Star. — London, England, 1823-06-18 00:00:00

thoUcs of Ireland, relative to the maladministration of justice in that country. He should certainly bring on this motion upon Wednesday week, unless something particular should occur In Ireland which might have the effect of inducing him to post pone the subject until next Session. Mr. S. WORTLEY, in coniequenee of the elrvarionlif his Noble Friend to the (louse of Peers, postliontd the further consideration of the Report on the Sale of Game Dill until the' 30th of June. lie did pot mean to press the passing of the fill this Session. _ _ The Assessed Taxes Composition 13i3 went through a Com mittee, the Report WAS ordrrcd to be r.•ccived to morrow. BEER BILL. On the motion of the CllANcEu.nn of the ExcztE QUER, the Beer Duties Bill was read a thin! time. On the question being put that it be passed, Mr. MAI3EItLY said he could not permit this Bill to pass, altering the whole system of property of a most valuable native, merely as a speculation. He should take the sense of the House on it if it wete now so inindiciously pressed. Mr. 11 ME contended that it was injudicious for the sake of the interests of persons connected with breweries, and the payment of very considerable di:ti.2s for the public advantage, that the security of property of this valuable nature should unnecessa rily be disturbed. Air. Alderman C. SMITH opposed the Bill Mr. 13. COOPER supported the Bill, as assisting tlie •aitiniut ck,iag any injury to the morals of the peoplz. Mr. MONCK condemned this interference of the iieg:satuic as most mi:chi.]:ous to privets. property. lne beer thus brewed, h^ considered, would be de -creased in value and strength two-thirds, and increased in price one-third.—The house then livid' d For the passing of the hia - 6 t Against it - 26 38 Majority The Bill was the!' pal,ed. PRIZR MONEY. Mr. HUME aid he wished to draw the attention of the Hon. Gentleman opposite to the circutmtance of the delays which were reported to take place in the distribution of prize money ; where the imputed blare teAed he knew not ; but as there was a Bill now hefore the House which had tele; ence to the sub ject of prizes, he hoped the official Gentlenv oppo site would endeavour to redress this grievance by the intro ;action of some remedial clause. Afixr a few woids flour Dr. l'utu.tmonz and Mr. Hume, • The Cll ANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, by rnakin; application to the proper quarter, imme di at: information might be obtained on subjects relative to prize money. Mr. M. A. TAYLOR, as he was understood, corro borated the statement of the Right Hon. Gentleman. Mr. CANNING said, that if there was any delay, it arose from supposing that around-about way of obtaining information was preferable to that of making direct application to the proper office. The last was by far the surest and readiest method. After a few words (roar Mr. WILLIAMS and Sir I. CoFFN, the Dill was (A &red to be read a third time to-morrow. The Report of the London Bridge Bill was received, and the Bid ordered to be lead a third time on Friday. CIIILP BARON OF IRELAND. Mr. S. RICE moved the Order of the Day for the House going into a Committee on the conduct of the Chief Baron of she kid) Exchequer. On the que , :tion that the Speaker do leave the chair, Mr. S. RICE said, he felt, in presenting himself to their notice, how inadequate he was to discharge the duty he had undertaken. At the same time, he was aware that this gave him no claim to the indul gence of the House, as it rested entirely with him self to proceed or not. Theme were, however, con siderations connected with the subject itself that must recommend it to their serious attention. The first was, that the question was a personal one, involving the character of a high judicial officer. But, besides this, it concerned most nearly the administration of. justice. In a similar instance which lately occurred, Gentlemen on both sides of the House gave it their utmost attention, but the demands on their most se rious notice were augmented in the present case, as it concerned the administration of justice in Ireland. I n that country, where the laws were not in accord ance with the feelings of the people, there was the greatest danger, if any circumstance should arise that tended to diminish their confidence in those whose duty it was to administer then. Ali who had be.rn appointed of late year; to judicial situations in Ireland, were calculated, flora their learning and in trity, to give weight to them, and the importance of appointing such persons was acknowledged in an earlier period. Lord itac•x, in writing to the Duke of Buckim , haen, spoke of the necessity of appointing proper and fit persons to administer law and justice in Ireland, and he recommended Sir %Vali= Jones to be Attorney-General, though he was oppix.ed in Parliament to the then existing Government. Sir Gilbert Elliott said, it would be as easy to make laws for India as for England, were it not for the distance that intervened and rendered it difficult to superinH tend their 4.We execution. This was not the case with regard to 144;t:,d, though short the distance that se.' parated both commies. There it was the duty of the house to create a correct moral influence, by teaching the highest authorities that there was a power which would punish de.inquency when detected. It had been said, that this questron was a speculative one, that the fees having been abolished, it was no longer necessary for the House to ;rite, fete. Did he think so, he should have been the last to bring it forward.. This case was different from those of Lord Melville and Mr. Ilastings. Utley wet e not in office when the charges were brought against them, and the only object, therefore, was puniAtment. Ilere the indi vidual was still in office ; and if the charges were true, he could not stand in the light'he ought, with respect to those who might coma before him in his judicial capacity. He should cautiously abstain from all language that might give offence. He was not actuated by any personal motives. If he were under the influence of such, he would not b:ing the subject forward. In speaking to the facts, he laboured under some inconvenience fr um want of pri,fessional know ledge ; but a i.erson, rot - a lawyer, might, perhaps, discess the subject, with some advantages arising from that very circumstance. Here the Honourable Member read some observations from Nlr. Burke,.as to the peculiar fitness of the House of Commons for judging, of questions similar to this, in consequence of weir being free from professional prejudices and habits. Ile would call upon the House not to aban don their important Meg, by refusing, non light grounds, to entertain the charge. The Statute sir often referred to sheaved the necessity of Parliamen tary interference, in all cases where Judges were supposed to have neglected or overstepped their duty. It did not give to the Crown the power of appointing Judges during good behaviour, for the Crown possessed that power before: it only took away the power of granting patents to Judges during pleasure. The Bill contained a clause giving I to suitors the tight of action ; aid upon this, ground the King refused his assent to it. Some time alter the differei.ce was compromised, and Cie right of action given up. The inference he drew from this wai, that as that right had been taken away, it became more peculiarly the duty of the House to superintend vigi lantly the conduct of Judges. It was under Sir Joliii Davis that the liiiti h Laws were first introduced into Ireland ; and Lord 13 icon, at that early period, con templated its a great evil the exaction of henvj fees. If (contintsed the Hommrahle Member) the Chief Ba ton possessed the power of creating new fees, lie had not one word mote to say ; but he contended that no Judge possessed such a power, and that if he did not possess it, the attempt to put it in force was an of. fence for which he was punishable. He did nt.t argue the case whether the Court could impose a fee or appoint a reasonable fee for its wan officer. His case was, that one individual Judge, Without order of the Court, impo.ed fees which were a burthen to, the suitor, a:id were not sanctioned by any other au thority. This, he contended, was punishable. In the 27th Finance Report, fees weie.delined to be taxes imposed on the subject, for defraying the charges of proceedings in the Courts. Now, it they were taxes, he would ask, whether any individual could impose them on his °all authority.? Lord Coke went so far as to say, that the Crown itself had not the power to . create an office with a new fee; that this was the common law; but that inroads had been made on it. If this authority was good, it would be folly to say that a Judge could introduce new fees for his own profit. It was his business to prove that the Chief Baron had done so ; and in doing so had acted wrongly, and was punishable by law. Here the Hon. }Member quoted the authority 'of Blackstone and Hawkins' Pleas of the Croton, to sh?.w that the extor tion of improper fees was punishable by fine and im pt isonment. He would not say that the Court might not regulate the fees of its officers, but he contended that a Judge could not set a value on his own time. It had been decided by trial, that if a Judge - took ' more than his usual fees, it was punishable at com mon law. This being the case, there could be no doubt as to the power of the House to interfere. The principle to which lie adverted was laid down in the case of Lord Macclesfield, who said that the only justification lie could shew was, that the fees he took were the usual and ancient fees. Did he possess the power, he would have needed no reference to usage. He came now to the charges themselves, which he would comprise under four heads. The four cases to which he should allude originated with the present Chief Baron, and they were cases of fees not autho rised by usage. The first question referred to decrees of costs in the Court of Exchequer. When a case came into Can't to be set down, if the parties wished to proceed they obtained a decree. It was probable that many causes were set down for heating which were never brought to a decree. To exemplify the matter, the setting down of a cause might be likened to the introduction of a Bill in that House, and ob taining the decree to the passing the Bill. The pre sent Chief Baton found that there was a fee on de crees. He-Said, however, that many obtained them surreptitiously without any fees, and he ordered that the fees should be paid at the earliest stage, that was, on setting down the cause. He, therefore, obtained fees as for a decree, where no decree had been even taken out. That was not al" ; for after this, transfer fees were still taken on the decrees. Here was a case that clearly came under the authorities he had quoted, of taking money that was not due under the colour of an office. He was not prepared to say whether the sums thus received were great or small. . During the interval to which the returns extended they amounted to 1,0001. The smallness of the sum was nothing, it was, if anything, rather an aggt a station of the offence. lie looked to the principle.— The first defence sit up by the Chief Baron was, that the fee paid on setting down the cause was contemplated by him in the nature of a deposit, and ought to have been returned. He gave No di rection, however; that it should be returned, and in tact the suitors never received it. The suggestion - of the Chief Baron was not supported by the evidence. In the precedent referred to, of 2- Judge who directed fees to be taken as a deposit, the fees so taken were re turned. This precedent therefore failed. The fee could not be said to be doe on an exemplification, for the instruments were quite distinct. To enter and decide 'upon the merits of the case it was not necessary that Hen. Gentlemen should distinguish the classes of writs, it being sufficient for his purpose to say, that on one class of writs the Chief Baron had been en titled to charge a fee, and on the others he was not entitled to such fee ; at least such had been the prac tice of the 'late Lord Chief Baron. On his appoint ment to the office, the present Lord Chief Baron ap plied regulations respecting fees to all descriptions of mks. Oa that ground and to that particular point he begged the attention of the House. It was well s kilaWil that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was an ollizer of that Court. It seas the duty of the Chief Baron to seal all orders of Court. '1 he Chief Baron maintained that, as no order of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the Court, could be complete without the seal, such seal could not be af fixed without his (the Chief Baron's) authority, and that that authority could only be communicated under his own signature. He went further, and said, that for such signature be should,-have a fee, and ab solutely established a rule for the recovery of it— thus omitting that which was a necessary argument in support of the practice, the signature, and tetain ing that which was not necessary to his justification, the fee. There was, however, an exception where wi its were executed. The other writs in question were mere matters of course, and were called preliminary 'processes, which were, in 99 cases out of 100, quite unnecessary in the cause. Hence it happened them we.e more fees in proportion than signatures, for these were never affixed but when the writ was to be put in execution.- The next head to which he should advert was, that of taxing of costs—and would con fine himself solely to the taxation of a bill of costs of a party sued at the law side of the Exchequer. The last Chief Baron, Lord Avolimme, used to sign all billy of costs, when taxed, and took the fee to which he was entitled by law, and by having the signature or the Judge, the suitor • as sure to have his bill exa mined. When the pi esent Chief Baron was appointed, he discontinued signing bilk of costs, but he took a fee on the writ ; thus he got t!.e lee in every case as for,sigringa bill of costs, a:timugh he signed no bill and in many cases, no bill was ever taxed. The next head of charge related to the currency. The Court of Exchequer is divided into three parts, the Law side, the Revenue side, and the Equity side; and here, as a mode of profit contrary to former practice. he ii:variahly directed fees to be . paid in English currency; thus establishing another and a !IC N source t:1 pr . ,.fiL to liiinse:f. This was the case he had to charge again.,t the Lord Chief Barpn ; or d he had en deavoure.t to state it, v, ithout exaggeration, as it ap-• peareJ upon the Reports of die Commissioners. And here he must be permitted to c.b;erve on the manner in which the Commissioners had drawn up. tkcir neorts, and conducted the important inviry in which they had been engaged. The lion. Gent 1.,- man then referred to the case of Lord Macclesfield, which had been founded on the Report of Com missioners ; and the proposition that the Report was not a sufficient authority had been negatived by a con,iderable majority. The case of Lord Melville was abo founded na the R.'port of Commissioners ; but in the pre,eut case their . was . toil the Report of Commissioners and the opinion of a Committee. If the House did not spew themselves id ea: nest, the Act for the abolition of fees in Ireland would be a de id letter. But he had a document, by which it ap peared, that an officer of the Co nt of Exchequer had been dismissed from his office. The'namc of the of ficer was John Pollock, Deputy Clerk of the Fees, who had bees disinissed, and another appointed in his place. An officer in the Insolvent Debtors Court had also been proved to have taken illegal fees, and timnd it necessary to retire from his office. It surely would not be contended that the pure administration of jus tice was of less importance in a superior, to what it was in an inferior Court. The Chief Baron ought to be either free from charge or be removed from his office. The Hotta. Gentleman then read the Rei.olu tions, stating the fact of Commissioners having been appointed to inquire into the fees of Coos is of Jus tice in Ireland ; that the Commissioners had made eleven Reports, tfic 9th and 11th of which related to the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, and had animad verted on the conduct of the Lord Chief Baron, as having taken ices to which he was not entitled. A Committee of the lim=e had afterwards reported, that the defence of die Lord Chief Baron had not been satisfactory. Captain O'GRADY said he must observe, without impugning the motives of the Member for Limerick, that he could no more form an impartial opinion re specting the Chief Baron than he himself cotkl do. The Commissioners had their choice of witnesses and questions, arid Could also insert in their Report what part of the evidence was agreeable to themselves: but the Chief Baron had not the means of examining or cross-examining a single witness—and yet, with such impeifees means of defence, he had rebutted more than half the charges—(Hear, hear).—ln the case alluded to of Mr. Pollock, he had not ben con demnedl upon the Report, but upon evidence. In ano ther case, that of Sir J. Galbraith, the twelve Judges had been of opinion that the Report of the Commis sioners could not be acted upon as evidence. That officer had been afterwares tried and acquitted. The Honourable Gentleman theft proceeded to stare, that when the present Chief Baron was raised to the Bench the greatest confusion prevailed on the subject of the fees of the Court. On the first charge of the in creased amoui,t of bills of costs, the whole had pro ceeded from an inferior officer, and was unknown to the Chief Baron till the appear'ance of the Report. He Lad to complain of the great delay that had taken place in the investigation of these charges. In Ire land the character of the Chief Baron wanted no de- fence. Ile belted the HoUse not to sully the admi nistration of justice in the person of the Chief Baron. The question was then put upon the three first Re solutions, and they were carried in the affirmative. The question being put on the Resolution relative to taking illegal fees, . Mr. HUTCHINSON contended that the Commit tee could not be prepared, without further investiga tion, to come to a vote of censure on the Chief Baton. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL would submit to the Hon. Member (Mr. Rice) the unfairness of his mode of proceeding, which would be to condemn the Chief Baron unheard. The Commissioners had come to an exparte resolution ; the Chief Baron having no means to cross-examine witnesses, or to call other witnesses in his behalf. In the cases of Pollock and Galbraith witnesses had been heard, and in the latter case it had been decided, that the Commissioners had come to an erroneous concl vsion. The principal charge against the Chief Baron, viz. fur taking fees upon affidavits, had been abandoned as wholly unfounded, and the Committee had reported that the Commis sioners had been misled. With respect to the Ices 'paid• by Sheriffs, it appearid that fur nearly thirty years the same fees had been received by the last Chief Barcn, Lord Avonmore. Fiiur of the chat ges at first brought against the Chief Baron had been subsequently abandoned.. Till he had heard the Chief Baron examined he never could colisent to the resolution before the loose. By a similar mode of reasoning nine-tenths of the fees in NVestminster Hall, might be pronounced illegal. He should move that the Chairman should leave the chair. Mr. TIERNEY said, that the Hon.. Member who spoke last seemed to think the House should pay no attention to its Commissions appointed to examine' evidence upon oatho Why had tint the Hon. Gen tleman previously •stiggested that the Chief Baron should be beard ?—(C/seers). He would press the Re solutions; and if the• Chief Baron wished to be heard, let the House by all means hear him. Mr. Secretary CANNING could not say that these proceedings should terminate in the imperfect man ner in which they must end by agreeing to the. amendment of his Right Hon. and Learned Friend, the Solicitor-General ; nor could he vote for the Re• solutions, unless, after such vote, some special proviso was inserted. If he were compelled at once to vote ' for affirming or sienying the Resolutions, he should have no hesitation, in one sense, in affirming them ; himqufitreomsurte°l6'.'ll' be begt"lantot be but when he said in ore sense, derstood as confining his observation to th e initinr' words, "it appears" so and so. He was pre,:ared. vote for that Resolution , provided this.ne4;tng attached to it. Not that it was made out to I n; • that the charge s which followed 'sere true, b ur they appeared to be contained in the former It t , pc , from the Commissioners of Inquiry. ~ti icted serve he should feel no hesitat.o n i ll voto. for the Resolution ; but that vote should be m ade parent by some very ►ntelligible explanation. Tha t were three masons v. hich prevented for the Resolutions fi arned AS they were at pr e , enr l the list place, though he was satisfied that t he solutions sere drawn up with tolerable fairnessoe .hey would requite mere satisfactory evid ence c it the Reports on which those Itescriu ions Ni ere f unu j e: His second objectioa was, that he was not e t pl. , involrel p.►red to come to any resolution ci imitating t h e c, ,: a. ratter of the individual accused. His was, that the affirmation of . those Resolutinic, 4 „ the House but one mode of proceeding— th e i llea ' fj : went of the Chief Baron at the bar of the lieu*. tr the Resolutions were affirmed, he WAS there was no other mo.ie suitable, not to the r0 a8 ,..i . Lode of the offence, brit to the importance and stati ol of the offender. V'it 'a thee consid , !ration s , aadr rm the late period <•f the Session and the present str rr i the ILuse, he could not make up his mind to p ,. teed at pre s ent with this question. 'rov e r ;, oas Resolution, .which went sui:cli further, and A charge of crimiriarity, he could nut agre e . B utif by trassin; the three first liesoi talons tte.cLarge should rest there i fir tl.e present, he should 1 0 „:„ Ile stipi.ort that motion, an , thus give to the Chief 4, 4 all which he could require---an ample opp omm i ty et . meeting the charges 1 referred against him. Mr. WYNN said, it would be perfectly easy ; 0 suspend the proceedings, if the Cniet Baron u•iz e a to be heard. Mr. SC A RI.EIT said, that as the Resolution flea stood, it would seem to imply a ceibute. He sh o w,' move, as an Amendment, that the tact (as to the iila gality of the fees) was unknown to the Chief Btron. Mr. S. RICE had never wished the Chief B iron not to be heard. The Chief Baron had made hiselecti oN and been heard by letter, but might -ttil be hew n the bar of the ilou:e. He was prepared to go int o the charges, and only ask the votes of 1t0... ,Ilemben who considered that they were pr.veJ. He wasvil. ling to adopt any course of pioceedin :z which the Cominittee would point out as most convenient. Mr. PEEL said, it appeased that they could 04 pass over the Resolutions alron b ether • atlit m t h e Ht. solutions of fact, and stigmatise the Chi e f B aron; address the Crown t- remove him from the B:nch; or proceed against him by way of eacnme nt . He, therefore, threw out of consideration any !wad ing in the nature of a scite facia:. Ile shouid omit any Resolutions degrading the Chief Baron uithout his being heard in his defence. The question 14y, therefore, between the proceeding by Address, or by Impeachment, and he preferred the Later, as W I the most solemn and dignified coarse of inquiry. Still he objected to imreachwent, because the charge against the Chief Baron did not amount to those hid{ crimes and misdemeanours which could alone 11116 art an impeachment against him. lie did not dray but that there might have been some cmruption ii the receipt of fees without the Chief Baro n ', ledge. lie eulogised the conduct of the Com n ,i s . sinners of Inquiry irt_o Courts of Judicature in be ; they had done their duty laic ly and manfully in spite of any obstructicn. Sir JA MACK!NTOSII said, it was in wit to say, that the a 110..% ing improper fees to be taken by a Jndgc was not a grave and serious matter— Now, in his opinion, the Chief Baron should be in. formed of the charge, and time allowed him to ask leave to be heard at the Bar of the House. Ile should therefore move, if the Amendment was v‘ ithdrawn, that • the Chairman should report progress, and ask leave to sit again on Thursday nest. Mr. J. P. GRANT proposed that the Chief Barn' should be called on to answer the charges. Mr. C. HUTCHINSON with& ew his Amendment. Mr. SCARLETT thought it would be the best way to adjourn the case till next Session. It would not be expedient to censure a Judge by a Resolution, and then allow him to ccntinne in the discharge cif his functions. Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH was against delay. Mr. R. SMITH thought they might mark it in the Journals that the Hquse had noticed this case, and would rcsume it early in the next Session. Mr. NV ETHERELL objected to this course. The CHAIRMAN then obtained leave to report pro , gress, and asked leave to sit again on Thursday, which was granted. The Occasional Freelaciders Bill went thrones a Coossiuse. --riLport to-morrow. . -~- USURY LAWS. Mr. Serjeant ONSIA.P.V moved the Older of the Day far the House going into a Committee on the Usucy Laws Repeal N. Mr. DAVENPORT opposed the 13111. Nothing ever more sheaved the rage there was for legislation than this astenipeaf the Learned Serjeant. Ile should therefore propose, that i.- stead of now, the Bill should he committed this day di incetht. Mr. RICARDO was persuaded the Bill, instead a haft/ injurious to the lender, would he bent ficial to him. Mr. JOll N SMITH supported the 13111. Mr. PHILLI l'S hoped the OM now before the !louse would pass. lf, however, it should now be rejected, he nested leis Learned Friend would bring in a similar bill early nest Session , Mr. AI A iIEItLY supported the Bill. He considered the present law as impoiitia and inadequate. Mr. F. PA LIU Elt could not believe 'that the repeal of the present law would induce monied men to lend at a lower meg interest firm they now dig.• Mr. W. S ITH supported the Bill. Mr. WY NN did not believe the present Usury Laws wised be benefiebl to the Public. Mr. HEN Ell' was of opinion the repeal of the Usury Lowe would be beneficial to money borrowers; and there'll, h e would support the BilL The gallery was then cleared for a division ; when there ap peared—For going into the Committee, 38—For the Alooml. ment, 15— llujority, 23. The House then seem into a tommittee. blr. Scrjeaut DNS LO NV proposed to filkup the blanks wlll the Ist of January next. hlr. T. W 1 LSUN wished to fill up the blanks with tho,l* ef January, 1b25, th;:t the Public might prepare for the meow. After some further conversation, the blank was filled op with the • ards the Ist of January, 1044. The other Clauses of the 11.11 were agreed to, and the Iteport was ordered to be received this day. The second reading of the Beer Bill was postponed to Meek The SOLICITOU-GENERAL brought in a Bill to the Insolvent Debtors' Act ; read a first, and ordered to lat teed a seLcod time, on Thuraday.—The other Orders were tlivoild sat e and the Douse all Burned at Chte o'Clo,:k, oc t 4 tu