Star.
London, England, 1816-04-03 00:00:00

OFFICERS' TABLE AT ST. JAMES'S.

Sir M. RII)LEY rose to submit a modem to the
House, to which he apprehended there would be.no
objection—it was fur an account of toe contracts en-
tered into or supplying the Officers' table at St.
James's—the ,um p.tid to the suss-contractor, toge-
ther with the names In the contractors.

The CHANCELLOK of the EXCHEQUT:R
thought he could state a circumstance whits), at..uld
preclude the necessity of the lion.iurable Ihtionet's
nviti ,n—i•h,ch was, that an order had been issued for
Discontinuing the °dicers' table at St. James's, in lieu
of which sn Dr compensation was to be pude to the
().deer..—( flew ) •
Sir M. in consequence of this intima-
tion, withlrea his twition.

IIF:\IISSMS PfIOSECUTIONS.

Mr. BROUGHAM lose, in pill stiance of his no-
tice, to stib.iitt to the attention of the liouse a sub-
ject Witco, in his apprcheosion, demanded the seriints
consideration of every or in who regarded the corn-
' merci il, the financial, a:,d what was of much greater
importance, the constitutional interests of the coun-
try : he aAucled to the great change ....Inch was ef.
'crew.' within the List two years in the laws of this
kingdom, with rest ect to the collection of its reve-
nue. Ia order to sunder the mition with which he
should conclitle upon this subject intelligible, he
should take the lihe.ty of statiee, whit the law was
before the event to waich he alio hid taken place.
should promise, that toe whole ant 'u:,r ut the re-
venue of this c-tri•l v. arising front eu:ies on articles
imported, amounted to no less a stun than forty-three
noiTions, upon. the importance of the law, concerning
the collection of which he thought it %Was unnecessary
to m 'lce one tomment. It was, of course, known
that in former times e‘e whole of this enormous re-
v..nue was-collected under Iwo great heads, namely,
of Excise arid Customs. and.. under. the controulA
Commissioners. who held thi-ir oftizes for life, .or du-
ring their rod behavionr. These persons were taken
trout that independent ego of society. who, beside
being possessed of property, were Men of such in-
telltiAce and inforntatiOn as fully warranted the
discretionary power which was placed in theni,, to
consider and decide upon all tevenue
Among other important branches which their dory
embraced, was the con:roul which they•had over 21.
prosecutions against persons alledged to ha 7e corn-
mitted any breach of the Revenue Laws—Laws
which of themselves v:err so extensive as to f1:1 three
or tour of • the. Statute Books. To their discretion,
however, . and that of the A:torney General, as the
adviser of the Cr.twii, the ,expediency of foregoing
prosecutions und.:r those Statutes Was intrusted.—
This power was subject to a limitation' °la material
d nair.ely, first, that their power should only
he exercised before judgment given in the Court of
ExclieVer ; *secondly, that they slunild only have
the powerof excusing persons, and of restoring pro-
perty, where it appeared that the breach of the Re-
venue Laws hid not taken place from a honnfide frau-
dulent intention, but from a mistake ;—and the last
and most important limitation was, that their dis-
cretion did not extend to the breach of the Navigation
Laws. The House would naturally see the great
importance of the trust thus vested, and at the same
time the propriety of placing such powers in the hands
of independent men, who were unconnected with his
Majesty's Government, and could not be influenced by
an; changes which might take place in Government.,
In this state the law continued till the month of July,
1814., when it appeared that tie two Houses of Par-
liament passed aau which had received' the Royal
Assent, and which, in extent, did not exceed half a
page of one of the Journals on the table, the eff.vt of
which was totally to alter the old Constitutional reve-

nue laws of the country, and to vest in the Lords of
the treasury that po suer, which had previously been
confided to the Commissioners of Customs and Ex-
cise, without any Of these limitations by which the
power, when in their hands,. had been exercised.,
Every thing had, in fact, been swept away, and the,
Lords Commissioners of the Treasury had assumed
to themselves cite paramount right of deciding on all
cases of prosecution, whether judgment had been
given or not—whether frauds were intentional or
accidental. In fact, .they had.taken upon them-
selves the whole judicial power, witnegord to the
collection of a revenue amounting to forty-three mil-
lions--and tins too without one word of discussion,
or a single remark, indicative of the feelings of the
House on MI great and important a change.— '
The truth was, that the Bill had been introduced on
the 19th of July, after the hour of.twelve at night,
and had subsequently passed through all its stages,
without the House receiving any intimation of its ob-
ject ta. tendency. Thus had the rights of the public
been compromised, and every meicbaitt in thi coun-
try w.:s placed at the hazard of becoming a suitor at
the door of the fte.isury, a circumstance not a little
imporunt in the scale of ministerial influence. It
now appaired, that those abuses, which would nata-
-1 rail; bum suggested themselves to the Home, had

the object of the Bill, •vebea k Mai introduced, -beat
known, had occurred, and the object of his motioer •
would he, first, to call for a rigorous inquiry into
those'elsuses, which he thought the Kruse would be
blind not to concede, when they heard the Cases he
had to state--and next, if those abuses were fiund to
have takeu place, which he had no hesita;jou so
stating he shoulst be enabled to prove, that the Honor
should express its opinion on the conduct of Govern-
ment. The Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to state •
the cases to which he adverted. He commenced wi,h
that Of Mr. Davie, common brewer, of Lyme Regis.
This. Mr. Davie had incurred penalties under the Er. '
site Laws, to a large amount. On proceedings bring
taken against him, a verdict, on the 4th aline, was
obtained, probably mitigated by consent, for 4100.
The first attempt made'by Mr. Davie to obtain a re-
mistion of this penalty was by a memorial presentitt
r the Treasury on the 13th of June. This memo.
rial was backed by a letter to one of the Secretaries-
of the Treasury, a Right Hon. Gentleman opposite
(Mr. Arbuthnot) from a Noble Lard, a Member of
the other House of Parliament. This letter was as
follows:
"Dear Arbuthnot—l have received' the inclined letter frill&
Mr. Devi*. of Lyme, hawing that the circumsainees he stases
may be attended to, and that Ma ease may be folly ant faltiV laid
before the Lords of the Treasury, when tbe7 give their j.id ;meat
upon It. 1 am, ramie, very sincerely, • (.hoto!) .
" Augun IS, Itl4. " WEETAIOICLA ND."
.He (Mr. Brougham) certainly admitted that ifiere
were no grounds in this letter for asserting that the
Noble Lord was rash enough to apply fottavour to-
wards'Mr. Davie on the reasons stated in the memo-
rial. The Noble Lord (for lie was desirous Hot to
overstate the case) merely desired that the atren•ion
of the Lords of the treasury might, be directed to the
subject. The cAnscrovice of this application ',as,
that the Lords of the Treasury referred tre whole
!natter to the Board of Excise, to consider aad report,
thereon. Of the favour thus conferred on him, Mr.
Davie was duly sensible, for k a letter immediately
afterwards he expressed his sense of his obligation to
the Noble Lord in the toilowing words r—.. 1 all ex-
ceedingly obliged by your Lorafriip's kinaitess:"
and itt another.letter, dated August 15, he said, .. I
shall esteem it as tiie greatest favour it your Lord-
ship wail mention this circumstance to either of
the Lords of the Treasury, before their decision
is passed upon the memorial, and your Lord-
ship's influ.nice (supposing with the ignorance and
simplicity of the country people on such occasions,
that undue influence was scmdinser exercises in the
various public departments) will have great weight,
and will be most gratefully acknowledged by my
father and family." Although the explanation might
elucidate this transaction, he (Mr. Brougham) felt
that he was not at liberty to state the connexion that
subsisted between the Noble Earl and the Borough
of Lyme Regis. . Several other Memorials were'pre.
-Dented by-Mr. Davie, and referred from time to time
I
by the Lords of the Treasury to the Board of Excise.
—The Report of the Board was communicated to
Mr. Davie, who furnished the materials for replying
to it, paragraph by paragraph. Finding, however,
that his affair did not go on so well as he expeCted,
Mr. Davie (being, as lie (Mr. Blougham) before ob-
served, one of those simple ignorant beings whi) be-
lieved in the existence of undue influence) thought it
just as well to have two strings to his bow, and there-
fore applied to the Member for the County, Mr.
,Meseton Pitt, through the medium of a Mr. Fisher,
an attorney, whose letter, with a fresh Memorial on
the part of Mr. Davie, was transmitted by Mr. Pitt
to Mt. Lushington with the following note, Which
shelved that he had interposed on the subjecsebef ore :
gi My Dear sir--t fnrgot before I left London to send you the
two inciosed Papers, which I mentioned to you one night coming
.00t of the Hou,e of Commons. The writer of the letter, Mr.
Fisher, is anion respectable Solicitor in Lyme.
" Your., most truly, • (Signed)
" D2C2Mber sB, 1814 " W. M. l'.111'." -
After this came another letter of acknOwledgriienc
from Mr. Davie to the Noble Lord, the concluding
paragraph of which ruins class—
., boor Lordship's interest and influence on our behalf will
most deeply.engage the warmest gratitude of my tether, and of •
" Your Lordship's most obtided and very humble servant,
(Oigned) " ).S. Darla."
On a further reference of these papers to the B.iard
of Excise, a final Report was made by that Bo.;rd,
adverse to Mr. Davies wishes. With that. decision
the" Lords of the Treasury had complied. The BOard
refuted all the arguments in Mr. Divie's.MemCiiial,
declaring also that all the representations which had
been made in his favour were unfounded, and' ex-
pressed their hope that the judgment which had been
given against ham would not be set aside upon any
es-park, or extra judicial proceeding. The Report
concluded by saying —a We shall think it our dpty
to proceed in due course of law, unless, as we trust
win not be the case, we should receive your Lord-
ships' positive orders to forbear." The Lords of the
' Treasury at length submitted, after having thus at
tour several times treferred the consideration of the
subject to the Brard of Excise, notwithstanding the
unequivocal opinion whiCh they had received from
that Board in the first instilice, and notwithstanding
the deciiion of the Court of Exchequer. : The result
had been neither more nor less than a most substan-
tial advantage to Mr. Davie. For, in contequence
of the delays arising from theinteiferente in his
favour by the Noble Earl and by Mr. Moretoitl'ite--
the first his friend in the botough of Lime, the second
the Member for the county of Dorset, in whiCh t':e
borough of Lyme was situated. Mr. Davie obtaiii-
ed, in the first instance, a delay of eleven months,
during Writ time the proceedings agaiast him were
stayed ; add, ultimately, wl}en the Lords of the
teasury.relused to tempi), with, his prayer totally
tO remit the penalties which he had incurred; that
lir
!refusal, with a view to render it less galling, was ac.
'cOnspanied with another decay of two months, in order
to enable him to pay the penalties with more facility.
Next to an-absolute remission, that delay was'the
greatest favour that Mr. Davie could receives. and
the whole detail of the' 'transaction bore him (Mr.
Brougham) out in the assertion that that favour Kr.
Davie would Rot have experienced, bad he not, to
use a vulgar expression-:-44 had a -friend at Coon."
The neat-case to which be should advert, was that re
John Abbot, common lie*, of Canterbury. It ap-
peared that Mr. Abbot hidleette. aged as a brewer
for nearly thirty years, ea.:fillet abbootu two years ago
a prosecution warcorninenett by ' Board of Erma
against him, for having Mixed vi ' aod.othe; Me.
terioos matters in die, beer whin k brewed. at *go
quantity of that most.poiionmas sidiewalhaving_heen.
found on his premises. It was 'maws to die House

t

X

f

...

-.:—throm•neemes.
- that a. more deleterious ingredient could not he used
in any liquor than vitriol. a ,very small portion of
which would be sufficient to poison ; strong man,
and though the quantity Mixed in a large proportion
of beer, might not be Sufficient immediately to de-
still life, yet it was evident that di: tonstent drink-
* thg n' a limier, in which even 'so inialri portion of
It Was used as to give it that particular taste which it
was intended tea give, would' be extremely prejudicial
to healtli. • It, was not like quashia and some other
iniredientit which were frequently mired in porter, it
was corrosive in its nature, and might subject the on.
happy man who was in the habit of drinking the liquor
hilt which it wasinixed, painfnl and lingeng diseases,.
whir" u ruild only tertninati. (firee,heare)
He (Mr. BrOneham) did ili! 'toean twisty that is was
the ;rit!rtion of Mr. Abbrit produce any bad ef-
fects by tide mixture of this article inthis beer, or that
he thought it eoulil produce that effect
,whichhe had
described. He b lieeed Mr. Abbott to be a Man of
a very ;raid character--one who raid not wilfully
give such a del: olious 'mixture to the public. To
*oppose that he would consent to this, would
be lo charge him with a felony. But he wished par-
tidularls to call the atropin!) of the 1-I,iuse to what
had been stated by Mr: Abbott, in the Memorial
Which he sent in his defence. rat this Memorial; he
stated, that he did not know of any such ingredients
hiving been put in his beer : though he had been in
the trade for nearly thirty years, he did nut know of
what matetials his porter was:made.' He stated, that
not' having had the benefit of a liberal education—
( Murk laughing)--he was 'ignorant of eliat aas clone
in a business iu which he had been so long engaged,
And he brought forward a servant to prove the igno.
ranee •of the master however, admitted that
two, or three piiunds of vitriol had been discovered in
his brewing place, but denied having any knowledge
bf it or its uses. It might be. true, thAt he did not
know of this de)etetions artkle baying been used in
his business; but tinfortiinakly for fins, the Commis-
nioners of the Board of Excise were not ignorant men.
They were inert of. education, and intelligence ; and
they not only knew.that vitriol was Wvery poisonous
ingredient for human use, but they also ascertained
that two or.three pounds of some prepared powders,
and fourteee pounds of vitriol or copperas, had been
found at Mr. Abb.,t's brewery, and that the vitriol or
copperas was contained in two boxes, which, it lull,
would have contain td is6lbs. (Hear, hear.) It must
be evident that this vitriol was intended to be mixed
with the beer, and so the Board of Excise conceived,
and he-(Mr. Brougham) contended that there was
no. Jury -of Westmiuster or Guildhall, alio would not •
on their oaths have found that those boxes which con-
tained those 141bs. of vitriol, had not been filled with
it, because they would have very naturally conceived
that two large boxes would not have been used to
keep a quantity, which might be contained in a amall
one. • But this was not all which had been discovered
i'n Mr. Abbot's brewery. It. was found that some
*mall quantities or deleterious ingredients were scat-
tered in different places, and that the servants bad
been so anxious to conceal what had been at last dis-
cerned. that the officer who examined die plaCe
could .with difficulty find it out. Here then was a
use, where it was manifest that the servant in Mr.
Abbot's employment had used poisonous drugs in the
manufacture of his beer. Here had a case been
made out, which called for severe punishment, and
this was the case which the Lords of the Treasury
bad conceived it so light a nature as to remit the
fine wliich had been attached to it. (Hear, kear.).—
Ho should next come to :the test;monials on which
this mitigation had been founded. The first bad been
signed by Mr. Marryatt, the second by Sir Edward
rnatchbiill, and the third by an Honourable Bayo-
net opposite (Sir Wm. Curtis) all three Members of
Parliament. These testimonials gave a character -of
Mr. Abbot for honour and irot4rity.• which he (Mr.
Brougham) did not deny. they stated that Mr.
Abbot had fallen a sacrifice to the misconduct or -ig-
norance of his servants: All this might be true, but
there were testimopials of a different description, to
which he (Mr. Brougham) wished to allude. The
first was one signed by one of the Members for the
Borough of Canterbury (Mr. Baker), who warmly
recommended to the Secretary of the Treasury (Mr.
Lusrungonj. who, let it be remarked, was the other
'Member for Canterbury, to use his influence that the
prayer of Mr. Abbot's Memorial might be complied
with. He (Mr. Brougham) did net doubt that the
distracter of Abbot . was sush as it had been described',
neither did he doubt that Mr. Baker was Of rfectly
tweet in recommending his friend to the favour of
the Secretary of the Treasury, but he had merely
mentioned the circumstance to chew bow extremely
dangerous it was to have so great a trust reposed, as
that which the Lords of the Treasury nont possessed,
-in perions who were liable to clash in the discharge
of their duty with so many and`such powerful con-
teuding interests aithose of County or Borough Mem-
- bees. These was another testimonial iu Mr. Abbot's fa-
• yourcwhich, though of no great importance in itself,
was worth the attention of the House, as being one of
the many on which the Louis of the Treasury had
founded their ultimate decision. It was a letter from
the Dean of Canterbury (the' very' itevetend
Gerrard Andresva.)' The very Reverend Dean nays
_in his letter—" I have just heard that my good neigh-
bour, Mr. Abbot, of Canterbury, it likely to get into
some trouble respecting an information laid against
him about his brewery, the nature of which, however,
Ido not .uaderstand. Ever sine; I hare known him,
he has appeared to me so good a man,' and so urea;
a Magistrate, that j should be very sorry to have that
usefulness vliminislikcl, by his being brought forward
in she public an a matter which only concerns ale-
fkiaiers—(it laugh)—aad I hear has its source" in'
malice; for I will venture' to say, that Mr. Abbot has
main reality beets io blame. I have taken the liberty
of mentioning 'hid because I thihk it my duty to pre-
vent evil—and to lateen the influenceofh useful man
unnecessarily is if great' evil; and it by producing this
letter to those whom it May concern, you can serve
him and the public, I shall be much gratified, &c."
was a ;nail extranedinary testimonial which the
• worthy Dean rut forward in defence of his friend.—
BecAuse; tortootbs, the matter could 'only affect the
iiaca cry the health of ale-drinkers it was a matter of
consideratihn, and not worth having his good
,friend Mr.lAbhot brought into trouble about. (Hear,
-heart and a iner4.):%v:lbe good Dean in the simplicity
of mg heart iogesideffitiFis• le-drinkers merely as so many
feria astara,"•whoilb it war dil be of very little owe-

,

•. . •
quence to ;et rd of in MT mar ter, whom every oar
was at liberty to destroy, and whose existence was in
no manner •to balance against the influence of Mr
Abbot. (Nee, hear.)—But the House and the coon.
try would! differ from the opinion ef the.vorthy
and would think that ale-drinkers were too valuable
a portion of society-to be exposed to deltruction by
the fraud or ignorance of Mr. Abbot'i servants.,Thst
Honourable and Learned Member then called thvat—
tention of the House to the. decision of the Bard of
Excise, and observed, that hi' their report on this case
to the Lords of the Treasury, they disproved Many
of the statements made by Mr. Abbot in 114 memo-
rials. They stated' that the charge made against him
(Mr. Abbot) was for one of the grossest and least
pardonable offences which, could be committed
namely , the mine, adulterating ingredientsin his beer,
whereby not merely the revenue was defrauded, but the
health .0 his Majesty's subjects highly endangered!'
,They air) stated, that there had been found fourteen
/rounds of vitriol (not three pounds, as stated by Mr.
Abbot in his Memorial) in his toners ns ; that the ser-
wants could not have used such an ingredient without
his (Mr. Abbot's) knowledge, as he must have Air
covered it by the payments made for them; and they
concluded their Report with these words:—" UnJer
circumstances of so flacrant a nature, we cannot its nk
the rnetrerialiat entitled to the least favourable re
gard ; but we shall consider it nor indispensible duty
to renew the proCeedings against tam. and bang the
same- to issue with all plissible dispatch, useless we
should have your Lordships' p •itive orders to the
cteitrary—to perfectly satisfied are we of the validity
of the evidence now in our hands for convicting t •st
Offender ; and ae.
_regret that the cause has been so
far delayed froth an ix Mete representation, totaliy
false and greundless."—This was the utibiassed opi-
nion of the six Commissioners, whose names were
signed to their Report. These names were :
M. Wish, Lord George Seymour, George Watson,
A. Phipps, B. Sydenharn, and Mr. Serjeant Kinky.
They were all men of the highest character for ho-
nour. and could have no one motive for doing any
thing partially against Mr. Abbott; on the contrary,
they were from their connexions likely to be influ-
enced more by the views of the Treasury•than against
them. Every motive of interest and eminent)°, if
any such could be supposed to have infltience with
these Commissioners, was rather in favour of Mr.
Abbot. Yet with all this, these upright men, in the
conscientious discharge of heir public duty, gave
the Report to which he had just alluded. And what
did the Lords of the Treasury after this report, and
with all these facts staring them in the face e They
make an order for remitting the whole of the fine.--
-(Hear, hear, from the Treasury 'Benclets.)--Mr.
Brougham begged pardon, he found he had been
mista ken, but there were so many cases of this nature,
that the mistake he had fallen into was very natural.
-The Lords of the Treasury did not order the remis-
sioo of the whole fine, which would, if the proceed.
gs were carried into effect, amount to several thou.
sand pounds, but they ordered the Board of Excise
to stay all further proceedings against Mr. Abbot,
lon his paying a fine of di.500, and the costs ut the
CrOwn. He should then ask, what were she grounds
on which the Treasury came to that decision f They
were simply, that Mr. Abbot did not know of these
deleterious ingredients having been used, and that he .
should not suffer for the crime of ethers.—(Hear,l
hear, from the Treasury Benches.)—He was glad to
find by the cheers of the Gentlemen opposite that
this was agreed so. He was glad that they admitted
a distinction between guilt in point of law and in
point of fact, and he would be glad to see that
this orinciple was carried farther in other masers..
Fh would wish to see that this distiection was adopted
in those cases where the law of libel was concerned.— 1

Crt a former occasion he (Mr. Brougham) had ad.
vetted, though unsuccessfully, to the question of pe-
titioning to the Crown for mercy in cases where no
crime in point of fact had been committed by indivi-
duals. who were, nevertheless, severely punished.—
There were several cases of punishment for libel.
where the parties punished had been entirely innocent
in point of fact though not guiltless in point of law.
He instanced the case of Wakefield and Cutbeil.

where the latter, who had never written the libel,

and who, in publishing it, thought be had been pub.
lisping the raises of a Greek Bard, yet still he had
been convicted and severely punished. It was
even proved, by affidavit, that Cuthell was out of
town when the work, was printtd by his men ;
yet this distinction between guilt in law and in
fact was not then mde.—(l/ear, hear, /oar).—
The next case to which the Hon:Member alluded
to was that of one Wolfe Benjamin, a soap boiler,
whose penalties were also remitted after judgment
pronounced against him ; but he was a loyal man, and
had been recommended as such by one County and

two Borough Members ; though he could 'hardly see
what connection there was between soap•boiling sad
loyalty.—(4 Astegh.) —yet this soap boiler had a pe-
nalty of £l2OO remitted. The Act was thus evi-
dendy made an engine for political purposes, and an
instrument of gross fraud on the revenue. The last
'me was that of John Gibbs, who had contravened
the Salt Laws. After the prosecution had been gone
through, and the amplest evidences brought forward,
on the part of the Crown, be pleaded for the mitika-
tcd punishment of 411600. He set forth many things
In a memorial, which were all declared to be unfoun-
ded by the Board of rads,. A testimonial is his
.flavour declared, that he was uniformly loyal, and
ihewed his seal on all occasions for his Majesty's Go-
'eminent. This testimonial was not without its
weight, and there was also another procured from the
Member for Chichester. The Report or the Board
of Excise declared, that he had attempted to bribe
the revenue officer, and decided that he should pay
MOO. The Treastiry, however, only atteaded to
the recommendations of loyalty, aid remitted the pe-
nalty. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving
a Resolution—" That John Gibbs, salt •factor, had
his penalty remitted to him after judgment was pro-
nounced against him, and that the Act of Parliament
vesting the powers in thenihad been used most un-
Justifiably by the Lords of the Treasury."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUM
stated, that a number of cases had occurred wetly
similartO those which had been brought forward by
the. Honourable and Learned Member. It had been

shewn and decided, that it was every day's practice
for the Treasury to histruct' hil Majesty.' Attorney
General to assent, when necessary, to IN, setting
aside judgmatift in favour data Crowe ppd. asopt

' .

•

•
I
_

. .
• •
• •
trdm a .leaiibe la* ariser had eipressirstated,
that I* sods things are proper and'consistent with the
lasi." He should nett revert to the case on which
the Himoutable dentleinan founded his charge against
the Treasiiii. there were only two of the sir cases
which he had stateciwhich came under the Act, the
authority of which be disputed. The House would
recollect the manner in which this subject was origi.
nally brought forward. The Honourable Member had
moved for all the cases within a given time, . which
inroonted to 'l9, only six of which he had thought
proper to select. He should remind tire. House that
several papers, and amongst others the Supervisor's
Report, had never been laid beforethe Treasury Board,
and it was upon those papers that the great points of
this question, were founded by the Hoti. Gentleman'
The excess, it would be observed, in the salt, was so
moderate in the present instance, that it might be
accounted for by many other means than by sup-
posing a fraud. It was only 16 bushels over SOO
which it ought to have been, and this might be ac-
counted for from had weather, the mere action of the
atmosphere, or from an error in the weighing. The
Right Honourable Gentleman then proceeded to ex-
plain the various cases which had been stated by the
Honosiable Memb-..-r, none of which he coasidered as
throwing any disgrace or blame upon the Treasury.
Mr. PONSONRY thought, that the defence that
was set up was, that some of the Papers had not been
laid before the Treasury. The Right Honourable
Gentleman then observed. that the opinion of the
Commissioners was entirely against Mr. Gibbs, and,
tl,at the s verity of the law had only been relaxed-by
tits atrachmr•nt to Government.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL pointed out the
propriety rif vesting in the hands of the Commissio
ners of the Treasury, as acting for the Lord High
Treasurer, a re mitt ing power—and defended their con-
duct in the different cases adduced by Mr. Prougham,
in *proof of an improper exercise of their authority.
Mr. LUS}tTNGTON defended the conduct pur-
sued by the Commissioners of the Treasury, which
proceeded on fair and impartial principles. He scorned
the imputation of the Learned Gentleman, that they
acted from motives of political influence, and he threw
lit back to him with the utmost contempt.
' Atter o few further observations from Mr. nEORGS
Rosa, Mr. H. D.ivis, Mr: Pnormurox, and Mr. Al-
derman Arusi, Mr. BROUGHAM shortly replied.
The House 111611 di sided.—ln favour of the Nl°.
tig)n. 4B 12}—Majority against it, 713.
Brimparte'S Detention Pill went through
mince. Report this slay. The St. Helena inter-
course Bia vee!bt throtigh a similar stage.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of.
Adjourned at 1141:-patt Two.