Star.
London, England, 1820-06-17 00:00:00

cetinted for by the more than ordinary number of
prOsecutions which the Crown in that time had under-
taken. The circumstances of the times called for
these repeated prosecutions.
Mr. HOBHOUSE thought the reason assigned by_
the• Right Hon. Gentleman only made the item more
exceptionabie. The prosecutions by the Crown were
purely political ; and he denied that such a number
of them were necessary. By increasing such grants,
Ministers were enabled to keep to themselves all the
talents of the Bar, and thus deprive the prisoners of
the benefit which they might derive from it. On the
Circuits, all the leading Cetinsel were retained by
the Crown, as he contended; improperly. He thought
the Representatives of the People should not vote
away such a sum as £40;000 to be employed against
them--(Cries qf Order !).—Whatever might be the
feelings of some Gentlemen in the House, he conti-
nued to say, he thought the matter of so much im-
portance, that he would not only speak, but also take
the sense of the Committee upon it—.:(Hear, hear!).
Mr. HUSKISSON wished to know whether the'
Honourable Member for Westminster was prepared
to say, that all the prosecutions within the last year
were unnecessary ?—(Hear.)—What did he think of
the trials at the Old Bailey, at Lancaster, Warwick,
and Leicester ? If it was true that these were wan-
tonly or unnecessarily undertaken, then indeed no
sum ought to be voted to the Law Officers. How-
ever, if the House of Commons approved of them,
and thought that the Crown should have\the means
of tarrying such prosecutions into effect, it was but
reasonable the expenses should be defrayed—(Hear).
He had reproached Government with undertaking too
many prosecutions; but how often bad the Crown been
called upon from the other side to have recourse to
the law ? -This was pas titularly the case when the
new Bills were in progress through the House. With
regard to the King's Counsel being retained, he asked,
was it not their duty to be on the side of the Crown ?
But it was not the fees to Counsel which made up
the whole expense; a good deal was incurred in
summoning and bringing up witnesses. Past of the
present sum was intended to make up the deficiency
of last year, and the other part was certainly with
a prospective view to any new occasions which might
arise, and which the temper of the times did not at
all render unlikely. He therefore thought, that upon
general grounds, the Committee could not adopt the
exceptions of the Hon. Gentleman as to the increased
expecte, and if details were wished for, a return
would willingly be laid upon the table, to account
for the application of every item—(Hear).
Mr. HOBHOUSE agreed that the question was
entirely upon the necessity of the prosecutions, and
he did not blame those Members who saw their ne.
cessity, because they were for voting so large a sum
to defray the expense of them. He was not in the
last Parliament, and therefore had nothing to do with
those who called upon Ministers to multiply prose-
cutions. If he had been there, lie would not have
joined in the cry, for he thought it was taking an un-
fair advantage of Government at the time--(Hear).
He would then, as now, object to the principle of
these prosecutions. From what he sass; he was dis-
posed to give up the idea of dividing the Committee;
but he felt it due to himself to make his opinions
known to his Constituents, and having done that, he
would content himself with protesting against the.
vote—(Hear, hear).
Mr. LOCKHART instanced some cases where the
Attorney or Solicitor General bad not gone the
_Cir-
cuit to prosecute, but left it to the Counsel who
usually went with them.
Mr. HOBHOUSE said, that to all prosecutions
these Gentlemen were ex-nfficio parties ; and as to the
instances cited, the Learned Counsel employed were
called the King's Attornies. With regard to their
not going the Circuit, it was a sort of etiquette for
them to prosecute only in town, but, notwithstand-
ing, they received their fees for all—(No, no, from
the Ministerial side).

Mr. D. W. HAftV EY, without giving any opinion
upon the necessity of so many prosecutions, said he
should be glad to see the Account promised, as it
would appear in how many cases the Attorney and
Solicitor General were employed. He himself had,
on a former occasion, stated to the House,_ that for
760 prosecutions in the Exchequer, the Attorney-
General received ten guineas each—( Hear, hear).—
He thought there was some justice in the observa-
tions of the Hon. Member, for Westminster, as to the best
talents of the Bar being engrossed by the Crown, to
the prejudice of the pi isoners; for it wasa practice, as
soon as any man was beginning to distinguish himself
in the profession, to hold out the bait of a silk gown;
and there were few instances where the temptation
failed. As, therefore, the silk gown was supposed to
be the reward of merit, and as a sort of adventitious
importance was given it in the eyes of a Jury, the
prisoner could not have the benefit of a King's Coun-
sel unless he paid £lO in the first instance for a dis-
peusittion from the Crown. He said he should avail
himself of the suggestion of the Honourable Gentle-
man behind him, and some day move for an ac-
count of the manner in which the £20,000 of last

year was expended.
Mr. HOBHOUSE suggested, that, perhaps, an
answer would now be given, as to whether or not
the Attorney or Solicitor General had been employed
in all prosecutions?
Mr. HUSKISSON said, he was not now prepared
to give an answer to that; but he could assure the
Committee, the ancient usage with regard to these
Gentlemen had not been departed from. They were
always looked upon as public prosecutors, and though
they may not have appeared in Court, yet there was
no case in which the Crown had not had the benefit
of their -legal advice.
Mr. HOBHOUSE said, the question arose from
his seeing all Counsel for the Crown called Attorney
in the technical instruments—(Cries of "No, no").
Dr. LUSHINGTON complained, that King's
Counsel were employed in other causes at the pub-
lic expense besides prosecutions at the suit of the
Crown.—The Resolution was then agreed to.
The Committee then voted the sum of £6OOO for Vaccine Ino.
culationy £9924 to make good the deficiency in the Grant of
last year, for printing the Acts of Parliament; £21,000 for
priuth.g the Acts of Parliament of the present year; £l4OO to
make good the deficiency in the great for printing the Votes of
the house of Commons la the last year; £21,1100 for defray..
its
iris the expense of prig site Bak, Reports, &c. of the last
session ; 423)00 for ' the Journals for 1820; 19000 for
the American Loyalistel for the Retired and Superan-
- nested Allowances; XTS,, . to make good the deficiency on
the Fee Fund ; .£83021 se defray the contingent expenses of

er