Star. — London, England, 1816-06-11 00:00:00

--•lsr. W. DUNDAS . said, the plan would be hene ficial to Scotland. After a few remarks from Mr. Homan, the House divided on the amendment—Noes 60—Ayes :26. Majority 54. On reopening the Gallery, the SPEAKER was ntating the cpsestion on the original proposition of Mr. B. BATIWW. M►. BANKES observed, that his object was, that the meagne Ithoold net be immediately pressed, as he desired to avoid any immediate large expense which did not appear necessary Mr. HORNED wished to know whether the plan was to be immediately proceeded in. It was an ob ject that it should lie over. What would be the ex pense could not be ascertained, when they did not even know what was the plan. PONSONBY wished to understand what they were doing. The original resolution was then agreed to; and, on the motion of Mr. 1%. BATHURST, a message was ordered to the Lords on the subject matter of the last conference. ALGIRINE CORSATRS. Mr. BROUGHAM, seeing the Noble Secretary of Stste in his place, begged leave to ask whether Lord Exmouth had concluded a Trutt with the De) of Algiers, respecting tne ransom of Christian slaves, ana if it was with :the concurrence of the Bri tish Government ? • Lord CASTLEREAGH replied, that some ar rangarnent had been concluded by Lord Exmouth %with the Dey of Algiers, for placing the subjects of the Italian States on the same footing as those of other friendly rowers. Mr. BROUGHAM asked whether Lord Exmouth had not stipulated that some other Powers should pay a ransom to Algiers, for which we were responsible ? Lord CASt LEREAGH reF.lied, that the stipu lations made by• Lord EXIDOUth with the Dey of Al giers, wire under the direct authority of those other Powers'immediatety concerned, !or which Great Bri tain offered no guarantee. Mr. BROUGHA Has the Noble Lord any objection t. produce the Treaty r' Lord CASTLEREAGH- 6 ' I can have no ob jection to produce it at the proper time, but until Lord Exmouth's return, we Are inn in possession of it." IRI'H UtIAND jUItY INDICT&IENTS. Mr. HORNER. in .ved the second reading of the Irish Grand Jury Indictment Bill. Geiieral BARRE objected to the Bill, as render ing viva voce emir:lce necessary in every case. He euppos , d a case where viva vsce evidence could not be ehtained—as where a person violently assaulted gives information against another, and soon after dies. In this case the Grand Jury could proceed on no oth..r evidence than the written information, and they would be justified in returning a true bill against the murderer. lie also supposed a case where a man was indicted on his own contessiun—and mere, of course, that corfes*ion should be sufficient evidence to the Grand Jury. This case, however, was nut provided for by ti,e present Bill—(4Vo. ns," from Mr. Horner.) The Honourable Member concluded by moving., "'that the But be read a second time this day thri:e months." S:r FREDERICK FLOOD disapproved of the principle ot . this Bill, fir it went to ctrarge the Grand Juries of Ireland, not with finding lints upon the strength of written evidence, hut for finding them without any evitlence at all— (flror)—end therefore putting mot on their trial without any testimony whatsoever. Some pi otession .1 Gentlemen here, continued Atte Honourable Baronet, seem to be of opinion, that they ought to legislate for Ireland, as if she had not competent Judge* aid Lawyers of her own, wno, if they thought the system of Grand Jurors wrong, would not at orce, of themselves, proceed to rectify it. " Suppose: n said he, " a Judge were to ask me, who have often acted as a Grand Juror, on what sort of evidence I found a particular Bill ? I would decline to inform him, on the ground of my oath of secrecy, and would merely say, the BM was found accordieg to our best view of the evidence before us. But the fact was, the Irish Grand Jurors always had a viva voce examination, in any case of doubt. It-was so, to his own knowledge, in the couaty in which he lived ; and he might !wilier . tiffitm it tobe the tact throughout all the other coun ties and cities in Ireland." Here the Honourable Baronet referred to the authorities of Hale, Coke, Forster, Buller, and other high law authorities, to *hew that in none of them were the duties of Grand Juries particularly defined as to their mode of prac tice in finning Bills. With the highest opinion for the talents of the Honourable and Learned Gentle- Man, he could not concur in his motion, but would second the amendment. • Mr. I'ILEL said, he had in the first instance ex pressed his warns approbation of this Bill, because the general presumption appeared to him in favour of an assimilation of the practice of both countries in the administration of the law.—(Thar, howevei, the proposed assimilation could not be car ried Into effect wttnont a substantial interference with the ends tit justice, then he would be willing to 4d. Mit the inapolicy of an alteration. The argl4::;::tits of the two last Speakers had failed in prodo , this conviction on his mind, and he retained his 'tomer opinion in favour of the Bill, and still thought that those who opposed it might be brought to a different view of the case. The Honourable Baronet had in deed admitted that viva wove testimqny was received by the Grand Jurors of his own county.---If it were go od there, 'why not equally so' in others (hear.) The Right Honourable Gentleman. concluded by recommending the omission of the words 44 it would be right" in the p rea mble, and substitutE for them, 4 , it would be expe.iient." This, with some other verbal alteratieni, which could be done in the Com mittee, would, he was of opinion, facilitate the pro gress ti‘ the . Bill. Lord CASTLEREAGH supported the principle of the Bill, but bet, at the same time, suggested au explanation on s..me points connected with its details. It was quite clear, he thoughts that where no practi. cal uuji-ction existed, the principle of the laws of this country should be followed in Ireland. (Hear, hear.) There as evidently a laxity in Ireland in the prac tice of finding Bills on the informations, unaccompa nied by viva vete testimony, which ought to be remedied in Ireland. Now what he (Lord Castle reagh) wished to ask, was this, whether this Bill provided, that in addition to the information and in. dietment being read ever to the witness er Witnessee.' the Grand Jury should have the power, in the event of the party's not fulfilling his testimony, of prose cuting him for perjury ? His object was, that the Grand Jury should, in cases where the prosecutor ' had departed from his original statement, have among themselves a legal mode of prosecuting for perjury. Mr. HORNER expressed his great satisfaction at the candid, liberal, and enlightened manner in which the Noble Lord and Right Hon. Gentleman opposite ( Mr. Peel) had met this Bill. '!'here could be no doubt that a party was legally punishable for perjury, if he departed from his testimony before a Grand Jury. litre the Grand Juror's oath of secrecy would not prevent his testimony as to the fact that passed before him; the object of his office, and, of course, of his oath, being, as was well said, to further and not impede the course of justice. • The information on which the indictment was foUnded, he mild not consider as evidence for a Grand Juror. It should be followed up, as in England, with viva woes testi mony. The Bill ordained this assimilation. Much, of course, would be left to the discretion of the Judges in the arrangements connected with this point. He was not aware that any direct prosecution had been instituted by a Grand Jury for the perjury of a `witness before them, but there was an analogous case in an indictment which had been thrown out in the time of Judge Buller, and where the Grand Jury were called upon to aid the prosecution. Lord CASTLEREAGH repeated his satisfaction at the Bill. Mr. PEEL said, there was one instance in which a prosecution for perjury had been sustained under the circumstances alluded to. Mr. HORNER was aware of the case, but did not think it applicable. it had been held that the inquiry f a Grand Jury was into the guilt of a prisoner, not into the perjury of a witness. Mr. WEBBER regretted that the Noble Lord and the Secretary for Ireland had so early committed themselves in favour of a Bill against which every person conversant with the administration of the law of Ireland had entered their protest. The alteration that was now in transitu was not a novel one; it had been attempted fifty years ago in that country. In the year 1762, Chief Justice Aston, wt.° doubted the legality of the Grand Jury Practice in finding bills, submitted the question at a meeting of the Judges, convened at the house of the then Lord Chancellor, Bowes, where, after a solemn discussion. the proposi tion was negatived, with the excepting voices of I Chief Justice Aston and another Judge. This deci sien was confirmed at a subsequent meeting, atten ded by the Attorney and Solicitor-Generals, the Prime Serjeant, &c. Modern authorities, (among which was that of the Member for the Irish Univer sity, Mr. Plunkett,) were in accordance with the old opinion, and decidedly against this Bill. Before the Hutue went to assimilate the laws of both coun tries in this point, they should try and assimilate the manners of the people, otherwise they would be crea ting a state of endless coofusiou in the administration of justice. With the highest respect for the talents of the lion. and Learned Gentleman, he must dissent from his Bill. _ _ _ Sir J. STUART, though he was of opinion that the wisdom of Judges and Jurors would surmount al most every obstacle, yet he thought the right of the accused to be heard in the way proposed, before his Case was sent to trial, so strong, that he would sup port the Bill before the Holm.. Mr. ABEItCROMBY expressed his wish for an assimilation of the legal practice of both countries ; and in allusion to what had been said of ChiefJustlce Aston's former proceeding, the Honourable Gen tleman who quoted it forgot to add, that so strongly impressed with the propriety of his course was that Learned Judge, that on the next Assizes after the de cision alluded to, he refused to send up one informa tion to the Grand Jury as their guide in finding the bills. Here the Honourable and Learned Gentle man, to disproVe the assertion that all the modern legal authorities in Ireland were against the principle of the Dill, read an extract from the testimony of Mr. Sneyd, in which the latter had stated, that, in conse quence of the recommendation of Baron tkorge, one of the Irish Judges, seven years ago, it was the cus tom of the Grand Jury with which he was connected to call for viva voce testimony, not in all cases. but where the Jurors were in doubt. Now he (Mr. Abercromby) would ask, was it not the duty of a Grand Juror to commence his functions with doubt ? The general outline of his duty requited that he should. Grand Juries would be useless if no evi dence was to be taken until a case came on in open Court. From the testimony of Mr. Brown of Mayo, before the Committee, it appeared that suffiCient time was not allowed for the Grand Jury to exercise those duties. The business of the county was, he said, done, but done badly, and not as the Constitution, reason, and law, required that it should be. A Right Honourable Gentleman, who was also exa mined before the Committee, ha)l stated, that the So licitor-General for Ireland, a man of the first talents and reputation, had informed him, that to his own knowledge, in one county (Tipperary) it was quite impossible, from the number of presentments, for the Grand Jury to attend to the bills of indictment in the manner they ought to have done ; for the former were so numerous, that in an instance to which he alluded, if the Grand Jury had sat for thirteen hours during the whale Assizes, they could not have devoted mere than two minutes to each presentment. When he (Mr. Abercombic) considered such to be the case, be rejoiced at the introduction of a measure like the pre sent, and hailed it as au important forerunner to the restoration and consolidation of tranquillity in Ire land. It would give to the people of that unfortu nate and distracted country that confidence in Jurors and in the administration of the I.tw that must be at tended with the happiest results—(Hear, hear, hear.) If the House were called upon to decide between the Magistrates of both countries, and to say into the hands of which class they would prefer to leave a discretionary power, he bad no hesitation in saying (and he said it with regret, and not with ao intention of giving any offence) that the Magistra.tes of Ire land would not be that class to which a discretionary preference would be given. —( Cries of Hear, hear.) — Their state was one of the strongest reasons in favour of a Bill providing the improvement contemplated by the present—(Hear, hear, hear.) Mr. WEBBER explained, that he thought he spoke the general sentiments of the Irish Judges. Kr. W. POLE was persuaded that it would , be 'extremely beneficial to Ireland that the Grand biles. Mould examine late OW evidence. At the Mind time he thought it would be extremely detrimental if , the Grand Juries were precluded from inquiring into ' informations preferred before the MAgistracy. He thought also, that what had been said upon the po licy of persons perjuring themselves before the Grand Juries, being prosecuted, was unanswerable. Minh praise was due for the mariner in which this Bill had been brought forward; end, in the confidence that those guards which prudence required would be pro : vided in the Committee, he should concur in the se cond reading of the Bill. Sir JOHN NEWPORT said, that his principal objection to the law, as it applied to Grand Juries in Ireland at present, was, that it deprived the subject of that security and protection which was given to the inhabitants of England—namely, the advantage of having his case decided upon evidence adduced be fore two JUlieS. He considered, that the less the Judges of Ireland meddled with legislation, the better. The people of behind had a right to the same protec- 1 tion which was given to the people of England; and, I ..considering as he did that this Bill would afford them that protection, it should have his unqualified support. Mr. PONSONBY was at a loss to imagine why die people of Ireland sleaild be liable to imposition and abuses to which the people of England were exempt. They were fully sensible of the system of job by which the law was administered to their op pression, and it was therefore the more important that those causes of discontent should be removed. The Right Hon. Gentleman then described the evil as it existed under the present practice—and pointed out, in strong terms, the necessity of alteration. With regard to the motives of his Honourable Fr,end in bringing forward this Bill, he was satisfied there was not a man on any side of the House who would not give him credit for the most honourable intentions. Sir GEORGE HILL defended the present mode of taking examinations in Ireland. Mr. CURWEN spoke in favour of the Bill, and deprecated the practice of sending to the Grand Juries of Ireland the opinions of Magistrates to the preju dice of the offenders against whom bills of indictment might be preferred. A division then took place— In favour of the Bill 50—Against it 10—Majority 40. The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Wednesday. REPORT OW SUPPLY. Mr. BROGDEN brought up the Report of the Committee of Supply. On the resolution for granting 5f35,000, for the purchase of the Elgin Marbles, Mr. CURWEN opposed this resolution, and said, he should not feel he did his duty if he did not op pose this vote, upon the ground that the state of the country was such as rendered it highly improper to incur a single shilling of expense which could be avoided. • Sir M. RIDLEY supported the Resolution as not being an annual vote, but the vote of a single sum for the purchase of a collection of marbles of the most valuable description, both as regarded the im provement of the arts, and the honour and taste of the country. . _ _ Wk. 1). GIDDY was satisfied that the purchase of these marbles, so I from being attended with a loss. would, on the contrary, be productive of infinite ad. vantage to the country. Such had been the case in the purchase of the Etruscan vases, which were pur. chased of Sir W. Hamilton for £B,OOO. He was informed by a respectable manufacturer, that the possession of these vases had produced a profit to the nation of ten times the sum which had been paid for them. The Resolution was then agreed to, as were the other Resolutions of the Committee. =CHEQUERS' CONSOLIDATION BILL. On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. the House went into a Committee on the Irish and English Exchequers Consolidation Bill.—The first clause being read, Sir H. PARNELL, adverting to the two new Lords of the Treasury, intended to be appointed by this Bill, said, be had always considered the majority of those o f f i cers to hold mere sinecure situations ; and, therefore, he considered the contemplated ap-' pointmeots unnecessary. He was willing to admit, that there was a necessity that some assistance should be given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in con sequence of the increase of business which would take place in his department, but instead of two Lords of the Treasury, he thought it would be much better to appoint an additional Secretary. In this feeling it was his intention to move at the proper period, for striking out the words , s Two Lords of , the Treasury," and inserting the word it Secretary," who, he thGught, under the direction of the Right Honourable Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Ex chequer), would be equally competent to perform the duties which might be required. It was also provided by this Bill that the new Vice-Treasurer in Ireland should have authority to sit in Parlia ment. As he apprehended that the main duty of this officer would be to superintend the issues of money from the Treasury in Ireland, he thought he ought to be constantly resident in that country. This, therefore, was another part of the Bill to which he objected. With respect to the manner in which the issues of , money took place in Ireland, namely, under the authority of the Lord Lieute nant, he thought this demanded some alteration-- In his opinion it was extremely improper that those issues should be under the influence of the Lord Lieutenant, and he therefore hoped that the Right Honourable Gentleman would reconsider the point, and put the matter more under the controul of the Treasury of this country. It also appeared to him that some subjects were omitted in this Bill, which ought not to have been neglected. According to the existing practice in Ireland, all Boards in that coun try were subject to orders issued by the Lord Lieu tenant: whereas, in this country, the Boards was under the direction of the Treasury. The same system, he conceived, was applicable to Ireland, and he hoped a provision would be made in this Bill to that effect. Another point upon which he was de sirous the Committee should receive some idol-ma lice, was, respecting the manner in which all the Officers employed under the several Boards in Ire land received their appointments. By the Irish law, it was provided that the several Boards, the Excise for instance, should appoint all the officers to their largo departnianu. But at present all these ap peintineiti plaie tinder the authority of 64 Lord Lieutenant, and the Boards . , in fact, were n e y. consulted upon the subject. This was a v,,, t to which he had repeatedly called th,! . mm 64 the House, and which he hoped wouti at let.g i t, remedied. He had thrown out these tem ai s , 4 , 4 for the sake of obtaining information, than of eaaki,,t observation. The CHANCELLOR. of the EXCHEQUia said, that he should be most happy in girl„h r, Honourable Baronet, or the Committee, motion they asieht require. The Honourable 1a, ; „.` 4 .: had put two questions, to which, he hoped, h t .,h, i i; be able to give satitfactory answers. The C orri „.,: tt : . had not yet come to that part of the till res..% t i., the appointment of the two tots./ Lois of the silty. He had no difficulty, however, in , t ,, t ;,; ;4 , 1, that question. The H.,nourahle Baronet mu,; known, that for many years the Board of in England had been so averwittimed by business to be almost incessantly ard, in Lie , have been obliged to give up those periods ot Lion, to which in former times they were c.1,,,,i 4re entitled. Under these circuitstnrices, when the y cessious of labour, which the Irish business wo % ii bring, was considered, it could net be'deemed tio N , spnable to obtain some additional assistance, „ d therefore it was determined to select two newt, ;es front among those persons who were beat acl.* with the subject of Irish Finance. It sttuui,t collected that this increase to the English Trea m , Board was but trifling, compared with the die ht ' tion which took place in the Irish Treasury, exclusive of the Chancellor of tie Exelirquer, consisted of five Lords of the Treasury. Tit timidl ernolurmnt of the English Chansellor et the Exchequer, on receiving tile Irish Seal, wo L I4 only what the fees of the Seal produced, namely, about £lOOO a year. With respect to the obsetrazi, 6l which the Hon. Barodet had made on the influence which the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had on e a issues of money by the Vice-Treasurer, he begged to remark, that the Lord Lieutenant had no power whatever to grant money of himself —these points being, of necessity, under the control of Ntlian.ca, or the Board of Treasdry in this country„ In fact, en whatever occasions be acted with respect .to the issue of money, he did so rather tuiriseri e liy than discretionarily. Another point in the Bill, to which he had not yet come, but which he would Anti. cipate, was the salary which it would be prope r to give the Vice Treasurer. When the dignity awl importance of this officer was considered, he though his salary could not be less than £3500 a year. 'Phi Honourable Baronet had asked why the Vice:rico. surer should be permitted to sit in Parliament? ds an officer of rank and ccndition, he thought he might not to be excluded from the House, but, on the con trary, should be a risen capable of adorning this or the other House of Parliament. With respect to the patronage at present vested in the Lord I..eutenant, to appoint o ffi cers to the different Boards, it was nst intended to deprive hint of tact privilege. Themes patronage was vested in the 1.:3a id ot Treasury is this country, with respect to all the Eoardr, except tSe Board ot Excise. Having given these short an. swers to the Honourable Baronet's questions, be should only add, that he would be most ready to as• swer any ntber question which might be put to bin by any other Honourable Member with equal prompt. ness. He had only to add, that it was his intention to introduce a clause in the Bill to enable the Vice. Treasurer to do his duty by deputy, when occasion may require. Sir JOHN NEWPORT stated, that his principal objection to the plan unfolded by the Right Honour. able Gentleman Was, in the first 'place, that it vend the new appointment of a Vice-Treasurer for Inland. He could not at all measure or conceive any lunc. lions arising cut of such a capacity. which could de• serve the remuneration ot £3,500 a-year and a seat in that House. reritia they c t V:ce• P' Mr Hon. p VC t! l e 13 L ance wen* of tip had r been the fogn 1 2 ,01 w tS 1,4:* Mr. PEEL said he was alwayi ready to argue tiut the right of appointment to offices under the we at in Ireland ought to rest in the Treasury Board of ta.it country. It was, in fact, an office so str ctly apper taining to Iceland as the executive functions of its governmeet, or the office which Le himself Lai the hootiur to hold, and which was generally admited tv , require his presence in that House. Mr. PONSON BY said the proceedings with re. spect to this Bill had been very incompatible widi Parliamentary usage. The DU had been r ad A first and second time, before they had heard it( i:1 the Chancellor of the Exclfequer the least in:41136.3 of its general score and obj..ct. They had now gent into a Committee on the Bill, witheut profiting by those previous stages which were iestituted to eaable them to go into the Committee with a perfect know. ledge of the measure under the consideration of the House. The precedent which the Right 1-1(.1.00. Able Gentleman (Mr. Peel) had quoted to jueily the propriety of siifferh,g the Vice-Treasurer to in Parliament, was quite irrelevant.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Peel) was, next to the Load Lica:wail', the representative of the Crown in the Government e: Ireland, and, when Parlianknt called on bine he must give areaetount of his conduct. But okay see the Vice-Treastarer ? An oiicer purely ministe;liil-• with whom nothing orißinatej—who was obliged :0 obey the orders of those whom the law set osier him. Whet business had that person in the House, utter those who gave ilia) his orders were responsible far them ? It might as well he said that the mile' et . cers in the different departments of the State'-1: Clerks of the Tieasury, for instance—should, in hie manner, be brought before them. This Vice.T;ee surer had a fine name given to him, and a ; t reat sa lary added to it. He was, of . course, to be c.p.tbie of talking in that House, or in the ether, much to die entertainment of those who heard him. 13 . :t why was this enormens salary to be given? AVI:Y was such a sum to be expended for the petit:mance of duties which persons perfectly fitted :or the eiliee would execute for half the money.?—(hear, kzar.; The 'duties, he. Maintained, would be as yell pet . formed for £I,OOO, or £1,500 a year, as for larger sum. Such a measure would only be a pre cedent for executing a great office by deputy. A'A why was it paposed ?. Merely that Ministers trii,ht have the assistance, in Parliament, of the person app pointed to the situation. Were they, at this time c. day, when the voice of distress was heard throughout the country, to sanction so improper a mode of (kill business? 'lt was an instil" to the House to seppee: they would agree to such a propoeitioa; and, Lc WA+