"That those words be had induced the House to take a merciful view of the subject.

The House divided:-Ayes 38; Noes 77 Majority 39. Bill passed.

The House divided:-Ayes 23; Noes sideration the Petition of Joseph Byrne, 63 Majority 40. Bill passed.

Joseph Hinde, and Duncan M'Arthur,
Prisoners in Newgate, stating their deep

House adjourned at half-after Two Regret for having committed a Breach of

from various parties respecting this impor- had ever called the attention of their Lordtant Act, of rectifying a very great delu- ships, since he had enjoyed the honour of sion which some persons, who he believed a seat in their assembly. It would be for knew better, had set forth in charging him their Lordships to judge, after they had with gross inconsistency as an amender of heard the statement of facts which he was the law, and as President of the Law about to make, and his comments upon Amendment Society, of which many noble one or two of those facts, and after they Lords and Judges of the land were mem- had heard the law relating to the great bers, in his inducing that House to make constitutional question involved in themcertain alterations in the measure he had it would be for their Lordships, he said, to alluded to. The inconsistency complained judge whether he had given an exagof was the very reverse of the fact; for it gerated opinion of the importance of this was his refusal to be inconsistent which in- discussion. He held in his hand the petiduced him to propose that the Bill should tion of a vast number of persons residing be in the same form and words as that in the vicinity of Hyde Park, whose prowhich he had brought forward in 1833, perty-for of their comforts he said nothat was seventeen years ago. That mea-thing-and whose public rights and consure was, unfortunately, lost by a majority of one in that House; and his (Lord Brougham's) Amendment only restored the Bill sent up recently from the other House to the form of his Bill of 1833.

THE EXHIBITION OF THE INDUSTRY

OF ALL NATIONS, HYDE PARK. LORD BROUGHAM said, he rose to discharge a most important public duty, which he felt some difficulty in performing, in consequence of the severe indisposition under which he was labouring, and which was caused by his attention during the whole of the morning to the judicial business of the House. It was within the knowledge of their Lordships that from an early period of the present Session he had stood forward as the antagonist of those who, from the most praiseworthy, but, as he thought, the most mistaken, motives, had undertaken the structure of an immense building in Hyde Park for what was called the Exposition of 1851. But, if he had deemed that a matter of importance, its importance had shrunk into insignificance when compared with that of the question which had unhappily, but incidentally, arisen out of it. He now proceeded to entreat the attention of their Lordships, as members of the highest court in the country, which superintended and controlled all others, to the coursewhich he must call the ill-advised and inauspicious course which had been recently taken with regard to the structure in Hyde Park, by the first law officer of the Crown, acting by the command of the Ministers of the Crown, in a matter which he would now proceed to describe to the House. This was one of the most important subjects to which he had ever addressed his own attention, or to which he

venience, would be materially impaired by this structure. These petitioners represented certain facts, which he would forthwith state to their Lordships. They stated that they had prepared an information for the purpose of filing it in the High Court of Chancery to stay, by injunction, the erection of any further structure, or the progress of any further operations in Hyde Park, which was so far the property of the public as to be withdrawn by right from the power of the Crown, or of any servant of the Crown, without the authority of the Legislature, interposed in the form of a special Act of Parliament. The petitioners stated their case in detail, and with full reference to various statutes relating to the illegality of these operations, corroborating their statement by the opinion of three of the most able and learned counsel who now adorned the Bar, namely, Sir Fitzroy Kelly, Mr. Rolt, and Mr. Cairnes. These three learned gentlemen had considered the case of the petitioners maturely, they had then answered it, and they had given a most lucid and able opinion upon it, first separately, and afterwards collectively. They had stated without hesitation that the structure to be erected, and the course of dealing with Hyde Park now adopted, were both illegal, and they recommended that immediate application should be made to the Court of Chancery for an injunction to stay such proceedings.

As it was an application not made by individuals for any infraction on their own particular individual rights, but for rights which they enjoyed in common with the public at large, it became necessary that they should make application for an injunction by an information filed in the name of Her Majesty's Attorney General. Such an information, in

which the Attorney General was neces- | them, gave a renewed refusal to the relasarily made the nominal party, proceeded tors; and, what was more, gave also his on the relation of individuals; and they reasons for that refusal. He had already were relators to the Attorney General, and told their Lordships that the opinions of in reality were the real plaintiffs in the the three eminent lawyers who had been suit. In all such cases the substantial consulted were distinct, and clear, and unparty was the relator. He had the whole hesitating; that not only was there probable management of it-he gave orders to the cause for their proceeding to obtain an insolicitor-he attended consultations-he junction; that not only was there fair was responsible for the costs. The At-ground of doubt as to the legality of the torney General, on behalf of the Crown, or proceedings in Hyde Park-and such rather on behalf of the public represented doubt was sufficient to justify them in callby the Crown, was only a formal party, ing on Mr. Attorney to further their suit but still a party absolutely necessary to into the Court of Chancery-but also, that the proceedings. He did not intend by the facts of the case, and the law applying any means to assert that the Attorney to the facts of the case, made it indisGeneral might not by law, at any moment putable that the merits of the suit were he thought fit, interfere in the suit, and with the relators, and that the encroachbecome, instead of the formal, the sub-ment on Hyde Park was contrary to law. stantial party. Far from it. He would Let their Lordships now consider the reacome to that point presently. This, how-sons given by Mr. Attorney for his refuever, he wished their Lordships distinctly sal. But before he proceeded to read those to understand, that the information could reasons, he must be permitted to say, that only be filed with the assent of the Attor- if any supposed that he held light the opinney General. His assent to the proceed-ion of that able and learned man, or that ing was absolutely as necessary as the he entertained any personal prejudice assent of the Crown to the issuing out a against him, they showed the grossest writ of right. If a subject were disseised ignorance of all that was passing in his of his land, or dispossessed of his right, or mind, and of all his former communications ruined by the oppression of any servant of with Mr. Attorney from his boyhood, and the Crown, by and with the authority of of all the reverence which he entertained the Crown, he had a remedy provided for for his illustrious father, who was one of him in a petition of right. The Sovereign the dearest and most valued friends he ever could only be sued by a petition of right, had in the world. He (Lord Brougham) had and the fiat of the Secretary of State was always been on terms of uninterrupted prinecessary to endorse it, and without it the vate friendship with Mr. Attorney; and subject could not recover any land of whatever remarks he now made upon his which he had been unjustly disseised, any conduct were extorted from him by a sense title of which he had been illegally de- of public duty, and were more painful for prived, any right of which he had been him to make than they would be for Mr. violently deprived. Such a fiat had never Attorney to hear. His Lordship then read been refused. Now in this case, Mr. the following reasons given by the AttorAttorney General had been applied to, ney General for refusing to file this inforand had refused his concurrence; and un- mation :fortunately there were no means provided by the constitution to compel him to give it. "Sic volo" was, on his part, a The constitution could not compel him to file an information. An Act of Parliament was necessary, or the orders of his Sovereign, which he might disobey or not, as he pleased. It had been thought decorous, and not inexpedient, that Mr. Attorney, before the petitioners approached either that or the other House of Parliament, should have before him the opinions of the three able and experienced counsel taken by the relators. They were laid before Mr. Attorney; and Mr. Attorney, having taken due time to consider

sufficient answer.

"I have in this matter a duty of a judicial nature to perform. The object of the information is to call in question the exercise of the discretion of the Woods and Forests in the management of a part of the property of the Crown.

The information states that what the Commissioners of Woods

and Forests are about to do is illegal, and injurious to the public. The information states no facts which, in my opinion, establish either of these propositions. But, even if there were a question as to the legality, the Attorney General is bound to judge whether it is for the interest of the public to litigate the question. Cases may be conceived, and indeed not unfrequently arise, in which the letter of the law had been violated, and in which the Court has, nevertheless, required the Attorney General to consider whether he would allow an information to proceed complaining of such violation, even where the Attorney General

had already in his discretion allowed the information to be filed, and where, if the information had

proceeded, the Court could have done no other than enforce the strict right. The discretion of the Attorney General is interposed to prevent this mischief; and his exercise of that discretion is purely an exercise of a judicial function, and as such I have exercised it to the best of my ability.

In the present case the sense of what is for the interest of the public, with relation to what the Commissioners of Woods and Forests propose to do, has been unequivocally expressed by a vote of the House of Commons. It would, in my opinion, be an improper measure on the part of the Attorney General if, in the exercise of his discretion, and acting on behalf of the public, he were to sanction a proceeding directly at variance with that vote. If any private right were affected by my decision it would be a different matter; but I have the satisfaction of knowing that no private right of any individual or individuals can be withdrawn from the consideration of any court, or in any manner affected by my refusal to sanction this infor

mation."

mission of the Attorney General was always required; and he well recollected a case where, if it would have been decorous to withhold that fiat, it certainly would have been withheld. He referred to the case of Mr. O'Connell, in which the judgment, after argument on the writ of error, had been arrested, and the prisoners had all been set free. Many thought at the time that the sueing out of that writ of error was a desperate case. He believed that the Attorney General of that day was of opinion that there was no cause for it. Nevertheless, ex debito justitiæ, and not ex gratiá, he granted it. Next, Mr. Attorney declared that it would be an improper exercise of discretion on his part to sanction a proceeding directly at variance with a vote of the House of Commons. He thought that Mr. Attorney could not have had before him, when he wrote that sentence, the record of the vote of that House

Select Committee of this House for the purpose of and that the report of the said Select Committee be laid upon the table of the House, and that the sanction by this Ilouse be given to such report before any further proceedings on the part of the should be proceeded with or adopted by them.” Commissioners with regard to the said Exhibition To this an Amendment was moved

examination and due consideration of the same;

"That an humble Address be presented to Her ciously pleased to give directions that no building Majesty, praying that Her Majesty would be grashould be erected in Hyde Park for the purpose of the Exhibition proposed to be held in this country in the year 1851."

Let their Lordships remark-First of all, Mr. Attorney said that he was performing a duty of a judicial nature in examining the discretion exercised by the Woods and "That the report respecting the proposed ExForests in the management of Hyde Park.hibition in Hyde Park in 1851 be submitted to a Next, he said that it was his duty and his right to withhold his sanction if he thought that it was clear that it was not for the interest of the public that he should give it; and, last of all, he said that the House of Commons had come to a decided vote upon the question, and that it would be improper for him to sanction a proceeding directly at variance with that vote. Now, he (Lord Brougham) did not dispute the right of Mr. Attorney to withhold his assent. He had himself known cases where he (Lord Brougham) as Lord Chancellor, had himself said that the Attorney General should A discussion took place as to whether the not have allowed the information to be words first proposed should stand part filed. But those were cases which rarely of the question, and the numbers wereoccurred they were cases in which some Ayes 166; Noes 47. The original Motion sinister motive was evidently at work, in then became the question on which the which some oppression was practised under House had to decide, and on a division it pretext of law-in which the cause of com- was negatived by 166 to 46. This was plaint was either flimsy or groundless-in what the Attorney General called a solemn which there was no wrong done, no matter decision of the House of Commons in favour in dispute; and in such cases there could of the proceeding of the Commissioners. be no doubt that the plaintiff ought not to Now, he would deal with this vote not in be helped by the Attorney General into form but substance, and admit that it was court. But was there any analogy between a vote in favour of the proposed building this case and those which he had thus, as in Hyde Park. But was it a vote in fait were, hypothetically described? Did the vour of the legality of the proceeding? relators act in a spirit of oppression? Did Nothing of the kind. The legal point was they ask for this information to give any reserved by the judge, if he might so call third parties annoyance? The assent of his noble Friend at the head of the Gothe Attorney General should not have been vernment, who directed the jury of 200 withheld, but should have been given as a and odd persons by whom the verdict was matter of course, as it always was in a found. As the Attorney General had rewrit of error. In a writ of error the per-ferred to what had passed in the House of