advance to any department of the state was constitutionally subject to the audit of the public, with a few exceptions, to which the head of expenditure, alluded to in the motion, did certainly not belong. Mr. Long stated, that the furniture provided for the accommodation of the Allied Sovereigns, and upon which the right hon. mover had so much animadverted, had been thus disposed of: part had been sent to Cumberland Lodge, and the remainder was lodged in proper stores, to be reserved for other purposes. With regard to the motion, he thought it a mere shifting of ground on the part of the right hon. gentleman. What on a former evening he moved for generally, he now proposed with respect to a particular person. But if the right hon. gentleman's proposition were acceded to, he no doubt meant to move also for the examination of other persons [Mr. Tierney nodded assent]. That being the case, he called upon the House to withstand the principle of the motion; which principle, if adopted, was but too likely to be acted upon hereafter, in a manner not so much calculated to promote public good as to gratify private pique. Mr. Tierney, in reply, observed, that the last speaker argued the question fairly and manfully, for he had laid down the broad principle that it was not to be admitted that any evidence should ever be examined as to the situation of the Civil List. Thus the right hon. gentleman would provide effectually against every prying person disposed to meddle with that subject. But then on the other hand if no such examination were allowed, did it not afford an encouragement to the Crown to contract debts, and to indulge in extravagance? For there could be no control if there were no power of inquiry; and inquiry must be useless, if no information was to be obtained upon which any reliance could be placed. As to the danger which some gentlemen professed to apprehend of improper scrutiny, if the power he required were granted to the committee, he would ask, whether such an apprehension could be seriously entertained by any man who looked at the members of that committee, who looked at the eight right hon. gentlemen about the Treasury-bench, all drawn up in battle array to guard the Crown against any indiscreet inquirers in the committee? The right hon. gentleman who spoke last had observed, that if he (Mr. T.) were on the committee of 1812, he would have understood the statement of Mr. Mash; and yet the right hon. gentleman himself, who was on that committee, did not understand that statement, as appeared from the note recently sent to Mr. Mash, to obtain an explanation. As to the furniture which cost 35,000l. he would ask, why part of it was sent to Cumberlandlodge, and who was there to use it? He would also ask, why the remainder was placed in stores-where, and by whose order? These were questions which, among others, he wished to put to Mr. Mash, and therefore he was anxious to arm the committee with power to send for that evidence. He contended he had made out a good and sufficient case in the Lord Chamberlain's department; and, if he were permitted, perhaps he could make out as good a one in the Lord Steward's and the Master of the Horse. He hoped, however, he had convinced the House, that there ought to be a vivâ voce examination. The noble lord had said that he was sure he (Mr. Tierney) would not be so unjust as to compare the present expenditure of the Civil List with that in 1804. He certainly would not: but the noble lord had done that which he expected would be done; he had told the House that in 1812 Parliament sanctioned an exceeding of 124,000l. however, there was one person who on that occasion raised his voice louder than another, to caution Parliament against the step it was taking, he believed it was himself. With the help of that 124,000l. the noble lord had reduced the excess to 90,000l., though he (Mr. Tierney) was at a loss to comprehend the process by which he did it. However, he would not dispute the noble lord's figures; they should be all right if he pleased; but, at the same time, the noble lord had not impugned any of his (Mr. T.'s) figures; and a more monstrous case of court extravagance had never, in his opinion, been brought before Parliament. The noble lord had talked about the debts of the Prince Regent. Why had they not been manfully and fairly brought before Parlia ment? In which case he, for one, however reluctantly, but considering that they must ultimately be liquidated, would have been willing to have them paid. At present they were no more paid out of the Prince Regent's money than they were out of his (Mr. Tierney's); for the allowance which was consecrated to their If, The discharge, in point of fact, ceased and de- The House then divided: Against it..... ......... 119 175 Majority against it.........56 Campbell, gen. D. Grattan, right hon. H. Romilly, sir S. Lyttelton, hon. W. Speirs, Arch. Tavistock, marq. Whitbread, S. Walpole, hon. G. Williams, Owen Warre, J. A. TELLERS. Robert Greenhill. HOUSE OF LORDS. LIBERTY OF THE SUBJECT BILL.] The Marquis of Lansdowne moved the second reading of the Bill for better securing the Liberty of the Subject. The noble lord said that the object of the Bill was twofold; the one was to authorize individual judges, during the vacation, to issue the writ of Habeas Corpus; and the other was empower the judge to allow the return to be traversed, and to liberate the party in case the return were false, and to give greater expedition and facility to the action for a false return. Individual judges to rested on the broad foundation of the common law as well as on statute and practice. It was true, the judge had no power to enforce the remedy immediately, in case no return were made; but then immediately on the commencement of the term a return could be compelled, and the offending party punished for contempt. In his own judicial experience of thirteen years, he had only known one instance of such refusal. It was in the case of a person who refused to make any return till the term, detaining in the in had long been in the practice of issuing these writs during the vacation, and therefore so far the Bill could not be considered as carrying the remedy beyond what it practically was at this moment: but then it had been doubted whether the power of the individual judges rested upon any thing but the practice. In the year 1757, certain questions had been put to the judges on this subject, and the answers were contradictory. It was fitting, therefore, that the law on this subject should be clearly settled and declared. The other part of the Bill was necessary, interval a girl whom he had seduced, and order to render the remedy complete, for at present a return before a judge in vacation could not be traversed, however false; and if the party against whom the writ was directed refused to make any return, he could not be punished for contempt, and no action could be brought against him till the next term. The party aggrieved might by this means be deprived of all remedy, for before term time he might be hurried away out of the country, and might lose his health or his life before he could have any opportunity of bringing his action; and even if he should at length have that opportunity, the person who committed the wrong might not be to be found. He understood that the Bill was to be opposed as being injurious in cases of lunatics and the impress service, but he could not conceive how it could do any harm in either. The only effect would be to prevent persons being confined in either case, who ought not legally to be so restrained. Lord Ellenborough stated, that judges had been in the constant practice of granting this writ in vacation time before and since the year 1757. The Lords had at that time suggested the propriety of preparing a Bill on the subject, but none such had been passed, probably because no inconvenience had been felt; and a Bill prepared by the judges had been laid aside, and one had been drawn up by that great ornament of the law, Mr. Justice Foster, which was published in the account of his life which had lately appeared, and that was the Bill now before their lordships: but from the year 1757 till the publication of the work in question, nothing had been done; and the abandonment of the object was a proof that it had not been found necessary to introduce any such Bill. The judges in vacation time exercised the right of granting these writs, and the remedy whose liberation was the object of the writ. The court immediately on the commencement of term punished him for the contempt, by six months imprisonment. As to the case of lunatics, no wellfounded application had ever been made to him on that subject. But the danger to the naval service was manifest; for if this Bill were to pass, when a fleet was about to sail on an important service, innumerable applications would be made for these writs, and considering the description of persons who were usually employed as law agents by the seamen, there could hardly be any want of affidavits. These would be traversed; the officers would be delayed; and irreparable mischief might result to the public service. He deprecated likewise the laying the burthen of punishing for contempts on individual judges. No one could be more willing than he would be to give every proper effect to this remedy; but at present there appeared no case of pressure, and he could not, therefore, agree to the second reading of the Bill. The Lord Chancellor said, that however he might be disposed to endeavour to give effect to a Bill of this kind resting on a narrower basis, he could not assent to the further progress of the present Bill. There were two cases in which it would be most mischievous; first, with respect to lunatics: persons who had recovered from this last of human calamities were often confined to prevent a relapse; and even those who were most attached to them were the persons, who often, by demanding this writ for their liberation, did them the greatest injury. Besides, under this Bill, the writ might be demanded by any body; and yet it had been said by lord Mansfield, that in cases of lunatics, such writs ought to be demanded only by those who were interested for the lunatic. Besides, the Chancery knew of no terms, T for it was always sitting. Then, as to the effect on the naval service, affidavits would be readily made for the reasons stated by his noble and learned friend, and those affidavits might be met by counter-affidavits; and more applications would be made in a week for such writs than all the judges could manage in a month. The whole would be an endless scene of litigation, confusion, and mischief to all the parties concerned. And besides, as the whole case would be disclosed on the affidavits, the action for a false return must be abolished; or if it were to be retained, it could be brought just as soon as this new action under this Bill, for no declaration could be delivered till the commencement of the term. Upon the whole, he gave the Bill his firm support, and hoped it would be allowed to go to a committee. Earl Stanhope said, that the noble lords opposite seemed not to be aware of the danger to which, under the existing law on this subject, they were exposed; for, by a clause in the Habeas Corpus Act, 31 Car. 2. those who were any way concerned in sending a person beyond seas illegally, were liable to the pains and penalties of a pramunire-they were to be out of the law-to forfeit their goods, chattels, lands, &c. The noble and learned lord on the woolsack had said, that the Court of Chancery was always sitting, and indeed it was a technical saying, that Hell and the Court of Chancery were always open; but then the whole of the business would fall upon the noble lord's shoulders, when it came to be grant these writs; and the noble lord could not complain, as he brought it on himself. The Marquis of Lansdowne said, he had heard nothing to convince him that the Bill was unnecessary, and still urged the second reading. The motion was, however, negatived; and on the motion of lord Ellenborough, the Bill was ordered to be read a second time on that day six months. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Tuesday, May 9. Lord Grenville said, that it was sufficient to know that a case might exist which required a remedy, to induce their lordships to pass the Bill: but it evi-known that he was always in waiting to dently appeared, even on the statements of the noble and learned lords themselves, that some remedy was requisite, and that the want of it had been felt in practice: a person had from the want of it been able to detain a young woman, whom he had seduced, for three weeks. As to the case of lunatics, the evils which the noble lord on the woolsack dreaded, might be remedied in the Committee: and it was to be considered that though the recurrence of the malady might, in some instances, be prevented by proper restraint, the malady might be brought on by undue confinement. As to the other point, there could be no wish in any quarter to injure the naval service; but it was a great object to prevent abuse of the powers necessary for the interests of that service. Persons not subject to the duties imposed on seamen might be taken, and unless an immediate remedy could be had, the case must often be without remedy; for a man, to use the language of Mr. Justice Foster, might be hurried away to the most distant quarter of the globe without any legal authority; and what signified it, in such a case, to say, that he had his action against one who might perhaps be no where to be found? One of the objects of the Bill was to guard against this inconvenience, without trenching on the powers which the law necessarily gave for the protection of that service which was the safeguard of the law itself a power which must exist till the means could be found of providing in some other way for the effective supply of the navy. SHIP LETTER BILL.] Mr. Shaw rose to present a petition from certain merchants of London, against the Ship Letter Act. They particularly complained of the clause which enabled the port officers to search for letters and parcels on board merchant vessels. Their ground of complaint was, that they were obliged to pay, in cases where Government had provided no mode of communication, for the transfer of their correspondence. To this clause their main objection applied. Mr. Forbes concurred in the object of the petitioners. In the affairs of the East India Company he had had opportunities of seeing the inconveniences which arose from such a regulation as this Act imposed. Mr. Finlay said, the subject was one of great inconvenience, so much so, that the owners of vessels, in several commercial towns would not allow any letters to be sent through their medium, lest their ships should be exposed to such an examination. I ceive him, and nothing but the parish This was a hardship, in cases where Government provided no mode of transfer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the Bill contained no new provisions; some of its clauses were as old as the reign of queen Anne. The Government, on behalf of the revenue, had no idea of imposing inconveniences upon the mercantile interest of the country; and he had little doubt, that on a general view of the subject, such regulations might be made as would answer all purposes, without the intervention of injury or inconvenience to any of the parties. dole for his support. And after all this cruelty had been committed, and cost incurred, a little more inquiry might show the order to be founded on erroneous or imperfect facts, or mistaken law; and the prosecution of an appeal might drag the pauper back again as a witness to the county from whence he came; and if the order should be confirmed, he might be sent a second time back to the place of his first removal; or, if quashed, perhaps to some other parish in the same neighbourhood. But all this he had dwelt so fully upon last year, that he would not debate it again. Sir Egerton said, it was purpose to put an the sufferings and expenses of these intermediate and useless removals. But if such were the evils to be removed, were there any ob Mr. Forbes repeated his objections to the that day week he would move for copies of all correspondence relative to this subject, between the Postmasters-general and the Court of Directors of the East India Com-jections to counterbalance the good of pany, also between the East India Agents and the Lords of the Treasury. The Petition was then brought up, and ordered to lie on the table. the plan proposed? Really, of the only two of which he could hear, one seemed to him perfectly visionary, and the other founded on injustice and cruelty. The first was the supposed difficulty of contriving means to enforce re-imbursement of the relief granted by the parish where the pauper is resident from the first examination of his settlement, till a final confirmation of the adjudication of that settlement. Sir Egerton said, this was a difficulty perfectly imaginary: and the plan proposed perfectly effectual for the POOR REMOVAL BILL.] Sir Egerton Brydges, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to prevent the removal of chargeable paupers till a final adjudication of their respective settlements, observed, that it might at first view appear extraordinary that the law could ever have been otherwise than according to the proposal which he was now about to make. But in look-purpose. As to the second objection, that ing back to the times when magistrates were first authorized to remove, it would be found that the question of settlements did not then, as now, involve decisions on some of the most intricate and subtle points of the law. It was intended merely to give power to justices to remove those who had no fixed abode in a parish to the place of their last residence; or, if they had none such, of their birth. But the law of settlements had long become so complex and voluminous, that it seemed utterly grievous and intolerable to continue to delegate a power so vitally affecting the happiness, livelihood, and morals of paupers, and so expensive to parishes, to a hasty first decision of two magistrates founded on ex-parte evidence. A pauper might thus be dragged or carted from one end of the kingdom to the other; from the home where all his connexions were formed, and the spot which had hitherto furnished him with the means of an industrious livelihood, to some remote parish where there was only a poor-house to re to take away the vexations and hardships - |