quired to be rectified. If the unfortunate defendant was to pay these costs it was a dreadful grievance; if the public was to pay them, it was highly scandalous. The next which he would mention, was a case of the greatest hardship. An ingenious manufacturer had set up in Yorkshire a manufactory of smalts, which, by his ingenuity and labour was about to be brought to a degree of perfection, which would have prevented the necessity for importing that article into this country. The whole of his materials were seized by the excise officers, and notwithstanding his request, removed from his premises; and all were mixed together, and there fore spoiled. The treasury after two hearings were convinced of his innocence, and ordered a total restitution; but every thing was returned incalculably diminished in value. The unfortunate man died of a broken heart, having in vain solicited compensation for the loss of his property The officers were justified in law, but it was a cruel abuse; Summum jus, summa injuria. Now these were only a few instances of the many abuses which had erept into the system, and which it was the bounden duty of parliament to remedy. On these grounds he should feel it his duty to vote in favour of the motion.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it would have been unnecessary in him to have addressed the House, considering the very satisfactory manner in which the case had been argued by his two hon. and learned friends, but he could not help saying a few words because the last case mentioned by the hon. gentleman had come under his cognizance as one of the lords of the treasury. That case had no connexion with the present question, as it had not been in the exchequer, but had only been an act of the excise officers, by order of the treasury, in consequence of an apprehension that the manufacturer defrauded the revenue. His ruin had been occasioned by his not having obtained a legal protection for his manufacture. The case was certainly one which he extremely lamented; but it had unfortunately happened that this individual did not previously apprize the excise of the nature of his manufacture, and in the process it was necessary that he should manufacture glass, which involved an infringement of the excise laws. The excise in the whole transaction had confined themselves strictly to the power with

which they had been invested by law. The other two cases had been brought forward by the hon. gentleman in order to contradict the statement of his hon. and learned friend, that the crown never entered into compromise, but they were not in contradiction of that statement. In the one case, the Crown did not prosecute; in the other, it was a compromise on the part of the defendant. He saw no grounds for the motion. In an immense majority of cases, the commissioners had been fully justified in what they did, and he therefore, called upon the House to reject a proposition which tended solely to affix a stigma on the judges, the law officers of the Crown, and the excise laws of the country.

Mr. Lushington felt himself bound to oppose the motion, from a conviction that it would be injurious to the individuals concerned to have their names disclosed, and equally injurious to the public by a great number of clerks being taken from their ordinary duties to draw up the returns. He was of opinion, that much more information would be derived if the hon. member would call for specific information on specific cases. It was quite impossible that the House should go into a formal examination of all the causes which the present motion called for.

Mr. Williams expressed his astonishment that the right hon. gentleman should think that there were no grounds for the motion, merely because the facts stated had been disputed. He had listened to all the arguments which had been brought forward, and thought that the only way of getting rid of suspicion on the part of the public would be to grant the motion. If the information sought for on the present occasion was not afforded, the public would suspect that there was some improper motive for withholding it. In order to obviate one difficulty which had been raised, he would suggest that the cases might be given without the names of the persons concerned in them. In the present times he considered every sixpence as of importance to the public, and if a cheaper way of conducting prosecutions could be shown than that which was now adopted, he conceived that consideration alone would be a sufficient ground for the

motion.

Mr. D. W. Harvey replied, He observed, that the attorney-general had said, that not one case in a hundred terminated favourably for the defendant. He would

be taken into any mad-house, without a statement of the name of such lunatic, with that of the person by whom he was sent in, and the degree of relationship of such person to the lunatic, together with a medical certificate as to the nature of his disease. Now, he understood that this provision was not unfrequently evaded by a mis-statement of the name of the lunatic; and it was one of the objects of his proposed bill to impose a penalty upon all such wilful mis-statements. He had been told, that one of the objections to the former bills upon this subject in the other House was, the proposition to have a board of inspection appointed in each county, at the general quarter sessions. Upon what valid ground this objection was entertained, he could not well conceive; but he was not unwilling to have the power of making such appoinments vested elsewhere. Another provision in the former bills, which he heard was particularly objected to in the other House, was this, that any house, having only a a single lunatic, should be bound to make a return of the name and situation of such lunatic to the office of the secretary of state for the home department, to be there registered; and that such register should be open to inspection only by the secretary of state's permission, upon special application made to him for that purpose. He was ready to admit, that the feeling of delicacy and tenderness for private families, upon which this objection rested, was entitled to due consideration. But let it be recollected, that a person might be so confined, without any medical certificate, and that great abuses might arise out of the toleration of such a system. To guard, then, against such abuses, he thought it indispensably necessary that some plan should be adopted for registering the names of all persons so confined. For in case it should be required, by any relation of any such person, to ascertain his actual condition, how could he proceed to do so? If not enabled to know the place of his confinement, to whom was the Court of Chancery to address a Habeas Corpus to bring up any lunatic, or alleged lunatic, for examination? He proposed, then, that a register should be established under the control of the secretary of state, through whose permission alone such register should be inspected. This arrangement was the more necessary, as he understood that many instances had occurred in which persons

so confined had been kept under restraint long after their disease had been removed. But the unnecessary continuation of such restraint was not uncommon in the several private mad-houses. Such instances of abuse had indeed been found to occur even in the mad-house under the direction of Mr. Bakewell, of Staffordshire, which was confessedly one of the best regulated houses in England. The hon. gentleman concluded with moving for leave to bring in a bill for repealing the acts of the 14th and 55th of the king with respect to madhouses; and for making other provisions for the better regulation of such houses.Leave was accordingly given.

EXCHEQUER BALANCES.] On the motion, that the committee of supply be deferred till Friday,

Mr. Grenfell said, that the observations made on a former evening by the chancellor of the exchequer on the subject of the Bank balances, and his statements of what they were likely to produce to the public, had created strong impressions in and out of doors, and that those impressions had led to the greatest errors and delusions. He would appeal to the House, whether the conclusion which might have been fairly drawn from what the right hon. gentleman had said on the 2nd of February, and on last Friday, was not that 6,000,000l. would be available to the public services in the way he had then described? This was the impression which had been made upon him. This was the conclusion he had drawn; and he fondly imagined that he should have no more occasion to impress the propriety of such a measure upon the House. In this opi nion he had continued down to a late period on Monday; and he called upon every member present, who had heard the right hon. gentleman, to say, whether such was not the opinion which each of them had formed? But what was the fact? It was this, and he would stake his credit upon the truth of it; that instead of 6,000,000l. being applicable to the service of the public, in the way which had been stated, the House would find, that the public would not have the benefit of half that sum. He would state farther, that of the heads of balances, which amounted to 56, the public would only derive benefit from one. From all the others they were to be excluded, and the whole of what was intended to apply to their service was only a deposit of exchequer bills. He would

to-morrow move for certain papers which would more clearly explain this matter to the House.

Mr. Lushington regretted that the hon. member had not delayed his remarks until the chancellor of the exchequer was in his place. For his own part, he had no hesitation in saying, that the 6,000,000l. would be applicable to the service of the public, and that the result would prove the correctness of his right hon. friend's calculation.

Mr. Tierney remarked, that his hon. friend had said no more than what would turn out to be the fact, namely, that after all the boasting about the 6,000,000l. there would not be a sum of more than 3,000,000, or from that to 4,000,000l., so applicable.

Mr. Maberly conceived that the whole subject would be found to have been misstated or mistaken, as far as the advantages to be derived by the public were concerned. The fact was, that of these 6,000,000l., there would be 3,300,000l. to pay the arrear of the consolidated fund; and that, in order to pay the Bank the sum due to them, it would be necessary, in addition to the remaining sum, to take 300,000l. from the ways and means of the year.

Mr. Huskisson said, that it might no doubt benecessary to apply a part of the ways and means of the year to the liquidation of the 3,000,000l. due to the Bank. It should be recollected, however, that as it was determined to discharge that debt, it would have been necessary to take the whole sum out of these ways and means, if it were not for his right hon. friend's proposed application of the public balances alluded to. But the fact was, that this application itself constituted a part of the ways and means for the year.

MUTINY BILL.] On the second reading of this bill,

Sir Isaac Coffin expressed a desire to assimilate the proceedings in courts-martial in the army to those in courts-martial in the navy. In the latter service the sentence was declared immediately, and in open court; in the former it was referred to the inspection and consideration of the commander-in-chief, and was not in some cases declared till six months after the sitting of the court-martial. He thought it neither consistent with law or justice that such a practice should be allowed to continue. No man entertained a higher

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Thursday, March 11.

COMPLAINT Against Mr. WYNDHAM QUIN.] The order of the day being read for taking into consideration the Matter of the complaint against the hon. Wyndham Quin,

Sir R. Wilson said, that as it had fallen to his lot to present the petition on which the House was now about to institute an inquiry, it became his duty to put such introductory questions to the witnesses who might be called to the bar, as would serve to bring forward the facts as far as he had been made acquainted with them, and to connect the chain of evidence which it was in the power of the petitioner to offer. His object was to obtain truth, and that in the most explicit and unequivocal manner; but he begged to say, that if he trespassed on the rules of the House, or violated the laws of evidence, he hoped it would be ascribed, not to wilful error, but to his inexperience in such proceedings. He was convinced that no gentleman had come to the House to act the part of a judge, without endeavouring to divest himself of previous impressions, and wishing to guide himself entirely by the evidence; but he could not conceal from himself that an unfair impression had been made on the minds of the House by untoward circumstances. They had nothing to do, generally speaking, with the abstract motives of petitioners, unless when they seemed likely to influence the truth of their statements. He did not conceive that any thing which had been proved against the petitioner or his father should induce the House to relinquish the inquiry into an alleged public offence of the first magnitude. The time was now come for him to say, that neither the petitioner nor his father had any part in the fabrication of the matter of the charge; but that it rested entirely on the evidence of a gentleman, whose character stood as

high as that of any gentleman in the House. It would be now for the House to say whether he had forfeited that high character. He should now move, that Mr. Carew Smith be called in.

Mr. Carew Smith was accordingly called to the bar, and underwent a long examination. In the course of the evening, Mr. Stuart Wortley gave notice, that if any part of the proceedings were published before their completion, he would bring the individual offending before the House for a breach of privilege. Mr. Carew Smith having in the course of his examination, delivered in several letters, the said letters were referred to a select committee to examine the same, and to select so much of the said letters as should appear to have material relation to the matter of the said complaint. Then Mr. Goold was examined; after which, the further hearing of the said complaint was deferred until to-morrow.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Friday, March 12.

NEWGATE-PETITION FROM LONDON.] The Sheriffs presented a Petition from the Corporation of London complaining of the crowded state of Newgate.

Mr. Alderman Wood stated, that the city did not so much complain of being obliged to maintain the criminals of Middlesex as well as of London, as of the crowded state of the gaol, which was now such, that 47 prisoners were under sentence of death, while there were only 15 cells to confine them in. It was also mentioned as a fact, which showed the shocking consequences of the crowded state of this gaol, that 16 persons convicted of an abominable crime, were all confined in one room. If any prisoner was sent from that House, or any person of rank superior to the common prisoners, he was necessarily confined among the felons. The wish of the city was, to have the petition referred to the committee on gaols.

Mr. Wilberforce said, that one of the circumstances referred to was so disgraceful and disgusting that some immediate steps should be taken to remedy the evil. He suggested a special committee instead of a reference to the Committee on gaols.

Mr. Alderman Wood stated, that every possible means had been taken to place (VOL. XXXIX.)

these persons in a different situation, but it was, in the present state of the gaol impracticable.

Mr. Brougham said, that nothing but the most absolute, urgent, and imperious necessity could justify the city of London in adopting the line of conduct which they had done. He could only suppose that the city had not any means to remedy the evil of which they complained; because, if they had, they never could have been reduced to the lamentable alternative, of forcing so disgusting a subject on the House. As the subject had been brought before them, it was their duty to attend to it. The plan of his hon. friend, the member for Bramber, appeared to him the most efficacious

Ordered to lie on the table.

COMPLAINT AGAINST MR. WYNDHAM QUIN.] The House proceeded in the further hearing of the Matter of the Complaint against the hon. Wyndham Quin: and Mr. George Mansell, Mr. Daniel Gabbett, and Mr. Richard Smyth, were severally examined; and Mr. Carew Smith was again examined and directed to withdraw. Sir George Hill said, he rose in order to move that a witness, formerly examined, be called in and examined as to a question of privilege. Mr. Goold was accordingly called in, and thus examined by the Speaker:

Have you seen Mr. Grady jun. to-day?
I have.

Did any conversation pass between you and Mr. Grady jun. relative to your examination of last night?-There did.

State to the House what that conversation was?-Within the last ten minutes, or a quarter of an hour, I was standing in the room, which I believe is called the witnesses room in the presence of Mr. Roche, Mr. Gabbett, and Mr. Richard Smyth, when this gentleman, the petitioner, came into the room, and he addressed me by name, and said, "Mr. Goold, I want to speak with you;" I took off my hat in the most respectful manner possible, and told him that he must excuse me, that in this inquiry I conceived it would be indelicate for me to speak to him at all. He then said, "I must speak with you."" Then, sir, as you insist upon it, I shall leave the room;" on which he immediately said these precise words: "You spoke, in your evidence disrespectfully of me last night, and if in the evidence you are to give to-night, (3 R)