Now this was stated to be done by the
authority of the Attorney General. Now he denied that he gave
any authority for any such letter.
Mr. D. HARVEY said that all who were in the habit of hearing I
the learned gent. would suppose that he still felt himself in a
Court of Law, and not in the House of Commons. He avowed
himself the author of the letter in question, and if the hon. and
learned gent. would act with the character of a man, lie must admit
the propriety of it. The letter was calculated to do a general good,
but he denied that he ever put to the amount of Os. hid. in his pocket
by it. The Ironmongers' Company had 100,0001. for the redcmp.
don of slaves on the coast of Barbary, but, happily ter the cause of
freedom, there were no slaves on that coast.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL observed th.tt the Ironmongers'
Company bad acted very properly throughout; they allowed that
money to accumulate, because they knew not to what object they
should apply it. The hon. and learned member advctted to some
observations which fell from the member for Colchester tespecting
the profits of the °Meteor Attorney and Solicitor-General, observing
that he should derive twice as much advantage by private business
as he had derived from Crown business for the time he was occupied
with It.

11 Alderman THOMPSON defended the Ironmongers' Company
from the Imputations east on them by the member tor Colchester.
That company observed the strictest economy in the management of
the funds in question.
Mr.HUME observed that it was a matter of reproach to this coun.
try that the officers of the crown never looked after these charities.
The country was much indebted to the hon. member for Colchester
for what he had done in that respect. He (Mr. H.) did not care whe.
ther the object of his hon. friend was to bring grist to his own mill,
as insinuated by the Solicitor-General. The hon. member then
observed that the prosecution of the press was a persecution, and he
was happy to perceive that no member in that house had applauded
such persecution. He was sorry to see the Attorney-General, who
heretofore had supported liberal opinions, become a persecutor when
he went to the other side of the house. it must be a consolation to
him to see the object of his persecution reduced to ruin. He begged
to know if the expenses of persecuting for the libels on the Lord
Chancellor were included in the item before the house.
The ATT( 'RKEY-GRNERAL replied, that the expenses for
these prosecutions were included in the item before the house.
fir. 1). W. HARVEY observed, that the amount of public cha-
rity misapplied throughout the country was not less than two mil-
lions, and whoever inquired tato them and caused them to he pro.
perly applied,did an act of benevolence for shich the country should
be grateful.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL should oppose the vote, if the charges
for the prosecution on account of Lord Lyndhutst was included.
Sir C. WETHERELL would move that the vote should be :e-
-duced by so much as that prosecution cost, sine: the Attorney-Ge.
neral thought proper to file an ex-officio information after Lord
Lyndhurst had declined to prosecute. He (Sir Charles) had a bill
ready to bring forward respecting ex-officio informations, and should
bring it forward on a future occason. (Loud cheers.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL complained of being tailed a n
in committee without previous notice, to explain his conduct.t—
-(No, no !) He submitted that • question of that kind was raised.
—(No, no !) The learned gentleman then proceeded to say, that the
grounds of opposing these expenses were, that the prosecution
was unconstitutional, and he submitted that a committee was not
the proper place to discuss such a question. The principle and
merits of these prosecutions had been discussed on a former occasion
in the house ; with respect to the prosecution in question, he (Sir
James) met no person In or out of the house who denied that the
libel on the Lord Chancellor should be prosecuted ; but there were
some gentlemen who thought that there should be no prosecutions
for libels; other gentlemen were of opinion that there should no
ex-officio prosecutions; that might be right ; but as long as they
were allowed by the constitution, he did not see why in this in.
they were objectionable.
Mr. BARING rose to order. The Attorney-General was not
called on to defend these prosecutions. The question was should
these expenses be allowed ?
Mr. BROUGHAM concurred with the hon. member who spoke
last. The Attorney-General was not called on to enter into his
defence. The only question which he was required to explain was,
why he took up the prosecution for the libel on the Lord Chan-
cellor after that noble personage had himself declined to prosecute.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then observed that he thought
it a libel of such a gross nature as ought to be publicly prosecuted.
When high officers were accused of corruption, it was a fit occasion
for prosecution.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL did not see how the Attorney-
General could complain of having been taken by surprise by so
humble an individual as himself, All he bad asked was, if the
public should pay for all thoee prosecutions. It was a question of
great importance to the house to know whether the individuals 11-
belled or the public should pay for them; for if the latter should
pay, it might be an inducement to Attornies General to prosecute.
lie (Sir Edward) wished to know if any other charges for ex-officlos
were included in those estimates.

The ATTORNEY-GENBRAL observed that the expenses for
all the ex-olficio Informations were included.

Mr. O'CONNELL hoped that Sir C7fietherell would persevere
in his motion, not because the ex-otficio was too harsh, but because
the prosecution was put in a proper train by the Lord Chancellor,
and there was no instance on record of an ex-officio having been
filed after such a proceeding; it was a double prosecution. He
(Mr. O'Connell) cared not whether the opinions of Mr. Alexander
were liberal or not ; it was the principle he objected to.
Sir R. PEEL observed that, if the house thought with the hon.
member for Clare, that the prosecutions were vindictive, the house
should show their sense of it by refusing the expense. Would the
house by this indirect means fix a censure on the Lord Chancellor
and the Attorney General, by refusing an item of 1001? The At.
toiney.General had been very unfairly dealt with this night; he was
called on without previous notice to defend his conduct with respect
to these prosecutions. He (Sir B.) never recollected any gentleman
being placed in such a situation as the Attorney-General bad been
this night. What he (bir R.) should propose was, that before the
report was !nought up, the facts of the case should be laid before
them, and also a statement to show whether it was customary for
the public to pay for public prosecutions.
Mr. SADLER maintained that the most important constitutional
questions ought to be discussed on incidental questions.
Sir C. WETHERELL raid he was glad that this whole qua-
don was likely soon to be publicly discussed ; but he had received
no satisfactory answer to his question, namely, the ground upon
which the Attorney-General took up a prosecution, which had been
abandoned by the Lord Chancellor.
Sir B. PEEL never meant to say that constitutional questions
should not be discussed in Committees, or on incidental grounds.
Mr. BRIGHT condemned the conduct of the Attorney. General,
which be thought unconstitutional and oppressive.
The vote were then agreed to, as were the following :--
£107,000 for supporting convicts at home and at Bermuda.
n 6,000 for the support of captured negroes.
118,700 for paying the expenses of commissioners for suppressing
slavery.
128.000 for defraying the expenses of missions to the New States
of South America.

.C 16,000 for defraying the expenses of the Law Commissioners.
At the request of Mr. HUME, this last vote was withdrawn.
The house resumed, and the report was ordered to be brought up
on Monday.
Sit E. PEEL said he should bring forward the forgery bill on
Monday.

/Milt BILL.
On the question of going into a committee on the beer bill,
iIr.BRIOHT mid the house was not yet in possession of the views
of government withnprd to those melee arrangements which af-
fected beer and malt; unless the house were determined to act in
they shield pass this bill without further information.
tr:ranaede, to knew distinctly what were the extent oldie reductions
in the excise duties on malt. _

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the excise
regulations formed part of a bill sot them before the house, and he
thought it better to reserve the dismission until that bill were before
the house.

In answer to a question from Sir M. W. RIDLEY,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, what he
intended was, to have beer licenses obtained from the excise ; but
when a house was to sell spirits as well as beet, then a magistrates
license, as at present, would be requisite.

The house then resolved into committee on the bill, with an un•
demanding that the clauses were to be agreed to pro forwa, and the
discussion and division to take place upon btinging up the report.
Sir T. FRREMANTIJE moved that a clause be inserted in thv
bill, obliging persons in the country, anxious to obtain a license to
sell beer, to fix his name and address upon the churelt•doots for
three Sundays.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he e, ,ild
agree with the proposition.
The House divided, when the numbers were_
For the clause
Against it— 72
Majority against the clause....---. —3O
The r:p6rt was ord. n d to be received on Thursday.—The otter
orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjoutnt,l
a Quat.er.past Three &Clock this morning.