that 600,000/. had been already expended on this Penitentiary, of which he very much doubted the policy. It was now turned into a manufactory, which in the present state of the population of the country, only deprived the honest poor of work; so that the Penitentiary supplied the poor-houses, as the poor-houses supplied the Penitentiary. With all this expenditure, would any one say that there would be six penitents, who, according to this rate, would be produced at 100,000l. per penitent? This was rather a high price to pay for penitence. Ashe was to quote history on the subject, he should quote a monarch who was supposed to know as much of the fair sex as any king ancient or modern-he meant Solomon. Solomon said, that "a virtuous woman was above rubies;" this was to be sure in favour of such an expenditure. He understood, that the penitents from Newgate were ruined at the penitentiary-that Mrs. Fry's penitents were quite done up at Millbank. This put him in mind of a mistress, who having been robbed by her servant, said-"bless my heart, I am astonished at her, for she was strongly recommended to me from Newgate.' [A laugh]. He was against this system; he was for having all criminals sent out of the country to let honest men live. Mr. Holford said, the Penitentiary had not and would not cost 600,000l. It had hitherto cost only 340,000l. A vote of 60,000l. was now called for, and another would be required, he did not know to what amount; but the whole expense would not exceed 500,000. He agreed with the gallant admiral as to the general policy of sending convicts, whose punishment was to continue for a long term of years, out of the country; but maintained that a place like the Penitentiary at Millbank was necessary for those whose sentences were only of a temporary nature. On the resolution "That 21,000l. be granted for defraying the expense of the establishment of the Penitentiary House at Millbank, from 24th June, 1820, to 24th June, 1821," Mr. Hume said, that a considerable discussion had taken place last year in the committee regarding the erection of a steam-engine in the Penitentiary for the purpose of easing the labour which the prisoners endured in drawing water and in grinding flour. The committee, though no division took place upon it, had shown a decided disapprobation of the plan; and he now rose to ask, whether a steam-engine had been erected in the prison, for the purposes which he had before mentioned. Mr. Holford had great satisfaction in informing the hon. gentleman, that the steam-engine had not been erected, and that all intention of erecting it had been abandoned. Instead of a steam engine, four machines had been purchased for the Penitentiary, two for the drawing of water, and two for the grinding of flour. Mr. Lockhart wished to know how many penitents were at present confined in the Penitentiary. Mr. Holford said, that at present there were 400 penitents within its walls; by that time next year he hoped there would be 700. The number of criminals convicted annually exceeded that number; and the Penitentiary was built to hold 1,000. They had sent out of it, within the last year, 30 individuals, who, he was confident, would never again have occasion to visit it. Mr. Lockhart said, he was afraid, if the bill of fare of the honest poor who had been driven into Lambeth workhouse, for instance, by the pressure of the times and of taxation, were compared with that of these persons who were imprisoned for their crimes, the comparison would be much to the advantage of the latter. These convicts had each a separate room, fared well, had a physician for their bodies, and a priest for their souls. thought it a bad system that persons who were under punishment for crime, should be in a better situation than those who were suffering from misfortune. He Mr. Bennet deprecated the tone of scorn in which the last speaker had expressed himself relative to this establishment. He should like to know what that hon. gentleman would wish to have done to the unfortunate individuals in that prison.Were they to be left to starve? There was this difference between them and paupers in the poor-house-the pauper could leave his residence, but the convict could not leave his, being placed in it contrary to his own will. He was not for pampering the palate of a convict, but he was for allowing him that quantity of provisions which was requisite to his support. He was fully convinced of the truth of an observation of the immortal Howard, Mr. Ricardo said, that the difficulty of obtaining admission into the Penitentiary was so great, that he himself, though a member of parliament, had not been able to inspect it. that persons in prison require a greater | sion, the time of the officers of the instiquantity of food to sustain nature than tution, which ought to be devoted to other persons out of it. Indeed, there was in employments, would be fully occupied in punishment something of a corporeal dis- looking after the various individuals who ease, which wasted the frame much more would come to visit them. than any person who had not seen its effects would readily believe. The hon. gentleman had sneeringly said, that the prisoners had a physician for their bodies and a priest for their souls. Was there, then, to be no religious attendance paid to the convicts; or was that attendance to be considered only as a fit object for a sneer? He could hardly have believed, had he not himself witnessed it, that any member would have risen in his place to broach such doctrines. If the House agreed to them, they must give up the great principle of establishing prisons for the reformation of offenders, the fruit of which he was certain would be good. He could not refrain from entering his protest against the position that it was impossible to establish such a system of prison discipline as would unite in itself the reformation of the offender and the punishment of the offence. Mr. Lockhart said, he had no such feelings as had been imputed to him; but when he saw that with improved prisons and new charities, crimes were increasing, he felt that the country was losing its way on an amiable system, and that what was really wanted was a preventive police. He protested against any plan which should put criminals in a better situation than the unfortunate. Mr. Ricardo thought that the difficulty of getting admittance into the prison ought to be taken into the consideration of the committee. If the officers were under the inspection of the public, they would be more likely to do their duty; and he could see no good reason why the prisons should not be subject to the inspection of the public. Mr. Arbuthnot, in moving "that 25,000l. be granted towards defraying the expense of making an inland navigation from the eastern to the western sea by Inverness and Fort William," observed, that 60,000!. would be wanted to complete this canal, but that he only intended to ask for 25,000l. this year. Lord Althorp expressed some surprise at what had just fallen from the right hon. gentleman. When this subject was before the committee last year, they had been told that not more than 75,000l. would be wanted to complete this canal. It was proposed, in the committee, to take 50,000!. at that time, and to leave 25,000l. to be taken this year. He was now told that, after the grant of last year, 60,000 more was wanting. This, he thought, required explanation. Mr. Arbuthnot stated, that in this, as in many other cases, the actual expense had been found to exceed the estimates which had been made of them. Here the excess amounted to 30,000l.; but he expected that no other excess would occur hereafter. Sir H. Parnell was convinced that those who looked upon this canal as a public work of no utility had taken a very mistaken view of the subject. He looked forward to it as a source of future revenue, and therefore thought that no objection ought to be made to the grant in question. Mr. Arbuthnot said, that if the House thought fit, he would propose that the whole sum of 60,000l. should be then granted for the completion of this canal. The reason why he had not done so at first was that he did not wish, in the present distressed state of the country, to impose upon it any burthen that was not absolutely necessary. Mr. Holford thought he could satisfy the hon. gentleman that the difficulty of which he complained was nothing more than a due caution on the part of the governors of the Penitentiary. If the public at large were allowed free ingress into it, it was clear that accomplices of the prisoners might gain admission, and thus Mr. Hume thought that this work, counteract all the good purposes which which had already cost so much money, the establishment was intended to effect. ought to be completed; at the same time Any person of respectable appearance he could not help expressing his convicmight gain a ticket of admission by appli- tion that more than 60,000l. would be cation to the secretary of state; but if all wanted for that purpose. When this cawere admitted who desired to have admis-nal was first proposed, it was said, that the expense of cutting it would not exceed 250,000l. This estimate was found to be erroneous; and then it was said that the expense would not exceed 580,000l. Now 60,000l. more was asked for; and that sum, he would repeat it, would not be sufficient to complete it. Instead of anticipating the production of any revenue from that canal when it was completed, he expected that there would be an annual demand upon the House for a sum of money to keep it in due and efficient repair. On the resolution, "that 40,000l. be granted for defraying the expense of Law Charges for the year 1820," Mr. D. W. Harvey wished to know the reason why such an increase of expenditure had taken place in this item. Last year the law charges did not amount to more than 20,000.; now they amounted to 40,000l., independently of the 8,000l. for prosecution relative to the coin. Mr. Arbuthnot attributed the increase in the law charges to the disturbed state of the nation, and the expenses which had been necessarily incurred in summoning and maintaining witnesses to support the various prosecutions which had arisen out of it. The solicitor of the treasury could not state what the exact amount of those expenses would be, but thought that a grant of 40,000l. would cover the whole of them. Mr. Hobhouse objected to this grant, on the very grounds which the right hon. gentleman had stated in explanation of its amount. He objected to it because the money which this grant was to cover, had been expended in the prosecution of political opinions. Those who thought that the recent prosecutions had been instituted without reason-and he was one who presumed to entertain that opinion were bound to oppose the grant; whereas, those who entertained a different opinion, in all probability would support it. By making grants to so large an amount for such purposes, they enabled the Crown to fee all the talent of the country-he meant all the legal talent-to oppose the people. Briefs had sometimes been delivered on the part of the Crown to all the leading counsel on a circuit, so that an unfortunate defendant was often deprived, by such means, of the aid of eminent counsel. They would be doing an improper thing, as the representatives of the people of England-if indeed that House were the representatives of the people ["Order, order,"]-should they allow the public money to be voted away in such grants, without raising their voices against the proceeding. Mr. Huskisson understood the hon. gen. tlemar. to say, that he considered the prosecutions which had taken place during the last year to have been totally unnecessary. If the trials which had taken place at the Old Bailey for high-treason, if the prosecutions for sedition at York, Lancaster, Chester, Warwick, Leicester, and other places, were indeed unnecessary, then of course the grants which had been voted to carry them on, were a waste of the public money. But if it was the opinion of the House, that the Crown should have power to institute prosecutions, it was necessary to supply it with money for that purpose. He could not help remarking, that objections to the amount of expense incurred by Crown prosecutions came with rather a bad grace from gentlemen on the opposite side of the house, when it was recollected that ministers had been so frequently reproved by them for making new laws, instead of prosecuting to a greater extent under the existing laws. The hon. gentleman said, that this grant was made to pay fees to all the legal talent at the bar, and to prevent defendants from having the benefit of eminent counsel. It certainly was the duty of king's counsel to give the Crown the benefit of their services; but the hon. gentleman was mistaken in supposing that all the expense was incurred by retainingfees, for a considerable part of these charges was incurred by the attendance of witnesses, and the issuing of summonses. A part of the sum of 40,000l. now proposed to be granted was to make good the deficiency of last year; and part of it was prospective, to defray the expense of prosecutions likely to be instituted in the present year. If the hon. gentleman objected to the whole of this grant, he hoped the committee would not be disposed to go along with him in that objection; and if any particular part of the expense appeared objectionable, accounts should be furnished of the manner in which the former grant had been applied. Mr. Hobhouse said, that those who thought the late prosecutions necessary, would, no doubt, vote for the sum; but he was not responsible for the opinions expressed by gentlemen in the last parliament: he was not to be bound by what had been said by gentlemen on that side of the House on the occasion alluded to for, on reading the debates at that time, he had objected to the opinion expressed by many hon. members, that government should have prosecuted more rigorously than they did under the old laws. He was hostile to the whole policy of government with respect to these prosecutions, and therefore he protested against this grant. He thought that these prosecutions should not be paid for by the people, because they had been instituted against the people. Mr. Lockhart observed, that all who had pleaded their own cause had been found guilty. were always consulted by the Crown as to the manner of conducting the prosecution. Dr. Lushington observed, that the attor ney and solicitor generals received fees upon Crown prosecutions, because they were responsible for such proceedings. But he felt that it was only in cases where such responsibility properly attached, and where they were actually consulted by government, that such fees should be given. He had known himself, of cases in which the attorney and solicitor generals had received fees without being at all concerned; in Doctors Commons for instance. The several resolutions were agreed to. HOUSE OF LORDS. Monday, June 19. SECRET COMMITTEE ON THE PAPERS RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF THE QUEEN.] The Earl of Liverpool rose and said:-My lords; upon several occasions I have of late had to move your lordships to postpone the meeting of the Secret Committee appointed, in pursuance of his majesty's message, respecting charges of which we are all aware, on the ground that discussion and explanations were going on, pending which it would not be expedient to enter into the consideration of the papers communicated from the Crown. It is with regret I have now to state, that contrary to the expectation entertained, at least for a time, by myself and by others, and I may say generally by both Houses of Parliament and the country, that discussion and those explanations have failed in producing the desired result, and [laying upon the table a bundle of papers] I am commanded by his majesty to lay these papers upon the table, containing the details of that ne Mr. D. W. Harvey said, that it was quite correct, that the attorney and solicitor-generals were in the habit of receiving fees upon Crown prosecutions, whether they attended or not. It was within his own knowledge that such was the case with regard to no less than 760 prosecutions in the court of exchequer in the course of the last year, upon each of which prosecutions the attorney and solicitor-generals received ten guineas each, although neither ever attended in any one instance. There was another statement also from the hon. member for Westminster, which was perfectly true. He meant, that upon a barrister's acquiring a high character for talent, the Crown was forward to retain him on its side by the grant of a silk gown; and it was notorious, that if a person prosecuted by the Crown desired the assistance of any king's counsel, he could not obtain that assistance without paying eight or ten guineas for a licence, or dispensation from the Crown, allowing such barrister to plead for him; so that here was a sum which the prosecuted person must pay in addition to the usual fee, in order to secure the support of an advocate so unnecessarily, and he would add, so improperly retained by the Crown in the first instance. This was a system which evi-gotiation. As in all cases where papers dently called for some revision. With respect to the expense of Crown prosecutions within the last year, he was glad to understand that there was no objection on the other side to lay before the House some accounts illustrative of the items and character of that expense, and he hoped for the speedy production of those accounts. Mr. Huskisson said, it had always been the custom to retain the attorney-general and the solicitor general in Crown prosecutions, and that, although they might not appear in person on the trial, they are laid upon the table by command of the Crown, they are in a course of printing, and will be ready for delivering to the members of the House to-morrowmorning. Your lordships are aware that the meeting of the secret committee, to whom the papers communicated by his majesty's message are referred, stands fixed for to-morrow, but as in fairness and candour noble lords ought to have an opportunity of considering the papers I have now laid upon the table, previous to the meeting of the secret committee, in order that they may be enabled to judge whether there is any thing in these papers that ought to influence them, either in still further postponing the meeting of the committee, or in adhering to their original vote, or in any other manner; I therefore now move, that the order for the meeting of the secret committee to-morrow be discharged, and that the secret committee do, instead thereof, meet on Friday. This motion was agreed to. The Marquis of Lansdowne :-I wish to ask the noble earl, whether it is his intention to found any proceeding upon the papers which he has just laid upon the table by command of his majesty? The Earl of Liverpool:I have no difficulty, my lords, in saying that it is not my intention to found any proceeding upon these papers. It will be for your lordships to judge of their contents, and it will be competent for any noble lord to make any motion respecting them that he shall deem expedient, or any motion as to the further proceeding or not of the secret committee. signed, except that it was thought necessary for that House to watch what was done in another place. It was inconsistent with the character and dignity of the House to have its proceedings controlled by what passed elsewhere; and yet, that it was subject to that control, appeared from the repeated adjournments which had taken place. The noble earl had spoken of discussions and explanations which had been going on; and, these discussions being ended, the correspondence was laid before the House. Now, he should be glad to know what was the object of laying these papers before the House. None had been assigned; and he could not help remarking to their lordships the extraordinary and unprecedented nature of this proceeding. There were several occasions in which it was usual for the Crown to lay accounts of negotiations before parliament-as in the case of discussions with foreign powers, when the papers involved the question of peace or war. In such cases, however, the papers were submitted to parliament with a view to some measure being founded on them; but this was the first time, he believed, in which the Crown had been advised to lay before parliament the account of a negotiation carried on between the king's ministers and his subjects. The Marquis of Lansdowne :-If I understand the noble earl, he does not mean to found any proceeding upon these papers; but it surely must follow, from the conduct of the noble earl upon this point, that his opinion is made up, that the consideration of these papers will form no ground for a further postponing the meet-what was still more novel and unprece ing of the secret committee. The Earl of Liverpool:-My lords, I have delivered no such opinion, nor do I mean to do it. It will be for your lordships to consider, whether there is any thing in these papers that ought to have the effect or not, of further postponing the meeting of the committee. Earl Grey did not rise to oppose the motion, but wished merely to ask some explanation, in the hope of obtaining, if possible, from the noble earl, something like the statement of a ground for this extraordinary proceeding. A message from the Crown, relative to the conduct of the queen consort, had been delivered to the House; that message was accompanied by papers, containing, it was said, serious charges against her majesty; and these papers had been referred by their lordships to the examination of a secret committee. That committee, however, had never proceeded to the examination and the day of meeting had been adjourned from time to time. There appeared no reason for this conduct; none had been assigned, and none could be asVOL. I. But dented was, that, when the noble earl had brought these papers to the House, he proposed no measure respecting them. He did not suggest the necessity of any farther proceeding relative to them. If the committee was to sit without reference to these papers, why was the House called upon to take them into consideration? But the noble earl desired their lordships to direct their attention to the correspondence, and consider whether it was necessary to found any measure upon it. He contended that it was, in the first place, the duty of ministers, who already knew the nature of the papers, to say whether they were such as called for consideration, and ought in their opinion to form the ground of some measure. But the way in which they had acted now resembled their conduct on every other occasion when any difficulty or embarrassment arose. They constantly showed a disposition to shrink from their duty, and to divest themselves of the responsibility of giving advice to the Crown. In this spirit they proposed, on the present occasion, to shift from their own shoulders a duty 4 D |