Star. — London, England, 1819-06-23 00:00:00

..... lares,i". - to thi wciuld not co accede. It was easy to - sighse - Why these propositions were rejecab Th. Commissiemp refereed to their Solicitor to report on each camel ' it occurred, and by his report they were guided. It uas not in the nature of man that the . Solicitoe' should report with impassiality, whether be, should quash in the bud these , 761 prosecutions, on which perhaps only ./,',3 or £4 costs had been incurred. while they might swell in, the end to £l6O-44ersi The cause was brought before the Exchequer, whie.hi with all respect to those who adosinistexed the law. he.must say, had assumed too much of the odious character of the Star Chamber (Hear), and is whit the Solicitor of the Excise assumed much of the power formerly exercised - by the Master of the Crown Office, till the abuse of it was correcteJ by the Sts tute of William and Mary. When the cause was brought before that Court. the.,hadge who presided said, that the Commissioners of Cirstoriti had nq power to rectify the error, and he directed tlii.fary . to find a verdict for the Crown. The petitioner sta ! t(d, that he was advise:l by his Cpuns4l that *Bill of Exception.% might be tendered, and he shotdil have Prosecuted it. but that he had test funds... Hl sui t better advised to apply to the Lords df tlieTratse 14e sent to that Board the sime'stateMetit, oerber, which he had sent to the Commissioners cirtacisr4— precisely the same affidavits, with not one riewiaa. The Lords of the Treasury having ad Solicitor' be hind them, came to that honourable conclusion which was to be expected from them. Their decision was in fact a decided rebuke on the Commiltioners ofl Excise. They remitted the penalty, but they made a stipulation that the individual should pay the costs of the action, the Statute not giving costs:to the , Crown, but it being in the power of the Treasury to make what terms they pleased. They might now see how this matter stood. He had the receipt in his hand of the Solicitor of Excise from the defendant, for the Crown costs in this prosecution, which, in the hudgment of the Lords of the Treasury, should never ave been instituted. They amounted to 1:160 .ss. In addition - to this, the defendant, who had not money to follow up his bill of exceptions. had his own Solicitor's bill to pay, amounting to £B9 ss. 9d.' Thus it was that two years after the matter had bed at rest, was it trumped up to wring from the petititi 7 . ner the enormous sum of £l6O ss. From an exami-' nation of this individual case, and a knowledge of the fact that 761 prosecutions were instituted in the course of the year, he was not going beyond th* bounds of probability in inferring, • that the proce4l inga of this kind were instituted not so much foe thk protection of the Revenue, as for the sake of Ii costs, for the advantage of those at whose advi& th were instituted—(Hear, hear,!) Neither was it t supposed that the higher Crown Lawyers could v these prosecutions with altogether unprejudiced erit (Hear, hear!) When he had mentioned this subject before in the House, the Attorney-General had tateo up his allusion with a warmth which shewed ho ' nearly it touched him. In every prosecution nearly fifty guineas were paid in fees to Counsel fdr the Crown, though comparatively few were brought to axial, for after the last 6s. Bd. was stuck to the bill, jse Solicitors, who, before were so averse to compro mise, were anxious to agree to it—that was, to have 4 no more trouble in the business: The House should hear some of the items of the Bill in the present case. After a charge for five fair copies of the brief were these items:—The Attorney-General, ten guineas ; the Solicitor-General, ten guineas; Mr. thiuncey, eight guineas ; Mr. Clarke, eight guineas; Mr. Wal ton, four guineas; and, finally, to - keep up the splen .donr of a Crown prosecution, £7 13s. to the Marshal aed Crier of the Court. It was thus that the expenses of the Crown were swelled out; for the respectable Solicitor for the defendant had carried the cause on for half the sum. But a defendant was placed by this proceeding on the part of the Crown in a most difficult situation. How was he to meet this array of talent against him? There was the Attorney. General equal to two, and the Solicitor-General equal to two more (a laugh); so that if the unhappy de fendapt could find and fee five lawyers, he would be equal only in number, not in talent, to the forces of his prosecutors.' This was on all defendants a severe, but on innocent defendants a cruel and wicked has, post—(llear, hear.). He invited the atteir,iou of the House to this subject, which so well deserved it— iHear, hear.) Whether the prosecutions were neces-' vary or no, the mode of carrying them on was un dicessarily expensive; and in the next Session, he should move for a Committee to inquire into the mode of instituting and conducting these prose cutions—(Hear. hear.) In this he not only antici • pated no opposition, but support and thanks, from the Ministers, who in their Financial Resolutions had appended a declaration, the sincerity of which some had doubted, from the late period of the Session at which ' - favour bad-oiffear). Honourable Gentleman rot bringing the subject be-, fore them. When applicatioos were made to the Trot"- sury on, revenue subjects, the decisions were generally satisfactory. The result was very different when ap plication was made to the Revenue Boards, who re ferred all matters to their Solicitors. The SOLICITOR:GENERAL complained of the attuck made on the Court of Exchequer, which had been compared to the Court of Star Chamber, and bf that made on the Judge who presided on the trial of Captain Bryant—(Hear, hear, hear.) If that cheer had any reference to Whet had been said of dhe Judge, he would accept it, and say, if there was any thing to complain of in his conduct, the more manly course would be to proceed by impeachment rather than by bringing it forward incidentally, as done this night. lie then described the law of the 96th of the King, which law, he contended, was merely made.to pre. vent frauds, -which were formerly common- Now Eohat was the resent case? la the manifest it ap peared that a certain number of bigs of coffee were On board- the said ship, end when the Captain tad &rived it was found that. there was a diminution in., , entity. This was exactly the case the law had been amed to meet. It had been mid the contents of 145 bags had been pet in 140 i. but this change, it it had" taken place, ought to be noticed in the log-hook of the ship. The Captain had been told to produce it, but he had never Acme so. The conduct of the Judge, he maintained, had been strictly in conformity with the law; he had no authority to act but as he did. The Treasury, ia remitting the penalty -on the peti tion of Captain Bryant, had not decided as the Honourable Member had assumed, that the prosecu tion ought never to have been commenced. They were satisfied of the contrary, but taking into their consideration the poverty of the defendant, and all the circumstances of the case, they had remitted the penalty, and thought it would be sufficient to cover the public from the costs of the prosecution by direct ing him to pay the expenses, which amounted to 1601. The Honourable Gentleman had this night renewed the attack which had on former occasions been mark against that most respectable person, the Solicitor of the Board of Excise, stigmatizing with the imputa tion of commencing suits for the purpose of his pri vate emolument. A more unfounded imputation never was made—( Hear, hear, hear). Every prose cution that was undertaken was under the express di rections of a Committee of the Board—(Hear, hear.) As to the costs, the Honourable Gentleman threw out an imputation which he must know to be un founded. The Honourable Member must know that no costs were taken on behalf Of.the Crown—(Hear, hear, hear). It was the established rule that the Crown neither gave nor received costs. The only instances in which costs became a question, were those where the defendant, knowing his guilt, entered into a com promise, of which one of the conditions might be giving a suen-to cover the costs. Then the timelie r able Gentleman talked of the avidity manifested lek the Solicitor of the Board with respect to cons, though he knew that no compromise ever proceeds l from the Crown, but must be proposed by the de-1 fendant, from the consciousness. that a verdict must go against him, and were entered into out of mercy on the part of the Crown. Why then was such an imputation thrown out with respect to costs, when all ' this must be known ?—(Hear, hear, hoar.) As to the number of Counsel employed, it was rendered neces sary by the great pressure of business and the length Of time that the Court sat—circumstances which tea dared it necessary that there should be a sufficient number of Counsel to relieve each other. He west therefore sure that the House would see that the case of this Petition was not made out, and no foundatim for the imputations which had been thrown ant against honourable men—(Hear, hear, hear.) Mr. N. CALVERT was an advocate for inquiry upon this subset, thinking that the statements and cbservations of the Honourable Mover were by no means answered by the Honourable and Learned Gentleman. On the contrary, indeed, he thoughts the Learned Gentleman very ineffective upon some points, and especially with regard to the number of Counsel usually retained on &chequer prosecutions, for he could not see the propriety of Peeing Counsel who did not actually attend or take any part in such ' prosecutions. Mr. DENMAN was of opinion, that had the bill of exceptions been pursued, the ruling of the Judge might have been rectified by a higher tribunal. The Solicitor of the Excise had a difficulty duty to per form, and was surrounded by temptations of a most clangorous nature. Prom him the prosecution, in fact, originated, as he examined the witnesses. In -cases where he had been employed, of the same kind as the one before the House, he had always advited his clients, whether guilty or pot, to come to a corn- 'rise conside- system which had keen ,complained of. The lion. Member then proceeded to enter into a review of the practice of the Court, and the hardships entailed on defendants, even when innocent of any offence, and roved to be so by that system. He thoug ht the whole case-ought to be investigated by Parliament. Mr. D. W. HARVEY, in his reply, observed that , the whole aspect of the Court-of Exchequer presented a strong resemblance to the Star Chamber. But he hoped, that on the same principle as the Acts of the '4th and 6th of Williatn and Mary restrained the power of the Master of the Crown Office to file in. formations, some restrictions would be imposed upon Exchequer prosecutions. With respect to the num ber of those prosecutions within the last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer professed to think them comparatively inconsiderable, in consequence of the, extent of revenue, but the 760 before the House' formed only a small part of the Exchequer processes, as be.was convinced that if all the proceedings before Magistrates, and by summary jurisdictions, were id cfuced, they would be found to amount to several thousands. He looked, however, for some ameliors% don of the Revenue Code, as the Chancellor of disti l Exchequer, from expressing no dissent, appeared to concur in the proposition which he had announced , his intention to bring forward at an early period of' the next Session, for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the whole system. . The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER begged that he might not be understood to concur in the Honourable Gentleman's intended motion. On the motion of Mr. HARVEY, a Return of the several Petitions. Memorials, and Proceedings, with regard to the prosecution of Samuel Bryant by the Excise, were ordered to be laid before the House, to gether with a statement pf the costs, and of the re reault of the said prosecution. CAAIELFORD ELECTION. Mr. HUME, in the absence of the Chairman of the Camelford Election Committee, begged to state the grounds on which their Report respecting Mr. Flatlet had been founded. That Gentleman having taken a 1 prominent part in the late Election for Camelford, the Committee issued their warrant for his attendance as a witness before them, but though every effort was made to serve a notice upon him, he could not be found. The Committee, having had reason to believe that he had absconded, to avoid giving evidence, issued their warrant for taking Mr. Hallet into the custody of the Serjeant at Arms, where he now wan He did not mean to point out the course which the Houe ought to follow, but he wished to impress the neces sity of enforcing the power vested iq the Committee ofcommanding the attendwe of witnesses. The Hon. Member then moved that William Hallet be committed to his Majesty% Jail of Newgate. Mr. S. BOURNE thought it would be acting con trary to the general practice to have the prisoner meamitted to Newgate, without giving him an op-1 portunity of accounting for his absence. It was likely that be might deserve the punishment about to be C flicted on him, but this ought to be pzoved.. Mr. HUME had no other motive for making his motion than having been informed that it was the regular course of proceeding. The SPEAKER observed, that the usual course was to depend on the Report of the Committee, and allow the prisoner to remain in custody until lie stat ed his ewe by petition. In a recent case this was the course adopted by the House. Mr. CROKER moved that that part of the Repckt of the Committee which concerned Mr. Halle be read. The Clerk read the Report. It stated that Hallet hid absconded to avoid giving evidence before' the Committee, in consequence of which he had been ordered into the custody of the Serjeant at Arms. After some observations from Mr. ScAaLsrr; MACDONALD, Mr. S. BotiamE, Mr. W. CROIERIt t lind Mr. HARVEY, The SPEAKER suggested the propriety of allow ing the prisoner to remain in the custody of the jeant at Arms to a future day. Mr. HUME then withdrew his motion. BANICRUrTS . REGULATION BILL.. - On the motion of Mr. J. SMITH the Bankrupt's' Regtilation Bill was wcgmutitted, Borne amendments were proposed and agreed to, ' and the Report was brought up, ordered to betaken into consideration on Thursday aext, and to be printed. WORKING CLASSES. Mr. HUME ppsented a Petition from a number of journeymen tradesmen and mechanics in London and Westminster, complaining of the operation of laws relative to combinations among workmen for the purpose of obtaining higher wages, and praying for an amendment of them. The Honourable Member, after some observations on the hardships to which these laws subjected workmen, and the unjust advan- . i • N. ' -, : .4- • • :'z, v l* !*.• N. A % • * • . . 4 4 .:1 1 . .•.. . ..• . , . . . •,'''' , „ ,•, ~ .p., . . • - . ..t f: ' I • - • & tu g their.achatily. His intis Atari paid cm.,* Friend (the Solicitor-General), that he did not thin shirt the Customs had • previously been ,atis6ed, eindaed, asld framed irlthe lsest legal it at all necessary to dwttll upon them ; but h e , ap- aid praying for an interview. He received for an- • the, GendeimlkA l dstoW SW the dice, pealed to the House whether the *umber of Lich& 'nee, r only a verbal communication, in atich his re- "thiiikspete of all who knew Illm. gun - prosecutions, so often adverted to in the course vest was refused on the ad that the Commis- E . Lt( said. that whatever might be the of the discussion, could be regarded as so conside- surners•were never my ei .thoee.of the 761 character i 4 the Soli c itor, the system on. which the sable, when it was recollected that w e had suck an prosecutions which they Instituted He then offered Customs and Excise acted, of referring all causes to immense revenue to collect. modified terms. of ColprOglaiSe; to which also they the Solicitors who were interested in prosecutions, Mr. GORDON denied that any attack had been mould not accede. It was eair to tmfrithiewhy all was bad--(flesh. 'Fite Hoes* was, obliged _ to the made on the Learned Persons alluded to, it was the _,. • ...., ... f Thr. rinn_ .j :::whicii it was' proposed, in favour of economy. He promise. In the present case the Commissioners of tage which they allowed to masters, gave notice, that i.. ',.d make one observation on the universality of Cibtorns had, in 1814, admitted the excuse of the on Tuesday ne x t be s ho u ld move for leave to bring in . irosecutions. There was hardly one kindness of life deftrtdant ; and, in 1816, he had been prosecuted by a Bill to. a me n d th e Combination Laws. which was not followed up by the severity of these the Board of Excise. In the Court of Exchequer Mr. ELLICE stated that he had great pleasuie in ' ' prosecutions. He had a letter from z an inhabitant (though he meant to impute no blame) there was an offering his Entire concurrence in, and cordial assis- of Colchester, who stated, that he had lent a neigh- overwhelming weight oa the side of the Crown. By tance to :he measure of which the Hon. Member had '.1.. f bout his brearingscopper; having allowed his neigh- . the Bill that had passed the House last. night, the given notice fur the repeal of the. Combination Acts, .1 ' boar to brew a quarter of malt in his brew.hoose, he powers of the Board of Excise had been extended ins a subject to which it had been his intention, if no , . 1 _ ' was prosecuted. The 61st intimation he had was an a-manner unheard of before. other Honourable Memb er h a d t a k en i t u p, to ca ll ',',.information of forty or-fifty folios. He se* a peti- Sir C. BURRELL stated several instances of op- the attention of the House. He had been obliged, i ' . [ion to the Excise, wile were pleased to, remit the pression and exaction both in the Excise and Customs. in consequence of the distresses of his constituents, to prosecution, on conditton that he shbuld pay •He dwelt upon one case in particular, M which an appeal to the feelings of the House, in favour of a £9O, with whatever othde costs had been incurred. individual, prosecuted by the Excise, was advised by meerire they had suggested for their own relief, and i He received, three months after, a letter from Mr. his Counsel rather to pay the penalty reqnired than which bad been opposed on the general principle, ' 1 1 11 Cart (the Solicitor), stating that the costs were £46 to go into Court to make any defence., and with this that it would interfere with f ree l a b our ; an d hi s on l y odd—(Hear. hear.) 'fit Solicitor, in these cases, advice the defendant felt it expedient to cumin . , al- answer to that opposition wa s , th a t a lth oug h h e a d- i I never condescended 10, give in his bill, so that Ow though fully conscions of his innocence :. mitred any regulations of the pri ce of l a b our wa s con - ' ' 'defendant might have the advantage of having them The Petition was ordered.to lie_UO the table, crave to principles which all a c k now l e d g ed, i t h a d : taxed—he only gave n i )ris compliments,"- as in this.. The CHANCELLO of lire FAGUIQUER ex- barn rendered necessary by the repeated violation of I nstance, and said that his costs were so and so— pressed his astonish 4 .ft irereflettiodathroutiouts these principles , which had produced the distressing f i ' they were generally sbatewhat under the penalty re. this evening upon.the • rifExcise, whoweseaduc effocta frigOts Which the manufacturing classes in every Mitted. He should mOfi that the Petidon be brought wad character,, had on,atillikomicaphon been au highly' o f the the country were now unfortunately suffering. i - - up, Intending afterwards to propose that the. Papers :cadet. 44t,0e4 - ite7: dr ' id. Eathe 7 . ,__ _tlit l ierjeatest pleasure, therefore, in offering relating tO it shook' be laid on the table .' - • Are! dt. . ; iti hs paietable as ..s.3oedia; support to A measure iiihich would be the '••tab' Mr. R. COLBORNE stated, that the Solicitor of their- !Wei' '' " . . ' -been,. that, first tAnta.re-es lishitiLtheyriisciple of free was l ..... ' ' the Excise was merely a Ministerial Officer; th 0: he 'Court was h a d no cognizance of any case but when it was laid animadversions kl,linivev — es', been . -so &Brand for: thellooouraPerrentlerinui in 'cal l endiaintiii.to re- b e f ore him by the Board, and could not proceed cibly answered by his Honourable and Learned move a grievance; of which the operative manufac- tUrel had so much reason to -complain from it, tial and oppressive influence. Mr. WILLIAMS felt indebted to his lionouriV t Friend for bringing this subject belore the [E li . It had been the policy of the master-rnanufactu-ers and trade alien for some time back to reduce the ;:.;. e of labour, and he was convinced that these comb,. nations were injurious to the best interests ort4 („),, munity.—The Petition was then brought up read. On the motion that it be laid iz the table, Lord FAIR I NGTON said, he entirely eonetrred :n the sentiments expressed by the Honourable 11embers who had preceded ; and he hoped that some measAe to remedy the evil complained of by the Petition ers would be adopted in the course of the next Ses, i ( m of Parliament.—The Petition was laid on the table, and ordered to be printod. PENRIIYN ET.FrTION. Sir C. BURRELL moved the third readin:, , of the Penrhvn Bribery Bill. Mr. HULDSWORTH considered it his dr.t r to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be re.td tlikol time this day sit months. The Honourab:e in support of his amendment, went into :I r-:capittla tion of the evidence taken before the House on tf.;; subject, and contended that there was no proof wh.tt. ever that the majority of the Electors had been guil t y of hi ihei y. Sir C. HAWKINS supported the Amendment. Sir C. BURRELL spoke in favour of the Bill. lie went through the evidence, to shew the acts of bri. bery and corruption which had been proved before the Committee, and the belief of many of the ()la witnesses that bribery had been practised. Mr. ABERCItOMBIE conceived this to be a pia and wholesome partial Reform, which was warranted by precedent, and which, if they did not adopt, they would be liable to imputations against their cliarac. ter for purity and integrity. He gave this recom. mendation as a sincere friend, both to the Rill and its principles, though many clamobrous for general Parliamentary Reform were not in the House to do their duty—(Hear, hear.) Mr. MANNING defended the conduct of M r . A n . derdon with respect to the Penrhyn Election. Mr. DENISON said, that a great deal had bees said out of these doors about the corruption within; but he would recommend it to those men to read the evidence on the Penrhyn Election, acid then let them ask themselves whether it was not the Electors who ought to reform themselves? Mr. ELLISON said, let every man reform bin:. 'self before he talked and prated about a Reform is that House. Mr. It, MARTIN said, no Member abhorred more thos he did corruption in this or any other Borough; bat the general impression of .the evidence OA bis Wind was, that the proOf of corruption in Pearhyn only extended to eight or ten instances, and therefore was by no means general. Ile believed, that if the Bribery Oath had been administered, there ‘i tqd have been no corruption in the Borough at all. IL: was therefore against suspending the chartered righl.s of this or any other Borough. Lord EBRINGTON was so much a friend to re• form that he had at first wished that the elective franchise should be taken From Penrhyn, and given to some place in Yorkshire : but, as it seemed that could not he done, he was determined to support in. this Bill. Mr. W. COURTENAY opposed the Bill entialy. Mr. G. LAMB contended, that the whole at th's Borough was corrupt, if the rich knew that the poor Blettors accepted bribes, and did not oppose that practice: - • - . --; • - Mr. WILIVAMS alerted, that the evidence be. fore the Committee, clearly proved the general co:. rvtion in the Borough of Penrbyn. Mr. C. HARVEY; as a Member of the Committee, declared that corruption was only proved agaii eight or nine of the Electors of this Borough. Mr. W. WYNN was for withdrawing the Bill fer the present Session. The House then divided.—For the Motion, that the Bill be read a third time, 44—For the Amend ment, 24—Majority, 20. Mr. WYNN said, it was impossible that the B:!I could pass the Lords in the course of the present Se,- sion; he therefore moved a Resolution, that, on ac- Fount of the advanced state of the Session, it was ire expedient to send up the Bill to the other. Huuse. After some observations Mom Mr. BA N s, M;. VrEDCRO IN E. Mr. V.Fr TZGER A I.D, and the SPEAKER, . withdrew his Itesolution, and the Bill passg.d. Ihq lank Advances Bill went through a Committee. 11.- port to-morrow. The House went into a Committee on the Custcms CaciLll. ' dation Bill. Mr. HUME moved, that instead of 91. 2d. the De;y Ileuap should be 4s. 6d. Mr. ROBINSON defended the larger duty. Here was r. - ) increase of duty; it was only a continuance of the duty v L.ca had existed for many years. The Amendment was negatived. The several Resolut.ors were agreed to, the House resumed, and the Report waa a dored to be received to-morrow. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved th! second reading of the Irish Malt Duty Bill; agreed to, ar.d the 11111 was committed for to-morrow. The Irish Tobacco Dill went through a Committee. nrPor: co-111.Wrow. The Irish Customs Bill was read a second time.—Commit': I for tomorrow. The Scotch Churches Bill went through a Cominit!ee, !!! Report was recei.*l, and ordered to be taken into tutther co - sideratton on Monday. /dr. presented a Petition, signed by sixteen Magis trates, acting for the Counties of York, Chester, and Lancaster, praying that the House would interfere in behalf of the Coto spinners, whose hours of labour were considered by them to be excessive, and ..dentanded curtailment.—Read, and' ordered be laid on the table. _ . . _ The House went imp a Committee on the Irish Grand IV? Presentment Bill. A great deal of discussion took place up" the subject of 'the different Clauses, and many Amer.dments and several new Clauses were brought up. The Report was then received, and the House ad . :our:led a Foy& o'CLocx this Morning. THE FRANKLIN MANLISCRIPTS.—Among the Yr rious original Papers given in the Third or concludint Volume of Da. FRANICLIN'S Mammas just pi:Wished by by Grandson, the collection ..under the head of 134.0eiles pit b found remarkably curious. These Papers are of tile HC sprightly cast, and display that cheerfulness of temper whirl' formed so striking a feature in the character of Dr. Faauctes and uniformly enlivened his conversation amidst the carts of tv 'bleu and the infirmities of old age. The origin and design °I these livelY . ,4rusions are explained in a prefatory note, by lei:" it appear's that they were chiefly written •by Dr. FILAWELV fe l the amusement n's his intimate society in London and Parisss' 4 were by himself actually collecte.4 in a small portfolio cadone, as above mentioned. I