said, he was anxious to call the attention of the House to a subject upon which he had lately given notice, and which was one of very great importance to the public generally. The object of his motion was, to afford a certain degree of protection to the establishments called Banks for Savings. Many persons were not aware of the great advantages which have resulted from establishments of that sort in different parts of the country. They tended, in a remarkable and most beneficial manner, to encourage among the common people of all descriptions, a desire of saving from the earnings of their labour and industry, wherewith to secure them from the sudden reverses of misfortune. It had frequently been remarked, that hitherto the most ingenious men employed in different trades, were addicted to idleness and dissipation, because they had no means of depositing that portion of their earnings which they thus squandered away. It was quite clear that in large cities, artificers might often lay by considerable portions of their earnings, instead of which, for want of an adequate opportunity, they were wasted in extravagance and idleness, and the consequence was, that they did not work the whole of their time. There were instances where artificers earned from thirty to forty, fifty, sixty and even seventy shillings a week, and yet, in any case of illness or sudden distress, they were forced to resort to the parish for support. It would, perhaps, be said, that the plan of saving banks might do very well for artificers, in large cities and towns, and for domestic servants, but that they would be of very little use in the country, for those who were employed in agricultural labour. In reply to that, he need only refer to what had been done by the saving banks established at Bath, Edinburgh, and other places. The advan- tages, indeed, derived to the poorer classes in the country, were very great. It appeared, from tables to which he had formerly referred, that by a saving of only one shilling a week, begun in early life, a labourer in the country would be able to secure to himself the means of a comfortable establishment as he advanced in years. Early marriages had often been deprecated, among the poor, because they only tended to produce families without the means of maintaining them: but by this system, so small a sum as one shilling a week being put by, a man, when he attained the age of thirty, might establish himself and his family comfortably in a cottage of his own. In the capital, however, an artificer was better able to lay by twenty shillings a week than a day labourer in the country was able to lay by one. As a proof of the good results of these banks, he would mention to the House, that in the place which he represented, a labouring man who never earned more than ten shillings a week, had, by depositing a certain portion of his earnings, accumulated no less than 100l. by the time he was thirty-three years of age [Hear, hear!]. He had received a letter also yesterday, informing him that a similar establishment had taken place in the town of Hertford, and that in the course of one day no less a sum than 197l. had been deposited. He mentioned those circumstances, to induce gentlemen to exert themselves, and that they might not sit with their hands before them, believing that nothing could be done. He alluded more particularly to gentlemen who were at the head of manufacturing districts. They would find an eager disposition on the part of the people to avail themselves of such opportunities to save. The moral good to be expected from the diffusion of those banks, was great and obvious. They would gradually tend to revive in the lower classes, that decent spirit of independence, now almost extinct, which shrinks from accepting parochial relief. The poor man would learn to regard his own industry and labour as the source whence he was to derive temporary aid in the hour of sickness, or permanent support when the approaches of age should unfit him for active exertions. Together with those feelings of honourable confidence in their own means of subsistence, would be allied many domestic virtues, and they who now idly and profligately looked only to the parish for relief, would progressively become better men, and better subjects. They would regard their little property, the accumulation of their own industrious labour, with conscious pride and satisfaction, and scorn to be dependent upon the parish for that support which they could provide themselves.—He had hitherto argued the matter as applicable only to the poor: but it had its claims also upon the rich, for the poor-rates of the country would diminish in proportion as there were fewer person's to claim them. The progressive increase of the charge for the poor was truly alarming. In 1778, the sum raised for that purpose, was 1,800,000l., last year it amounted to very nearly six millions sterling. The poor-rates had grown to that immense charge, though he believed it was generally admitted, that the poor were no better managed now than formerly. In moving for leave to bring in the bill, he must say, that he was not prepared to bring it in at present; his reason for making the motion was because he had received numerous applications from different parts of the country, to know whether parliament meant to do any thing at all. With respect to the object of the bill, it would at least propose to grant the same as had been granted to the friendly societies. He had applied to his right hon. friend the chancellor of the exchequer, who had expressed his willingness to go that length. He (Mr. Rose) thought however, that a greater degree of encouragement and protection might be given, not only without any danger, but on the contrary with great advantage. He should now move, "That leave be given to bring in a bill for protecting of Banks for Savings."

expressed his warmest approbation of the proposed measure of the right hon. gentleman. He thought it was calculated to do as much service to the poor, as a former measure of the same right hon. gentleman, for legalizing benefit societies. They had been of great use in many parts of the country, and though in some cases abused, he believed, yet he had never known any instances, and he lived in a place where there were not less than fifty or sixty of them. With respect to saving banks, he knew that in Yorkshire there was a great desire to establish them, but they were a little afraid of doing so, from their apparent complexity. He would recommend, therefore, to the right hon. gentleman, to make the provisions of his bill as simple as possible, and as public as possible, even before the bill passed. He was sure that in many of the manufacturing districts, the workmen might save ten shillings a week, out of their earnings, which would be a comfortable resource for themselves and their families. At least there would be no excuse for soliciting parochial relief, when an opportunity existed, of which they might avail themselves for doing without it.

thought it unnecessary to say one word in favour of a proposal which he was confident must meet the wishes and be congenial to the feelings of every member of that House. Experience had indubitably shown that nothing tended more to the independence of the poor than supporting themselves by their own exertions. To a well constituted and liberal mind no event could give more satisfaction than the enlightening of the ignorant. Men once enlightened knew the value of their privileges, and learned how to use them. He particularly hailed the institution of saving banks, as a place where the rich and the poor met together, and mutually combined in promoting, under Divine protection, their natural rights. There, forgetful of those petty distinctions which temporary circumstances had created, they met as brethren, each to do his duty to his neighbour. On these, and on many other grounds, he supported the measure of his right hon. friend.

in reference to what had fallen from an hon. gentleman opposite, stated, that the members of the benefit societies had increased to 700,000 in England, and 60,000 in Ireland.

hoped the right hon. gentleman would make the bill applicable to both countries. He was particularly happy in saying that the societies had been very useful in Ireland, and would, he trusted, continue long to be the source of much good to the whole empire.

Leave was given to bring in the bill.

having moved, "That the account showing the particulars of the sum expended in the year 1815, under the head of Contingent Charges by the Lords of the Treasury," be printed,

said, he should not fulfil his duty, both to parliament and to the country, if he did not call the attention of the House to some of the items which that paper presented. It had already appeared that the increase in the salaries of the department of the treasury was 10,000l. in the present year. It now came out that the salary of Mr. Harrison, assistant secretary to the treasury, had been raised from 3,000l. to 3,500l. a year. It was impossible, in mentioning the name of that gentleman, not to express the fullest confidence in his integrity, and the greatest admiration of his activity and his talents; but the interests of the public were not to be forgotten. Mr. Harrison had taken his present situation at a salary of 2,000l. a year. As he had given up his profession in order to occupy this office, a compensation of 500l. at one time, and 500l. more at another, had been added to his salary, making it 3,000l. per annum. Now, be the abilities of any man what they might, he did not understand how 3,000l. a year could not prove a sufficient remuneration for any duties, especially when the situation which he occupied was one from which he could not be removed by any change of administration. Last year, a minute of the treasury had increased Mr. Harrison 500l. a year more. He did not blame him for taking that increase; he only blamed those who had granted it, for he considered him to have been remunerated in a manner which the circumstances of the country did not justify. The chief secretaries themselves had only 4,000l. a year. But this was not all. There was in one line for the meritorious services of Mr. Harrison, a gross sum of 5,000l. He knew that for particular services boons had been bestowed at different times upon meritorious individuals. But when the lords of the treasury took on themselves, besides increasing the salary of Mr. Harrison 500l., to make him a present of 5,000l., where could it be supposed they would stop [Hear, hear!]? The contingent fund for this year amounted to 15,000l., and he trusted the House would take an opportunity of scrutinizing into all its items. He understood that, besides the regular duties of his office, Mr. Harrison had been employed in other important transactions, in which a man of trust and abilities was required; and he had no doubt that he had discharged the most difficult occupations in the most distinguished manner. But there was no decency in this distribution of public money. If he had not moved for the detailed accounts of the contingencies, this case would not have been discovered. Granting the highest merits to Mr. Harrison, yet he should have failed in the execution of his duty, had he not exposed this secret transaction. He had no inclination to make any motion on the subject. If he moved any thing, it could only be the impeachment of ministers; but he trusted that those gentlemen unconnected with party who had received from their constituents recommendations to insist on all possible economy and retrenchment, would take it up [Here the chancellor of the exchequer smiled]. The right hon. gentleman might have spared this mirth at his own detection. He smiled at the idea of impeachment, but he (Mr. T.) hoped the subject would be brought forward, and by one of those gentlemen, in a way that could not be charged with party motives.

thought that it would have become the right hon. gentleman as well to have allowed the House to consider the papers on the table before he had made any remarks on those transactions which could not otherwise be understood. He had called it a secret transaction, but the return had been made in the usual form. The accounts of contingencies laid from year to year before the House, and containing a variety of grants of this nature, were always done in that manner, and any explanation was given, or more detailed information produced, upon any point on which it might be required. The right hon. gentleman had noticed his surprise that he should wish an impeachment to be moved against his majesty's ministers by others. Such a proposal could not come from a better quarter than that of the right hon. member himself; and if he was to fall, he had rather fall by him than by a less powerful hand. He should now take a short view of Mr. Harrison's career. He had been appointed by Mr. Pitt, in 1805, to his present situation, with a salary of 2,000l. a year, and an eventual increase of 500l. after five years service, being then rising in his profession, the law, and in circumstances which rendered his acceptance of office a sacrifice. In 1807, in consequence of the approbation expressed by lord Melville of his services, lord Grenville had anticipated the appointed time, and granted him the increase of 500l. a year. In 1809, the treasury took into consideration the large increase in the business of his office. The number of papers to be registered, which, in 1805, amounted only to 7,000, was, in 1809, 15,000. They considered him therefore entitled to a further increase, and added 500l. to his salary, thus making it 3,000l. per annum. He conceded that it was an ample salary; but from the commencement of the war in the peninsula, Mr. Harrison had been engaged in extra-official duties. Under the duke of Portland and Mr. Perceval he had been charged with the correspondence of the army, and for his great additional services had received no remuneration until the year 1814. He had then applied to the earl of Liverpool to have his services taken into consideration, and, after much deliberation, it had been resolved, with a view to avoid a permanent increase of salary, that a grant of money would be the best means of rewarding the services of that gentleman—5,000l. were then bestowed as a retrospective grant, and a prospective increase of 500l. to his salary, so long as his extra services should continue. The augmentation was, therefore, in fact, temporary. Whenever the House should enter more fully into this business, he should be prepared to show many precedents for this grant, some for smaller and some for larger sums. In the stamp office 10,000l. had been granted from contingencies to Mr. Campbell for his services. The principle appeared to be recognised by the act of 1810, which provided that no increase of allowance should take place in any department without the consent of three lords of the treasury. Surely the lords of the treasury retained their power in their own office. There could be no doubt of the legality of the transaction. He should be ready at a future time to enter more at length into the subject, convinced that his own character and the character of the treasury in this transaction stood on strong grounds.

in order to obviate the reproach which the chancellor of the exchequer had cast upon him, of discussing the question before the House, had had time to consider the papers produced on the subject, and to show that he would take no unfair advantage, requested that they should be read by the clerk of the House—The papers having accordingly been read,

asked whether, in consequence of Mr. Harrison's illness, any increase of salary had been given to any other persons in the office for their additional labour?

replied, that the papers which had just been read must have apprized the hon. gentleman that some compensation had been made to one or two clerks, but not to any considerable amount.

concurred in the compliment paid to Mr. Harrison's character, but was glad the subject had come before the public, as it had developed a system big with the most ruinous consequences to the country. He would never hesitate to grant a man the proper reward due to his labour, but he thought when a man in office had 3,000l. a year, the public were entitled to all his labour, his assiduity, his talents, and his time [Hear, hear!]. The chancellor of the exchequer had stated the case of Mr. Campbell as a precedent, but the sum of 10,000l. had been granted to Mr. Campbell in consequence of his having augmented the revenue. This was, however, a matter of little moment, for the granting of that sum was in itself a very bad act, and if allowed to pass without notice, might be in the end extremely prejudicial. The reason why, in general, contingencies were not more narrowly examined than they really were, arose from their being composed of small items, and from the very great trouble which their perusal would occasion. He trusted parliament in this case would do their duty, and would not allow such a gross attempt to deceive them, and to conceal the transactions of ministers, to pass with impunity. He intended to move for the particulars of the contingencies for the last ten years, to see what else had been done of this description.

was not surprised that the present grant should attract attention, as its amount was considerable. All he wished was, that the House should not fancy that there was any intention on the part of his majesty's ministers to conceal it. It had been inserted as usual in the contingencies. That was the regular course. Their amount being thus swelled up would naturally excite attention, and honourable members would move for details, which would then be produced. There was no attempt at concealment in this. The gratuities had been granted to meritorious officers under the Crown, and there were two or three instances of officers of the customs whom it had been deemed proper thus to reward. Such powers were vested in the treasury, and as the law now stood there was no power which could have a control over it. Nothing had been done which denoted any disposition to secresy, and when ministers should have an opportunity of stating the extraordinary labours of the gentleman in question, he trusted the House would consider that this discretion had not been improperly exercised, and that there could not have been any improper motive for making this compensation to Mr. Harrison for his most arduous and eminent services.

must say, that though there was no imputation against the noble lord or the right hon. gentleman of any desire to conceal this transaction, yet there appeared no very great wish that it should attract attention; for it was one which, if it had come under the knowledge of parliament, would have been extremely likely to attract their notice. Nobody was more inclined to acknowledge the justice of rewarding public servants than himself; but it was improper and mischievous that one public servant should be selected to receive a reward which it was impossible to bestow in a relative proportion on others; and he begged gentlemen to consider what the payment of a large sum down was, and how much more serious to the public than a moderate increase of salaries. He was sure that if proceedings of this nature were the common practice of that board, they could not be prevented, unless brought in time before the cognizance of parliament.

said, it was the general understanding that these powers were not given to the treasury for the purpose of making large grants, but for bestowing small grants on clerks, as a compensation for extra services. It was never understood that the treasury should make such large grants as the House now heard of, and he would say it was the duty of the party who made them to have apprized parliament that they were intended to be made, and to have taken the opinion of the House upon them. He would not believe that, but for this discussion gentlemen would ever have heard of the 10,000l. till the 5,000l. in question had brought it to light. He would contend that it was a breach of duty in ministers not to have apprized the House of this grant, that inquiry might have been made as to its propriety.

The motion was agreed to. Mr. Wynn then moved, "That there be laid before this House, an account showing the particulars of the sum expended during the last ten years, under the head of contin- gent charges in the departments of the treasury, secretaries of state, admiralty, navy office, navy pay office, victualling office, customs, excise, tax, and stamp offices, army pay office, war office, and orddnance; distinguishing all sums above 200l."_Ordered.

rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to repeal certain clauses in the local acts, for the maintenance and management of the poor. He observed that he was induced to submit this motion to the House, in consequence of the hardships and grievances to which the poor were subject under the Lincoln poor bill. These hardships, he apprehended, were experienced in a degree equally objectionable under many other local bills, and therefore it was that he was desirous the bill which he should have the honour of introducing, should be applicable to all. The first objection which he had to the Lincoln poor bill was, that it permitted parishes which were twenty miles distant from each other, to join for the maintenance of their poor, whereby those unfortunate persons who were reduced by distress to seek relief from their parish, were often sent far distant from those friends by whose assistance their calamities might have been in a great measure softened. In fact, they were deprived of whatever little comfort their hopeless situation was capable of affording. The general poor law bill only permitted such junctions as these to take place where the parishes were situated within ten miles of each other. This, however, was not the only evil of which he had to complain, for by this act the most extravagant power was given to the directors and guardians of the poor; for, independent of having it in their power to send all persons to the work-house who might apply for relief, they also had the power of apprehending those who were incompetent to support their families, and sending them to the same place, where they might keep them as long as they pleased. It was at their option, in truth, to imprison them in this way for life, and where a child had once received the assistance of the parish, they assumed to themselves, ever after, the right of disposing of that child as they thought proper, either by keeping it in the work-house, selling it, or apprenticing it to the governor, or any other person whom they might select, for fourteen years; in short, there was no limit to the power which this act gave to these persons. He did not wish to take up the time of the House by entering more minutely into the further abuses which were thus sanctioned, yet he thought he should not be discharging his duty if he did not mention some other instances which had come to his knowledge. Among others, the directors of the poor, by this bill, had the power of letting out those unfortunate people as day labourers, to whom they thought proper. They had likewise authority to inflict corporal punishment to any extent; and this act had existed in full force for twenty years. Having thus stated the power which the act gave, he should now proceed to state the manner in which that power had been exercised. He had had the curiosity to visit the workhouse in his neighbourhood, with the view of ascertaining the manner in which the poor were treated. He had nothing to say against the general arrangements; the place was extremely clean and airy, and no particular complaint was to be made; but he did find a sort of harsh rule, which he conceived to be more than necessary. He saw, however, a thing which struck him with horror: he saw three cells, with iron staples fixed to the walls, for the purpose of confining human beings in chains [Hear, hear!]; and such were not persons who were insane, but those whose only crime was poverty, and their offences those misdemeanors which always occurred in such receptacles of misery. On inquiring whether any instances had occurred of persons being condemned to these cells by the self-elected judges, he learned that a Chelsea pensioner, 70 years of age, and totally blind, had been immured and chained, because, on receiving his pension, he had got drunk! He was not contending that discipline and punishment were not sometimes necessary in such places; but he would leave it to the House to say, whether the punishment ought to be of such a nature as he had described. Another instance was that of a young girl, who had been chained to the wall with a chain that weighed 28lb. with which she escaped, and fled to a humane person who took the chain off and weighed it. The reason assigned for her confinement was, that she was infected with a disorder, which it was feared she would communicate to others. Here again he could not but observe, that the cell itself would have answered every purpose, without the torturing addition of the chains [Hear!].

Having thus, as he conceived, stated good grounds for the amendment of the local poor laws, he should conclude by moving, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to repeal certain provisions in Local acts for the maintenance and management of the Poor."

said, he should not object to the motion, but he must state, that when the bill in question was before the House, it had his most hearty concurrence. It was not always that the same rule would apply to great cities as would to particular parishes. What the hon. baronet had stated, certainly made out an extremely strong case, which perfectly justified the interference of the House; for it appeared that, in this instance, the overseers had a power given to them which was greater than what was vested in the judges of the land, and he doubted the propriety of giving them the right of using any arbitrary power, except in extreme cases of delinquency. But he hoped the hon. baronet had not in view to repeal the general clauses of the bill, which certainly were beneficial. To authorize any departure from the principle of the bill, the case ought to be made extremely clear. Such power as had been described, however, ought not to be given to overseers.

said, he had no intention whatever of altering the general poor laws; his object was to amend the local acts on this subject. The bill he should introduce was intended, first, to deprive the directors of the poor of the power of confining persons in the workhouse who were not actually chargeable on the parish; secondly, to repeal the clause which gave them the power of disposing of children as they thought proper, who had once received parish relief; thirdly, to prevent the junction of parishes situated more than ten miles from each other; fourthly, to allow parishes which had joined to separate, upon six months notice; and lastly, to prevent persons of sane mind from being confined in chains.

said, the facts that had been stated by the hon. baronet were certainly extremely revolting, but he hoped the general principle of the poor bill would be left untouched. The impression that ought to prevail was, that it would be dangerous to overturn the principles of a measure which had been in operation for three or four hundred years. But the poor-rates was a subject that demanded the most serious consideration at the pre- sent time, when they had increased to such an enormous amount, as to absorb one-third of the whole rental of the kingdom. They were now about eight millions annually, and the whole rental did not exceed 24 millions. The system of giving relief to every person, merely because he was poor, was expressly contrary to the law of nature and the law of God, which declares, that each individual shall earn his bread by the sweat of his brow; and it was impossible that mankind could be maintained upon any other principle. But our system was the worst species of Agrarian law, which caused a man to have an interest in enjoying the fruit of the land, but no interest in the labour that produced it; and it was singular, that in no other country was this system adopted. The cause why so many unhappy people were dragged to workhouses and immured was, our having extended our principle of relief to all persons who are poor. But we should not be able to continue this principle long; for the time must come when every healthy person must live by the produce of his own labour. The evil was coming rapidly upon us, and he would say, that it ought to suggest the necessity of reviewing the system of the poor laws altogether; for it was utterly impossible that we could, by taxation or any other means, provide for the increasing amount of rates which would be required while this system prevailed, and from which, he really thought, the greatest danger threatened the community.

said, the evil which the hon. baronet sought to correct was, that the criminal law should not be applied to the unprotected poor, at the pleasure of persons at the head of parishes. They had the greatest temptations, in many instances, to exceed the powers given them by law, and the poor wretches could only bring their action for false imprisonment, which, it must be seen, it was impossible for any of them to do. All the transactions that had been related as having occurred in the poor-house of Lincoln, were in direct violation of the act which was called Mr. Kenrick's act. Sir Samuel descanted on these abuses, and declared his opinion, that nothing, was more abhorrent than that the children of the poor should be apprenticed in the workhouse for fourteen years, and made the slaves of the governors. Another horrible circumstance was, the farming of the labour of the poor, which gentlemen who had read the report on the mendicity committee, would understand was quite different from farming them out by the London parishes, to be maintained; this was quite different from farming them out to work like slaves. He entreated the House to recollect that they were legislating for poor people, who had no friends in the world, and who could not possibly obtain justice, unless at their hands. The object of the bill was only to correct abuses; but he hoped it would go to correct them wherever they could by any possibility be discovered; and he trusted the House would pay every attention to it as it passed before them, and make the violation of the law towards the poor in future a punishable misdemeanor.

Sir Egerton Brydges also supported the motion. After which leave was given to bring in the bill. Sir Robert Heron afterwards presented the bill, which was read a first time.

presented a petition from a number of importers of and dealers in foreign wines, describing the distressed state of the trade, and praying that parliament would be pleased to take their case into serious consideration. On the motion that the petition should lie on the table,

shortly stated the circumstances which had attended a conference that he had had with a deputation from the petitioners, and the reasons which had induced him to declare, that in the present situation of the country, he could not listen to any proposition for reducing so important a branch of the revenue.

The petition was ordered to lie on the table.

rose, in pursuance of the notice which he had some time ago given, to solicit the attention of the House to a subject which, in his opinion, amply deserved the most serious consideration of every man who entertained a due regard for the commercial, the financial, or (which was by far the most important) the constitutional institutions of his country. When this subject was first mentioned, an opportunity had not been afforded of explaining the change which two years ago had been effected in the law as it respected the revenue. To render the statements which he was about to make intelligible, he must trouble the House with a few words at the outset, explanatory of the state of the law before and since the change occasioned by the statute which had just been entered by the clerk as having been read. When he reminded the House of the vast extent of the revenue, and particularly of those two great branches of it, the customs and the excise—when the House kept in their eye the fact that the permanent revenue, that which existed in peace, exceeded 33 millions—when they reflected that to this was added in time of war 10 millions more from the war duties—when they contemplated the enormous amount of the whole, 43 millions—he was sure he need not say a word more to convince them of the infinite importance that ought to attach to all the branches of the law which related to the collection and to the punishment of the evasion of the duties, by which a sum of such magnitude was made up. The House must be well aware, that in former times the whole authority of collecting this revenue was vested in the two great boards of customs and excise. The commissioners of customs and excise, although appointed by the Crown, held their offices during life or good behaviour. They were formerly, as they were at present, taken from that independent class of the community, whose liberal endowments and honourable habits afforded a fair presumption that certain discretionary powers with respect to this important subject of the revenue, might be left in their hands, not only with safety, but with advantage to the public interest. One of the most momentous of those powers was, the control entrusted to them over the prosecutions for penalties incurred by the violation of the revenue laws. The revenue was so enormous, that it was almost impossible to form an idea of the immense mass of business transacted in that particular. The time of the commissioners had been almost entirely occupied with considerations of that nature. He was utterly unable to give the House a notion of the number of cases of violation of the revenue laws brought into the court, of the number in which convictions had been the result, and of the number in which proceedings had been stayed. But when it was considered that a mere abstract of the revenue laws furnished matter for a large volume—that even a mere index of those laws filled a volume of no small bulk —that the laws themselves (speaking within compass) occupied three or four volumes of the statute books—when this was considered, and when the vast variety of commodities to which those laws applied was also considered, it would be sufficient to prove how vast must be the mass of business which the boards of customs and excise must have had to get through in the discharge of that particular duty to which he had referred.

In the hands of those boards, and (by a particular statute) in the hands of the attorney-general used in former times to be lodged the power of commencing of, carrying on, and of staying (as it was termed) proceedings in the prosecution of offences against the revenue laws. By different statutes, which he would not specify, because he was anxious to avoid any thing like a legal detail, a further power had been confided to those authorities—namely, the power of restoring goods and vessels which had been seized, or which had become forfeit. This power, however, was subject to certain limitations. It could only be exercised before judgment, while the proceedings were yet pending. Another limitation still more material was, that it could only be exercised in cases in which the commissioners and the law officers of the Crown were convinced that there had been no fraudulent intention; but that the person who had contravened the revenue law had done so by mistake, and not by design. The last limitation to the power was, that it was not to be exercised in breaches of the navigation laws. The House would observe the extreme importance of the limitations which he had just described. The first, preventing the restoration of goods, or the remission of penalties after the cause had been tried, and judgment had been given for the Crown. The second, limiting the restoration of goods, and the remission of penalties to those cases in which there was good reason, to believe that no fraud was intended, but that the party offending had unintentionally fallen into one of those little traps into which, in the multiplicity of revenue regulations, the fairest dealer might inadvertently be betrayed. The last limitation, the most important limitation, the limitation to which on the present occasion he wished the attention of the House to be particularly directed, was, that these powers of remission, limited to mesne proceedings, and to transactions which were bona fide mistakes and not frauds, were confined to the boards of customs and excise, and to the law officers of the Crown, but chiefly to the former. These powers, so extensive, operating on almost all the traders of the empire, going into all the minute questions of the revenue—these powers it had been thought might be safely lodged in the hands of men chosen from the class which he had already described, liberal, respectable, and above all unconnected with his majesty's government, independent on any changes that might take place in the administration; and being appointed for life, free from all political influence.

In this state stood the law on this subject, until the month of July 1814, when it pleased the two Houses of Parliament to pass an act which speedily received the royal assent. By this act, so exceedingly concise, that it did not occupy half a page of the volume on the table, a change the most important that had ever been made by one statute in the laws and constitution of the country, was suddenly, and (as he was prepared to demonstrate) in the dark carried into effect. The first change which this new act occasioned was that it swept away the first limitation of power which he had described. Goods might be restored, and penalties might be remitted, after judgment had been given in a court of record in favour of the Crown. It next swept away that limitation which prohibited the restoration or the remission, except in cases in which the board or the law officers were satisfied that there had been no fraudulent intention. Lastly (and to that particular his observations on the present occasion would peculiarly apply), it removed that greatest and most important limitation, the existence of which, alone rendered safe the existence of the power of restoration and remission. By the act of 1814, the whole of the jurisdiction in these cases, the power of commencing, of continuing and of staying proceedings, the restoration of goods seized, and the remission of penalties forfeited either before or after conviction—in short, the whole dispensing power in all matters relating to a revenue of 43 millions was transferred from the permanent, from the unministerial, from the unpolitical hands in which it had until that period been placed, to the hands of the lords commissioners of his majesty's treasury!—If any one in after times, casting back an eye towards the period to which he had just alluded, and noticing the extraordinary change which had suddenly taken place in the revenue laws, and in the principle of the execution of the dispensing power connected with them—a principle which, if parliament did not interfere, would speedily attain to a more alarming height in practice than it had yet done, alarming as was its present progress—if any such observer, struck with the magnitude of the alteration, should take a retrospective view of the occurrences of the time when it was effected, he would naturally expect to find that this revolution in laws so essential to the welfare of the country had experienced in parliament consideration proportioned to the magnitude and importance of the proposition. He would look to those ordinary depositories of parliamentary information to which historians, and all who had not access to parliament itself must have recourse on such occasions; and he would endeavour to find in the Parliamentary Debates of the summer of 1814 some traces of that elaborate, that legal, and that constitutional discussion to which so great a proposed change in the laws must, in his opinion, have given birth. He would consult them in vain. In vain would he search through the whole of the proceedings of that period. Not a tittle of information would he obtain. Not a single word would he find recorded as having been uttered on the subject of this momentous alteration. Astonished at this, he would suspect some mistake— he would suspect that by some extraordinary exercise of the common law, overruling the statutes of the realm, this change had been effected. He would doubt if any act had really passed on the subject. But on consulting the votes of the House he would see the history of the transaction. And what did the House think was that history? On examining the votes, he found that on the 19th of July the bill was proposed. It was proposed at the end of a long and laborious session —on a night when various proceedings had taken place in the House, and among others, a debate of considerable length. It was recorded in the votes that the House sat till after twelve; that after that hour a great deal of business, amounting to no less than 25 distinct, heads (besides others postponed) was done: many bills, some of them affecting the property, some probably the lives of his majesty's subjects, went through different stages at this late hour, and towards the end of the sitting—about two o'clock, or nearer two than one—he found it entered, that leave was given to bring in a bill, which bill turned out to be the identical measure, to the nature of which he now wished to call the attention of the House. Not a word had been said—no explanation was given. The House—if House it could be called, in which, instead of forty members, there were in all probability not above four— was entirely taken by surprise. Such as it was, however, in utter ignorance of the tendency of the measure—at such a period of such a session—was leave given to introduce this bill. In the course of two or three days, the bill was read a second time; it was speedily committed, and on the 20th of July it was read a third time, and passed; and on the 30th, having gone through the House of Lords, it received the royal assent. So great was the hurry with which the bill went through parliament, that he doubted whether it had even been printed. Such was the history of this extraordinary and almost universal change in the administration of the revenue.

The remark which must naturally strike all who had attended to this history was, that a power thus suddenly transferred to the lords commissioners of his majesty's treasury—a power almost boundless in its extent—a power highly important to the commerce and finances of the country, and still more to the rights of the subjects— a power which, so placed, became most critical and delicate in its nature.—It must naturally strike every impartial person that cases would be apt to arise in which that power would be abused. He had no doubt, however, that if at the time of passing the act, any one had risen and objected to the transfer of this authority, on the ground that it would make almost every merchant and manufacturer in England become several times in the year a suitor at the door of the treasury; and that it might tempt his majesty's ministers to abuse the trust reposed in them, he would have been laughed to scorn by the right hon. gentleman opposite; who would have asked if the House conceived it possible for such corruption to exist in the government? It so happened, nevertheless, that the papers now on the table of the House substantiated a case of repeated abuse of the power thus lodged in fresh hands; and unless the House meant to declare that they would no longer inquire into the exercise of any power vested in government, but that they would take it for granted such power was rightly exercised, they could not refuse to accede to one of his motions, which was, for a minute and rigorous examination into the way in which the power in question had been exercised. Again, if the House were not determined to be deaf to the public voice, or to be blind to the papers on the table, they must allow that at least one case of gross abuse was established, which it was impossible to explain away; and in that event they must accede to another of his motions, which was to express an opinion on the conduct of government on that individual case.

He was unwilling to trespass on the time of the House, but it was necessary shortly to remind them, that independently of that case to which he had just alluded, there were several others, which although not so full of abuse, yet exhibited great malversation. The first of these cases was that of Mr. Davie, a common brewer, of Lyme-Regis. This Mr. Davie had incurred penalties under the excise laws, to a large amount. On proceedings being taken against him, a verdict, on the 4th of June, was obtained, probably mitigated by consent, for 400l. The first attempt made by Mr. Davie to obtain a remission of this penalty was by a memorial presented to the treasury on the 13th of June, 1814. This memorial was backed by a letter to one of the secretaries of the treasury, a right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Arbuthnot), from a noble lord, a member of the other House of Parliament. This letter was as follows:—

" Dear Arbuthnot; I have received the inclosed letter from Mr. Davie of Lyme; hoping that the circumstance that he states may be attended to, and that his case may be fully and fairly laid before the lords of the treasury when they give their judgment upon it. I am, yours, very sincerely — WESTMORLAND.—Aug. 18, 1814."

He (Mr. Brougham) certainly admitted that there were no grounds in this letter for asserting that the noble lord was rash enough to apply for favour towards Mr. Davie on the reasons stated in the memorial. The noble lord (for he was desirous not to overstate the case) merely desired that the attention of the lords of the treasury might be directed to the subject. The consequence of this application was, that the lords of the treasury referred the whole matter to the board of excise, to consider and report thereon. Of the favour thus conferred on him, Mr. Davie was duly sensible, for in a letter immediately afterwards he expressed his sense of his obligation to the noble lord in the following words:" I am exceedingly obliged by your lordship's kindness;" and in another letter, dated Aug. 15, he said, "I should esteem it as the greatest favour if your lordship will mention this circumstance to either of the lords of the treasury before their decision is passed upon the memorial, and your lordship's influence" (supposing with the ignorance and simplicity of the country people on such occasions, that undue influence was sometimes exercised 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 presented by Mr. Davie, and referred from time to time 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 he before observed, one of those simple ignorant beings who believed in the existence of undue influence) thought it just as well to have two strings to his bow, and therefore applied to the member for the county, Mr. Morton 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 Mr. Lushington with the following note, which showed that he had interposed on the subject before:—

"My dear Sir; I forgot before I left London to send you the two enclosed papers, which I mentioned to you one night coming out of the House of Commons. The writer of the letter, Mr. Fisher, is a most respectable solicitor in Lyme. Yours, most truly—W. M. PITT. —Dec. 28, 1814."

After this came another letter of acknowledgment from Mr. Davie to the noble lord, the concluding paragraph of which ran thus:—" Your lordship's interest and influence on our behalf will most deeply engage the warmest gratitude of my father, and of your lordship's most obliged and very humble servant—J. S. DAVIE."

On a further reference to these papers to the board of excise a final report was made by that board, adverse to Mr. Davie's wishes. With that decision the lords of the treasury had complied. The board refuted all the arguments in Mr. Davie's memorial, declaring also, that all the representations which had been made in his favour were unfounded, and expressed their hope that the judgment which had been given against him would not be set aside upon any ex-parte or extra-judicial proceeding. The report concluded by saying—" We shall think it our duty to proceed in due course of law, unless, as we trust will not be the case, we should receive your lordships positive orders to forbear." The lords of the treasury at length submitted, after having thus, at four several times, referred the consideration of the subject to the board of excise, notwithstanding the unequivocal opinion which they had received from that board in the first instance, and notwithstanding the decision of the court of exchequer. The result had been neither more nor less than a most substantial advantage to Mr. Davie. For, in consequence of the delays arising from the interference in his favour by the noble earl and by Mr. Morton Pitt—the first his friend in the borough of Lyme, the second the member for the county of Dorset, in which the borough of Lyme was situated. Mr. Davie obtained, in the first instance, a delay of eleven months, during which time the proceedings against him were stayed; and, ultimately, when the lords of the treasury refused to comply with his prayer totally to remit the penalties which he had incurred, that refusal, with a view to render it less galling, was accompanied with another delay 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 receive; and the whole detail of the transaction bore him (Mr. Brougham) out in the assertion, that that favour Mr. Davie would not have experienced, had he not, to use a vulgar expression—"had a friend at court."

The next case to which he should advert, was that of Mr. John Abbott, common brewer, of Canterbury. It appeared that Mr. Abbott had been engaged as a brewer for nearly thirty years, and that about two years ago a prosecution was commenced by the board of excise against him, for having mixed vitriol, coculus indigo, grains of paradise, guinea pepper, and other deleterious materials in the beer which he brewed, a large quantity of those poisonous articles having been found on his premises. It was known to the House that a more deleterious ingredient could not be used in any liquor than vitriol, a very small portion of which would be sufficient to poison a strong man, and though the quantity mixed in a large proportion of beer, might not be sufficient immediately to destroy life, yet it was evident that the constant drinking of a liquor, in which even so small a portion of it was used as to give it that particular taste which it was intended to give, would be extremely prejudicial to health. It was not like quashia and some other ingredients which were frequently mixed in porter, it was corrosive in its nature, and might subject the unhappy man who was in the habit of drinking the liquor in which it was mixed, to painful and lingering diseases, which would only terminate with his life [Hear, hear!]. He did not mean to say that it was the intention of Mr. Abbott to produce any bad effects by the mixture of this article in his beer, or that he thought it could produce that effect which he had described. He believed Mr. Abbott to be a man of a very good character, one who would not wilfully give such a deleterious mixture to the public. To suppose that he would wilfully consent to this would be to charge him with a felony. But he wished particularly to call the attention of the House to what had been stated by Mr. Abbott, in the memorial which he sent to the treasury in his defence. In this memorial he stated, that he did not know of any such ingredients having been put in his beer. Though he had been in the trade for 28 years, he did not know of what materials his porter was made. He stated, that not having been brought up to trade or business of any sort or kind whatsoever, he was totally ignorant of the business in which he had been so long engaged. He was, therefore, obliged to depend upon the skill and information of others in conducting his bu- siness. Though he had formerly been a landed gentleman—though he had lived in respectable society, and had been well enough brought up, for any thing known to the contrary—yet, as he had never been at a university, he had not learned how to make ale [A laugh]. From this cause he remained ignorant of the existence of the nature and the use of the destructive ingredients mixed with his liquor, or lying about his premises. He acknowledged that there was found about his brewery one pound of a substance which was called cow-powder. This cow-powder remained under the care of one Croaker, a confidential servant, who administered as need required, to the cow or the porter. The defendant did not deny, in his declarations, that such a powder was found, but limited the quantity of it to one pound, while, upon search being made, two pounds were discovered. He declared that he was not aware of more; but the exciseman, whose knowledge was not so limited in matters of revenue as this gentleman's was professed to be in regard to brewing, and who, it appeared, had the advantage of a better education in the line of his business, was not satisfied with this account; and, making a more strict search, brought to light two pounds of this cow-powder. Being equally inquisitive with regard to the quantity of vitriol, the exciseman discovered not only three pounds, which was said by Mr. Abbott to be the amount of all that was about his premises, but fourteen pounds, togther with two boxes capable of containing fifty-six pounds, or half a hundred weight. Any jury in England, before whom such facts were laid, as that 14lbs of a substance were discovered along with two boxes, from which it was evidently taken, capable of containing 56lb., would have inferred, without hesitation, that these boxes had been formerly filled—that they had been purchased for the use of the brewery in which they were found—and that to that use a part of the substance that had disappeared had been applied. Nobody would buy boxes capable of containing 56lb. for the purpose of holding 14lb. except it were rendered probable that, having a small quantity of any substance, they were desirous of using a larger vessel. These were the rules upon which a jury would proceed; and they would not fail, from considering the attempted concealment, the probability that the concealment arose from the consciousness of bad intention, and all the other circumstantial evidences of the case, to bring in a verdict of guilty. This was not all: the vitriol was found scattered about, and the servants endeavoured to secret the boxes that contained it. He would leave it to the House to judge, if there was not here sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion, that there was an intention, not only of practising a fraud upon the revenue, but of identifying that fraud with the mixture of rank poison in the beverage sold to the people as wholesome liquor.

Then came the testimonials in favour of Mr. Abbott. There were letters in his favour from Mr. Marryatt, from one of the members for the county, from an hon. baronet opposite (sir William Curtis), and from the member for the city of Canterbury (Mr. Baker), addressed to the treasury. They all spoke highly of his conduct prior to the transaction in question. The hon. baronet might speak with the utmost sincerity and from the warmest friendship, and in whatever he said there might be no reason for suspicion of political influence. The recommendation that came from one of the members representing the city where the defendant resided, and where his influence at an election might be exerted, appeared under different circumstances, and was liable to some suspicion. Although the testimony he offered might be prompted by the sentiments of regard that it appeared to express when the hon. member called Mr. Abbott his "much esteemed and valued friend," yet the House could not but view with some jealousy the interference of one member of parliament exerting his influence with the lords of the treasury, to screen from the consequences of a breach of law a person who might promote or oppose his election, and conveying that influence through the medium of another hon. member of the House (Mr. Lushington) who, besides being his colleague in representing the same city, was likewise one of the secretaries of the board to which the application was made [Hear, hear!]. There was another testimonial in Mr. Abbott's favour, which, though of no great importance in itself, was worthy the attention of the House, as being one of the many on which the lords of the treasury had founded their ultimate decision. It was a letter from the very reverend the dean of Canterbury, Dr. Gerrard Andrewes. The very reverend dean says in his letter,

"I have just heard that my good" neighbour, Mr. Abbott of Canterbury, is likely to get into some trouble respecting an information laid against him about his brewery, the nature of which, however, I do not understand. Ever since I have known him, he has appeared to me so good a man, and so useful a magistrate, that I should be very sorry to have that usefulness diminished, by his being brought forward to the public in a matter which only concerns ale drinkers" —[a laugh], "and I fear has its source in malice; for I will venture to say, that Mr. Abbott has not in reality been to blame. I have taken the liberty of mentioning this to you, because I think it my duty to prevent evil; and to lessen the influence of a useful man unnecessarily is a great evil; and if by producing this letter to those whom it may concern, you can serve him and the public, I shall be much gratified, &c."

This, indeed, was a most extraordinary testimonial which the worthy dean put forward in defence of his friend. Because, forsooth, the matter could only affect the lives or the health of "ale-drinkers," it was a matter of minor consideration, and not worth having his good neighbour Mr. Abbott, brought into trouble about [Hear, hear! and a laugh]. The good dean in the simplicity of his heart considered ale-drinkers merely as so many ferœ naturœ?, whom it would be of very little consequence to get rid of in any manner, whom every one was at liberty to destroy, and whose existence was in no manner to balance against the influence of Mr. Abbott [Hear, hear!]. But the House and the country would differ from the opinion of the worthy dean, and would think that ale drinkers were too valuable a portion of society to be exposed to destruction by the fraud or ignorance of Mr. Abbott's servants.

The hon. and learned member then called the attention of the House to the decision of the board of excise, and observed, that in their report on this case to the lords of the treasury, they disproved many of the statements made by Mr. Abbott in his memorials. They stated that the charge made against Mr. Abbott was for one of the "grossest and least pardonable offences," which could be committed—namely, the using "adulterating ingredients in his beer, whereby not merely the revenue was defrauded, but the health of his majesty's subjects was highly endangered." They also stated that there had been 14lb. of vitrol (not 3lb. as stated by Mr. Abbott in his memorial) in his concerns; that the servants could not have used such an ingredient without Mr. Abbott's knowledge, as he must have discovered it by the payments made for the large quantities procured; and they concluded their report with these words:— "Under circumstances of so flagrant a nature, we cannot think the memorialist entitled to the least favourable regard; but we shall consider it our indispensable duty to renew the proceedings against him, and bring the same to issue with all possible dispatch, unless we should have your lordships' positive orders to the contrary; so perfectly satisfied are we of the validity of the evidence now in our hands for convicting the offender; and we regret that the cause has been so far delayed from an ex parte representation totally false and groundless." This was the unbiassed opinion of the six commissioners, whose names were signed to their report. These were, M. Wish, lord G. Seymour, G. Watson, A. Phipps, B. Sydenham, and Mr. Serjeant Manley. They were all men of the highest character for honour, 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 influenced more by the views of the treasury than against them. Every motive of interest and connexion, if any such could be supposed to have influence with these commissioners, was rather in favour of Mr. Abbott. Yet with all this, these upright men in the consciencious discharge of their 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? They make an order for remitting the whole of the fine [Hear, hear, from the treasury benches]. Mr. Brougham begged pardon, he found he had been mistaken, 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 remission of the whole fine, which would, if the proceedings were carried into effect, amount to several thousand pounds, but they ordered the board of excise to stay all further proceedings against Mr. Abbott, on his paying a fine of 500l. and the costs of the Crown. He should then ask what were the grounds on which the treasury came to that decision? They were simply that Mr. Ab- bott did not know of these deleterious ingredients having been used, and that he should not suffer for the crime of others— [Hear, hear! from the treasury benches]. He was glad to find by the cheers of the gentlemen opposite that this was agreed to. 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 principle was carried further in other matters. He would wish to see that this distinction was adopted in those cases where the law of libel was concerned. On a former occasion he had adverted, though unsuccessfully, to the question of petitioning to the Crown for mercy in cases where no crime in point of fact had been committed by individuals, 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 Cuthell, where the latter, who had never written the libel, and who, in publishing it, thought he had been publishing a dissertation on a Greek verb, 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 printed by his men; yet this distinction between guilt in law and in fact was not then made. The hon. and learned solicitor-general could inform the House that the usual mode adopted in those cases was, to make affidavit that the accused person was not guilty; but still he could also inform them that in no case of libel was this attended with any good effect to the prisoner. There was another case where a man was punished for a libel, which was published by his foreman, while he himself was in France. It was said on those occasions to the accused, "you are responsible for the actions of your servants, and if you suffer them to distribute poison throughout the country (for a libel might be considered as such) you must take the consequences." This was an extension of the law, which, if denied in one instance could not be fairly exercised in another. The next case was that of Wolf Benjamin, soapmaker, of Leigh, in Essex. Among the testimonies in his favour, there was one from Mr. Houblon, and two from two other members of the House. They bore testimony to his character in general, but particularly insisted upon his loyalty, as if loyalty were at all concerned in making alees of alkali and tallow, and converting it into soap [A laugh]. How happened it that those three honourable members, whom he generally observed in their places opposite could think they had gained a point in obtaining a favourable consideration of their friend's case by attesting that he was not only honest but loyal? Could his loyalty be a higher praise than his honesty, or could it add to the merits of his character, if adorned by the latter attribute? Loyal in the sense of the treasury, might be something different from moral qualities; it might not mean to be free from any imputation of treason, and to be sincerely disposed to love the constitution; but to have a decided bias or ostensible leaning to a set of men, and kind of party principles [Hear]. There was a letter from an hon. friend of his (Mr. Western) in addition to those he had alluded to, and of a different character. It spoke nothing about loyalty, but merely bore testimony to the respectability of the individuals who agreed to make a representation in favour of the defendant. The last case he would mention was one more decidedly political than any of the former. The case of John Gibbs, of Emsworth, in Hampshire, was mitigated purely from political considerations. He was accused of having contravened the salt laws; and, after due inquiry and trial, judgment was given against him, fining him in a penalty of 600l. This case occurred, as he was willing to allow, six months before the present law increasing the powers of the treasury board passed. An application was made by Mr. Gibbs to the board of excise, stating a number of circumstances in favour of a remission of penalty. These circumstances were found by the board to be unfounded, and the application was of course resisted. He then gave in a testimonial in his favour, signed by a great number of persons, stating, that "John Gibbs, of Emsworth, had been uniformly distinguished for the loyalty of his principles." It would appear, however, that his loyalty did not lead him to respect the revenue laws, or to be a loyal subject in the matter of salt. The memorial then went on to state, that he not only was distinguished by his real support of his majesty's government, but that, "upon every public occasion, without any regard to personal expense or toil, he had been among the most active in his exertions in favour of the friends and measures of government." This might be said to mean nothing more than that Mr. Gibbs was favourable to the monarchical government as by law established, and a friend to the family, who occupied the throne of these realms. Those who knew any thing of the common acceptation of words would not rest in this meaning. He took every public occasion of testifying his principles. What did this signify, but that he raised his loyal voice in every public meeting to which he had access, to support the friends of ministry, or to clamour down their opponents— that he gave his loyal vote, and wrote his loyal signature? What did it mean, but that if there was a petition proposed against the measures of administration, he would exert himself against its passing—would endeavour to have it privately withdrawn, and set up a counter one of his own [Hear, hear!]. This was the character of a friend of his majesty's government in the treasury sense; and he would call upon the hon. gentleman opposite to say if the language employed in favour of the said Mr. Gibbs could mean any thing more or less? Such phrases were understood, and properly appreciated, both within and without the House. This testimonial was taken into consideration by the lords of the treasury, and so worded and backed, could not fail of success. The board of excise had made a report against him: another was made by the solicitor of the excise and a surveyor. It was stated that he even attempted to bribe the officer who made the seizure. Notwithstanding his loyalty, therefore, the commissioners of the excise were obliged by their sense of duty, to oppose his claim of remission of penalty, and to reject the testimonial that he had procured. He had already paid 200l. of his penalty, and they recommended the unmitigated exaction of the 400l. that remained. The treasury were disposed to pay more attention to a character distinguished for such loyalty; and, in terms rather insulting to the board of excise, they answered, that having taken into consideration its report, they were pleased to remit the remainder of the penalty.

He would now ask any one who had listened to the account of these facts, was a power that had been so abused, and that was so liable to abuse, to be intrusted any longer to the hands of the treasury board? What was the remedy (if it should be thought that a discretionary power of such magnitude should be lodged any where) for abuses like the present, he would not pretend to say. In what hands it would be less exposed to undue influence, it was not difficult to conjecture. He was of opinion, that the previous habits of the commissioners of excise, and the great quantity of regular business that passed through their office, together with the manner of considering every part of official duty as part of a system on which they were bound to act, without any discrimination of the circumstances of particular cases, might unfit them for exercising a judicious discretionary power. They might enforce penalties with too much rigour, or with too little regard to the characteristics of individual instances. This might show the necessity of establishing a right of appeal to some other tribunal on some occasions; but he was sure that the treasury board was the very worst place to which it could be referred. The treasury was exposed to all the fluctuations that could render its judgment suspected; it was exposed to every wind that blew from the court or the country; it was subject to the influence of every powerful elector or borough-monger; it was affected by the votes of this house; it was at the mercy of every great political event; it was liable to be turned by the gusts that blew from every part of the compass; and was certainly, therefore, not the place where impartial judgment could be expected. He hoped the House would concur in the motion with which he would conclude, though he thought a select committee should be appointed to consider fully the subject. The hon. and learned member then moved,

"That it appears to this House, that an information having been filed against John Gibbs of Emsworth, in the county of Southampton, for an offence against the act 88th Geo. 3, c. 89, touching the salt duties, judgment was entered up against him for the sum of 600l., of which 200l. were paid by him."—If this resolution was agreed to, he should move the following resolutions:

2. "That the said John Gibbs presented two memorials to the lords commissioners of his majesty's treasury, praying for a remission of the remaining part of the sum due, and that in support of this application he produced a certificate signed by many individuals in his neighbourhood, stating that he had always been distinguished for the loyalty of his principles and for his zeal in support of his majesty's government, and that he had upon every public occasion, without regard to personal expense or toil, been amongst the most active in his exertions in favour of the friends and the measures of government, and further stating that he had always borne the character of an honest and upright man."

3. "That the lords of the treasury referred the memorial and certificate to the board of excise for their consideration; and that the board reported their decided opinion, upon a full inquiry into the merits of the case, against any further mitigation of the penalties."

4. "That the lords of the treasury, on the 12th August 1814, issued their order to the board of excise to remit all that part of the penalty which remained unpaid, amounting to 400l., in consideration of the sum already paid, and of the aforesaid testimonials in his favour."

5. "That this conduct of the lords commissioners of his majesty's treasury was an unjustifiable exercise of the powers vested in them by law."

On the first resolution being put,

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, if the conduct of the lords of the treasury had been such as the hon. and learned gentleman had represented —if, forgetful of their duty, they had used the act to which the attention of the House had been called, not in conformity with their views of justice, but according to the influence it would give them, in that case he would admit that the strictures of the hon. and learned member would have been merited, and he ought to have moved, not merely a vote of censure, but an impeachment. The arguments of the hon. and learned gentleman had, however, proceeded on a complete mistatement both of the law in question, and of the practice of the treasury. The power of remitting penalties, he maintained, was properly vested in the lords of the treasury. They had the power of doing this before judgment was passed, previously to the passing of that act which the hon. and learned gentleman mentioned as having been abused. By that act they gained the power of remitting them after judgment, and also that of remitting the remuneration claimed by the officer or informer. The hon. and learned gentleman had selected, out of 29 cases which had been laid before the House, those which he had commented on in his speech that night. He had taken those where testimonies of character had been given by persons of distinction and and peers of the realm. A very different view would have been taken of this subject, had he brought under the consideration of the House those which were signed by persons of no political importance, as it would, had that attention been directed to those appeals to the treasury which had been rejected, instead of being confined to those in which the penalties had been remitted.—Had those to which he last referred been produced, they would have completely covered, not merely the table, but the whole area of the House. When the case of Gibbs was decided, it was proper to state that the reports of the solicitor and supervisor of the excise were not before the lords of the treasury. What difference these might have made he could not pretend to say. As the case came before the treasury, it appeared that a small vessel had been charged with a cargo of salt from the salt works in the Isle of Wight. On reweighing, it was found that 315 bushels had been shipped, instead of 300. This, however, it was proved, might have occurred through a variety of accidents. An officer had made affidavit that he (having received no bribe) believed that there had been no fraud intended, but that the 15 bushels had been added to the 300 in the hurry of loading. This considered, with the testimonials which had been given of his good character, would, he thought, justify the conduct of the treasury in being content that he should escape with having paid 200l. of the penalty, and being charged with costs to the amount of 200l. more. The letter written by lord Westmoreland respecting the case of Mr. Davie, as it contained only a recommendation that the case should be fully and fairly gone into before the lords of the treasury, was such as any person might with propriety have written. It was proved that the pipe which had been said to be concealed on Mr. Davie's premises was not a new one. It had been there in his father's time, and had been known to the officers of the revenue for the last forty years. All the favour that had been shown to him was this: he had been allowed (after being kept long in suspense) two months to pay the penalty in, on giving security for the money, and when he solicited longer time he had met with a positive refusal. With respect to the case of Mr. Abbott it was unfavourable to that person that the whole of the papers, connected with it, had not been stated to the House. The correspondence between the informers and Mr. Abbott, disclosed circumstances most material in forming a full and correct view of the merits of the case. It appeared that attempts were made to extort money from Mr. Abbott, and that the person who informed was actuated by malice and ill-will towards him. The surveyor of excise, in the first instance, reported in favour of a mitigation of penalty. He doubted whether any jury would, on consideration of the contradictory and insane evidence brought forward against Mr. Abbott, have given a verdict against him; and when the treasury at last made him pay 500l. with all costs, he would ask the House if they did not think he had been visited with a punishment of sufficient severity? The case of Mr. Benjamin had been very slightly touched on; and, indeed, there were no grounds in that case to support the hon. and learned gentleman in his assumption. On the whole, he submitted that there was no foundation for charging the treasury with an act, which he was ready to admit was of a most scandalous nature, and highly deserving of grave punishment; and he should therefore move the previous question.

said, whatever might have been the state of the law before the passing of the act, this formed no defence for the right hon. gentleman against the present resolution. The whole of that defence rested on the ground, that, among the papers in the case of Gibbs, there were but two, the report of the supervisor to the board of excise, and the report of the solicitor, which were not before them when the treasury took their determination to remit the penalty, and that the only papers on which they proceeded were the report of the board of excise, and the testimonials and affidavit of Hatherly. Now what did the report of the board of excise state? It stated that the defendant agreed, after a full examination of evidence, to let a verdict be given against him for 500l. and costs; that he was present at reweighing the salt; that he anticipated the result; that it was clearly evident from all the circumstances it was an intentional fraud; that there was reason to believe the same offence had often been committed before; and that many of the facts stated in the memorial were not true. Was not this matter sufficient to induce the treasury to make further inquiry into the business? He would ask the House if they could suppose, had the character given of Gibbs been, that he was a troublesome, noisy man, remarkable for his opposition to the friends and measures of government, that the lords of the treasury would have decided in his favour? [Hear, hear!] No gentleman in the House could think they would have done so. It was this character of loyalty and constant support of government which induced the treasury to decide in favour of the memorialist. The decision so given was an abuse of the powers vested in the treasury by the act. He would not stop to inquire whether the treasury was, or was not the fit tribunal in whose hands this power should be lodged: his opinion was, that it was not a fit tribunal; but having the power, they had abused it. If the House should approve of the conduct of the treasury, he should say this confidently, that not one man out of the House would agree in opinion with them.

agreed, that if the commissioners of excise had any other information on this transaction except what they derived from their own interested inferior officers, their representation ought beyond all measure, to outweigh the statements of the memorial. He had himself known many instances of subordinate officers laying informations which were not at all bottomed in positive or personal knowledge. A case had occurred recently of a prosecution for penalties under the acts which render the exportation of gunpowder, when forbidden by proclamation an offence punishable not only by penalties, but by forfeiture of the vessel. The ship had cleared out for Berbice, and on her return the seizure was made. The owners applied for a remission on the ground of their entire ignorance of the offence having been committed. In answer to this it was alleged, that the vessel had gone to the United States, and had there delivered her cargo of gunpowder. An inquiry into the truth of this allegation followed, when it was established by the clearest evidence, that the vessel had pursued her voyage directly to Berbice, and from Berbice home, and to no other place. All the explanation given by the officer who commenced the prosecution was, that those from whom he derived his information had gone abroad. It was upon the evidence of persons who had a deep interest in the prosecution that the board of excise necessarily formed their judgment. It was absolutely requisite for the safety of the subject that there should be a power of review and control; and this power, if it did exist at all, could no where be so properly lodged as in the board of treasury, who were the commissioners for executing the office of lord high treasurer, to whom, by the common law, the supreme administration of the revenue laws was confided. In the case of Gibbs the memorialists had stated, that he had already sustained an entire loss of 920l. from the consequences of this prosecution. With regard to the testimonials in his favour, there was no doubt some trash about the loyalty of the man's principles; but it was to impute an extraordinary degree of corruption to the treasury to suppose that this had any influence whatever upon their decision. Nothing was more common than to remit a portion of the penalties, in order to recover something: and in many cases the recovery of the whole must consign the offender to gaol, and his family to destruction. The board of excise was bound by its constitution, and the warrants under which its members acted, to conform to the directions of the treasury, except when they were sitting in a judicial character, and receiving informations. It was equally certain, that by the common law the Crown had a power of remitting all fines and penalties, as far as they were due to the Crown it-self. By several statutes the power of filing informations under the revenue laws was limited to the king's attorney-general, and to officers employed in the service of the revenue. The purpose of this regulation was to give the law officers of the Crown a jurisdiction over the progress of the suit, and a power of staying proceedings. A similar authority had in some cases been committed to the commisioners of the customs. The treasury was only so far limited as to act in concurrence with the attorney general. When he read the letter of Rogers, the excise officer who laid the information against Gibbs, it was impossible for him to doubt that he was influenced either by interest or by malice. The documents produced that night for the first time ought in fairness not to have been kept back, but to have been transmitted to their superior officers by the persons from whom they proceeded. It was under these views that he considered the interposition in favour of this person to have been strictly justifiable. With regard to the other cases, and par- ticularly to that of Mr. Abbott, he saw still less reason for calling in question the exercise of the powers vested in the treasury. The principal witness appeared to be either malicious or insane, and the penalties as the record was framed, could not have amounted to less than 4 or 5,000l. The offence was, however, but one act, namely, the having deleterious materials in his possession; and the utmost that any jury could have done, would be, to find for two penalties of 200l. each. The proceedings were, nevertheless, not staid till Mr. Abbott had paid 500l. besides costs. He sincerely believed that Mr. Abbott's character was as fair as any man's could be; and with regard to the name of Gerrard Andrewes, on which his hon. and learned friend had thought proper to make some remarks, he should only observe, that it was a name that stood too high to be affected by any expressions uttered by way of joke.

was desirous of stating shortly the grounds on which he should give his vote in support of the present motion. He was as little disposed as any man to look with jealousy at the exercise of the prerogative of mercy; yet he looked in vain for any reason in the case then under discussion for dispensing with the penalties incurred by Gibbs, except that he was a friend to the measures of government, or, in plainer words, of the then existing ministry. That the power of remitting penalties of this description did reside with his majesty's treasury was beyond dispute; but it was a most serious consideration whether a trust so sacred had or had not been perverted to private ends, and to objects of party advantage. What would have been the result of this application, had the offender been as distinguished for his political zeal in the behalf of the opposite interest, was a point on which no man could entertain a doubt. The treasury had referred the case to the board of excise, who reported on it after a conviction in a court of justice—who reported not only upon the results of their own inquiry, but on the minutes of evidence taken upon the trial; and it bore, therefore, no resemblance to the case mentioned by his hon. and learned friend, in which the commissioners were so liable to be deceived by the information of their own officers. The commissioners, after reviewing the whole proceedings, concluded by expressing their conviction, that this was an instance of gross fraud. What, then, was the conduct of the treasury, who had before thought proper to refer the memorial to the board of excise? Having received their report, and not being satisfied with it, they proceeded to lay out of their consideration all the merits of the case; and, regarding only the testimonials in the man's favour, the penalties already paid, and his former character, they comply with the prayer of his memorial. But the House ought to look then to the nature of these testimonials, and first to the petition of the man himelf. In his opinion, this petition was an insult on his majesty's treasury. It presumed to allude to his former services and to his uniform and zealous exertions in support of government, as a ground upon which he was entitled to require the benefit of that solemn trust of dispensing with the penalties of the law, which had been committed to the board of treasury. His hon. and learned friend might affect to call this trash, the mere effusions of a vulgar and illiterate mind, that could not possibly have any influence upon the conduct of his right hon. friends; but the same titles to consideration were enforced in the testimonials which came from magistrates, deputy lieutenants, beneficed clergymen, and solicitors, who must be supposed to know what topics to select in their applications to the treasury. Upon the subject of Gibbs's loyalty and attachment to the government, all these gentlemen were distinct and positive; but with respect to his honesty and fair dealing, all they say was, that they understood he had always borne a good one. Had he been recommended for honesty merely, the success of the application would probably have been less. It was to be recollected also, that the whole of these cases had occurred in the short period of one month.

said, the hon. and learned gentleman had entirely omitted to notice the certificate of the excise officer which stated his conviction that the over-weight of salt was owing to some mistake. As to the general question, it was certainly one of the most important that could be agitated. From the time he had held the office in which he now was, he had thought the revisal of the reports of the revenue boards was absolutely necessary, as they invariably concluded by stating, that the case was one in which mercy could not be exercised. He scorned the imputation of the hon. and learned gentleman, as to being influenced by party motives in the transaction in question; he threw back this imputation to the hon. and learned gentleman with the utmost contempt. He could show letters which he had received from the other side of the House, expressive of perfect approbation of the proceedings adopted by the treasury on various occasions. With respect to the act itself, it was absolutely necessary for the protection of the liberty of the subject. He then entered into an explanation of the grounds on which the act had been passed. As to the particular cases, he believed that Mr. Abbott was a most excellent man, and in forming this opinion, he was so far from being actuated by party feeling that all he knew of the political principles of Mr. Abbott was, that they were exactly in opposition to his own. He again disclaimed the imputation of his condct being in any degree influenced by political motives.

thought the question lay in a very small compass. He maintained that in the case alluded to by the resolution, there had been an unjustifiable exercise of their powers on the part of the lords of the treasury. In support of the remission of the penalty there was nothing but the word of the man himself, and the certificate of one officer. As to the testimonials of other persons, whose respectability he admitted, he rejected them from their nature and substance. One hon. and learned gentleman had said, that the evidence of Rogers would have been quite sufficient to show that the prosecution was grounded on malice; but if this was the case, why did not the lords of the treasury send back the matter for further inquiry? The fact was, that this would not have suited their purpose, as their own anxiety was, to remit the penalties to this friend of government. It must be evident that this was a case in which the powers had been unjustifiably exercised, unless it was proved that the treasury had taken every pains to inquire into the case. The firm conviction on his mind was, that the remission of penalties had been made because the individual was found to be a useful partizan of government. His only objection to the motion was that it was much too mild. If he did not know his hon. and learned friend so well as he did, he should almost have thought, from the language of the motion that he was tampering with the other side of the House [a laugh].

said, he had never heard a proceeding so burlesque within the walls of the House, as the right hon. gentleman's affecting to say that the motion was not in a tone of sufficiently high censure against his majesty's government. It had been completely shown that the act rather increased than diminished the responsibility of the lords of the treasury. The hon. and learned gentleman thought the act was one which it was likely might have been used by government for party purposes, so he began by a fishing motion for the proceedings which had taken place upon it during a whole year. When he found that this could not be complied with, he fixed upon one month, taking it at random, in hopes of being able to make something of it. Out of the twenty-nine cases which thus got into his hands, the hon. and learned gentleman had only been able to pick out four, on which he could attempt to found an imputation against the lords of the treasury. In fact, the whole drift of the hon. and learned gentleman's proceeding was to endeavour by any means to excite odium against his majesty's government. But it was rather too much to go the length of charging them with corruption, and being actuated by despicable party motives. He had as much right to say that the eagerness manifested by the hon. members on the other side of the House against the person whose case was referred to in the motion, was from party motives, and because that individual was of opposite political principles to those which they professed. It was really curious to see the hon. members on the opposite side exerting themselves in favour of the most rigorous execution of the excise laws. In fact, these hon. gentlemen would do any thing for or against the liberties of the subject for the sake of throwing odium upon government [Hear, hear!]. This could be their only object in the present instance, where they called for the most severe infliction of the law against the subject. In the case to which the motion referred there had been a fraud against the revenue to the extent of fifteen bushels of salt. The case had come before the treasury, with the affidavit of the excise officer, stating his conviction, that the fraud had been committed unintentionally and by mistake, with other testimonials as to the character of the individual, which, however injudiciously worded, gave a most favourable account of his character. On these the lords of the treasury had exer- cised their discretion. But if there had been fraud in the case, there had also been punishment; and surely a penalty of more than 900l. was a sufficient expiation for such an offence. Such was the severity of the excise laws, that unless there was a mitigating power vested in some branch of the government, they could not be tolerated by the subject. It had been said that this power should be vested in the collecting board; but surely nothing more absurd could be proposed. It might as well be said, that the powers of exercising mercy in criminal cases should be in the hands of the judges instead of the Crown [Hear, hear!]. He lamented, that during the debate the treasury had been opposed to the board of excise, which was most meritoriously conducted.

agreed, that the discretion of the treasury was most imperiously called for to lighten the hardship and severity of the excise laws: and was persuaded that, unless such a power was exercised, the pressure could not be borne by the people. With respect to the case in point, he confessed that it did appear to him to be one in which party influence had been considered, and therefore he should vote in favour of the original question.

said, he had signed the memorial, and put it into the hands of the proper officers, in order that the case might be inquired into. With regard to the case of Mr. Gibbs, he defied the hon. gentlemen on the opposite side to state one single instance where this gentleman had appeared as a party man, either at elections or at public meetings.

referred to the acts previous to that of the 54th of the king on this subject; and instanced two cases, in order to show the urgent necessity for the additional power being vested in the treasury to mitigate the penalties under the excise laws.

explained, that in signing the memorial in favour of Mr. Gibbs, he was actuated by no party or political principles.

considered the tendency of the present motion to be highly prejudicial to the interests and welfare of that people whose rights and liberties the hon. and learned gentleman had been always the first to protect, not only against the rigours of the excise laws, but against all other measures which tended to oppress and degrade the people of England. He confessed himself perfectly surprised at the course the hon. and learned gentleman had this night taken. The utmost rigours of the commissioners of the property tax were lenity itself to the oppressive severities of the commissioners of excise: and he could not consider that those commissioners were the proper judges of the portion of humanity which should be exercised.

Alderman Atkins said, he was decidedly against the motion.

Mr. Brougham shortly replied. After which the House divided:

The previous question was then put on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Resolutions and agreed to. The 5th Resolution was negatived.