"The question before the House was not a question of law, but the question was whether the House should offer any advice to the Crown in regard to the selection of Hyde Park as the site for the proposed Exhibition from a wish to take care of the rights of the public, or whether the House should refrain from offering any such advice. Now, he thought the House might keep such a question as that entirely free from any question of law. If any private rights should be infringed upon, let the parties make any application they please to a court of law."

Commons, he (Lord Brougham) supposed | stepped in and said, "I will prevent you he might be allowed to follow his example. from proceeding by refusing my name. He found then, that Lord J. Russell ex- This was a greater power than any Judge pressed himself, on the occasion in ques- could exercise. No Judge could keep an tion, in the following terms :information out of the Court of Chancery, or an indictment out of the Queen's Bench. Admitted, the Attorney General had the power to do what he had done, but it was a power to be exercised only under extraordinary circumstances. The Attorney General might, if he chose, enter a nolle prosequi in every case of felony and misdemeanour; but would he feel justified in interposing to prevent the prosecution of a man for felony, on the ground that the House of Commons had passed a vote approving of his conduct, and because a strong feeling in his favour prevailed in certain quarters? If an Attorney General were to take such a course, he would merit impeachment. It might be said, why not impeach the Attorney General for his conduct in the case under consideration? He had lived long enough to know that, of all threats, the threat of impeachment was that for which Ministers of the Crown, their servants, friends, and allies cared, not only the least, but absolutely and exactly nothing at all. The only way to deal with these parties was to make their conduct the subject of discussion in the two Houses of Parliament, and to call on them for explanation. He called on whoever might be disposed to answer him to show a single instance previous to the present in which a complaint from the inhabitants of this great capital against the Crown had been stifled in its progress to a judicial determination by the fiat of an Attorney General. Recollect, Lord J. Russell told the House of Commons not to vote an address to Her Majesty, because, said he, the House had nothing to do with legal questions-they must be decided by a court of law; and when the public, comforted by this assurance, set about taking their case into a court of law, they are stopped by the noble Lord's Attorney General. In this way, it might be said, the Attorney General played into the hands of the First Lord of the Treasury. The noble Lord recommended the people to go to a court of law; but when they got there, his Attorney General slammed the door in their faces. It was said that the Crown would protect the interests of the public; but in the present instance the public was opposed to the Crown. It was easy to imagine the Queen addressing her subjects and saying, I am your foster mother, your tender

It was impossible to state in plainer language the wish of the noble Lord at the head of the Government that the question of law should be withdrawn from the consideration of the House of Commons on the distinct understanding that it should be dealt with and decided by a court of law. Supposing, however, that the House of Commons had taken on itself to decide the legal question, would it not be a monstrous thing for the Attorney General to defer to it? A vote of the House of Commons was, of all authorities, the very least and lowest for deciding a question of right either between the public and the Crown, or between private parties. A vote of the House of Lords would be entitled to greater weight; but unless their Lordships were sitting in their judicial capacity, they would not presume to decide a question of right between parties. This was a grave constitutional question. If the Attorney General, without better reasons than those assigned in this case, and because he may be desirous to prevent that which would be displeasing to some people under whom he held office, took on himself to obstruct and frustrate the due administration of justice on a most important question, it was time we should look about us. If a public of ficer by merely saying, "I will not allow this to be tried," could oust the public of all remedy in course of law or equity, could it be said that this country was governed by law? Could it be said that this was a free country? In the present case we had the public represented by the relators on the one hand; and the Woods and Forests, together with Lord J. Russell, and some Lords of the Treasury, on the other. It is proposed to file an information against Lord J. Russell and the Woods and Forests -the mere creatures of the Treasury-for malversation, when the Attorney General VOL. CXIII. [THIRD SERIES.]

66

L

from the minds of the people of this country the impression that the Attorney General prevented the public from prosecuting their case because he knew that their opponents dared not meet them in a court of law.

parent, in whom you may safely confide;" | The votes of the 166 would never efface but he would venture to reply, "Most Gracious Sovereign, I deeply reverence your exalted position-I entirely confide in your maternal care; but, nevertheless, as long as kings are kings, and queens are queens, when I have an interest one way, and Your Majesty has an interest on the other, and I am in open and avowed conflict with your servants, who are infringing on my rights by their tortuous proceedings, I hope, Most Gracious Queen, you will forgive me for saying that I had much rather, with all possible respect for the Crown, with all loyal affection for the Royal Person, and with the most profound veneration for the Queen and Constitution, trust for the defence of my rights to myself than to Your Majesty." He had avoided all appeals to popular passions-he had avoided all declamation on popular topics, and had argued the matter strictly according to the law on the subject. But he would ask those who had turned their attention to the ill-omened proceeding which he had brought under the notice of their Lordships, what would be the construction put upon the conduct of the Attorney General? Would any one for a moment believe that the Attorney General had interfered to stop the suit because he thought the public was wrong, and the Crown right? No, it would be universally believed that the Attorney General interposed because he knew that the other party dared not appear in a court of law to defend their proceedings. It would be believed that that party preferred appealing to its majority of 166 in the other House-a majority got together not, as far as he knew, by any effort on the part of the officer endowed with what was commonly called the whip. There were other means of bringing a majority together than the Treasury whip. There were such things as Court influences, and there were those who were mutually influenced by and influenced Courts. There was the whispered something

--"still to greatness dear, Which often vibrates on a monarch's ear."

Those who whispered in dulcet voices to the Sovereign were apt to experience a reciprocation of harmony in their own ears. As fine writing had been described to be "right words in right places," so fine voting might be called right votes in right places. This was a definition, the accuracy of which would be admitted by the 166 who were got together without the ordinary application of the Treasury whip.

The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE observed, that when the noble and learned Lord rose in his place, he was under the impression that he was about to make the Motion of which he had given notice; but he had substituted another question upon another subject, leading to a discussion totally different from that of which he had given notice. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) was not going to argue the question, but he wished to set the noble and learned Lord right in one part of his statement. When his noble and learned Friend assumed that this proceeding on the part of the Attorney General had been directed by Her Majesty's Government, he begged leave distinctly to state that it had been the result of no communication on their part. In these proceedings Her Majesty's Attorney General had only exercised the functions and the discretion belonging to his office, which he was relieved from arguing upon, inasmuch as his noble and learned Friend had more than once, in the course of his address, admitted them. The Attorney General was uninfluenced by any party to depart from the course which he conceived to be essential and useful to the public; and he would add, that, were he capable of being so diverted from such a course, he would not be the son of that father whose memory, in common with his noble and learned Friend, he affectionately cherished and reverenced. His noble and learned Friend had adverted to the vote of the House of Commons, and discussed the debate and speeches which took place on that occasion. He was sure that his noble and learned Friend would forgive him for saying that it was one thing to advert to a recorded vote, which they were perpetually in the habit of doing, and another thing to advert to that which he did not say they never did, but which he said they never did without feeling inconvenience, namely, the language employed in the Motions and speeches which took place when the Motions were made. The discretion entrusted to the Attorney General, and which the noble and learned Lord did not deny, was a general discretion to determine for himself whether he would be justified in thinking it fit that his name should be made use

CIVIL LIST.

The MARQUESS of WESTMINSTER wished to know when the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) intended to bring forward his Motion with respect to the Civil List? It had been on the paper some time, and had been frequently postponed. He thought he might be allowed to state that he had the strongest possible objection to the Motion. The Civil List had been settled by Parliament, in consideration of the Crown giving up its revenues. The questions which had been put to him by the noble and learned Lord on former occasions, with respect to the Board of Green Cloth, he had answered out of courtesy to the noble and learned Lord; but he felt it to be his duty to decline giving that more extended information which the noble and learned Lord sought to obtain by his Motion. He regretted the animus with which the noble Lord had brought forward his Motion. In bringing forward his Motion he had alluded to the salaries of the Foreign Ambassadors, while the noble and learned Lord must have well known at the time that they had nothing whatever to do with the Civil List.

of in a legal proceeding of that nature. In the exercise of that discretion the Attorney General must consider what the public weal and the public interest required. Whether he had acted judiciously or not in considering the opinion of so large a body as that which constituted the House of Commons to be the proper exponent of that public feeling, and that public interest, it was for the Attorney General, and not for him, to explain. He was bound to consider whether the relators of this proceeding were the exponents of the general feeling. It was for him to determine whether these relators were only individuals representing their own feelings, or whether they were representing the feelings of the public at large. He had no doubt that, in the only place where he could explain the grounds why he acted on the opinions of these relators, he would be enabled to satisfy the other House, and, through the other House, their Lordships, on the subject. All he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had to say was, that he did not stand there prepared, still less instructed, to explain or to defend the course pursued by the Attorney General in the exercise of the great and important functions entrusted to him by law, but to express his conviction that he would justify himself both in law, in equity, and in policy, as to his conduct in this matter, and that he would make himself right with the other House, with their Lordships' House, and with the public.

LORD BROUGHAM stated that he had only received the petition late last night, and could not, therefore, have given notice of his intention to present it; but he had informed the Attorney General of his intention to present it to-day. In what he had stated, he wished it to be understood that he had not meant to make any attack whatever upon the Attorney General.

LORD BROUGHAM said, that he had not yet brought forward his Motion, and thought that the observations of the noble Marquess might well be dispensed with until he had.

The MARQUESS of WESTMINSTER said, the noble and learned Lord had asked him, upon a recent occasion, whether any reduction had been made in the salaries of the officers of the Board of Green Cloth? He was now in a position to state that no reductions had been made.

LORD BROUGHAM stated that it was not his intention to bring forward his Motion then, but he would do so upon a future occasion.

LEASEHOLD TENURE OF LAND (IRELAND)

The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE said, EARL GREY felt some difficulty in re- the matter was one of very grave imporconciling the statement of the noble and tance; and when the noble Lord was dislearned Lord, that he had intended no at-posed to bring it forward, he would take tack upon the Attorney General in the care to have the Lords summoned. speech which he had just delivered; and he certainly thought that the petition might have been presented on Monday as well as that night, had it not been that the noble and learned Lord was anxious that his charge against the Attorney General should go forth to the world without that explanation which, had time been allowed, might have been given by some one of the Members of the Government.

Petition to lie on the table.

ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
LORD BEAUMONT moved the Third
Reading of this Bill.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that no doubt this Bill would settle the doubtful construction to which the Act 12 and 13 Vic. was open. But in order to make it answer more fully the purpose for which it was intended, it would be necessary to fix

The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE felt The EARL of WICKLOW said, he call-bound, in justice to the noble and learned ed the Act a measure introduced by Her Lord on the woolsack, to say that he (the Majesty's Ministers, supported by their Marquess of Lansdowne) considered the arguments, and agreed to by the House on those arguments.

came to the table, came to claim his right to legislate here for the Church and religion of this still Christian country. Therefore I, for one, will never give my sanction to any mode by which he could be adNorth-mitted.