The Statesman. — London, England, 1810-02-16 00:00:00

- vieners of tiseAllioelratfentl tell *Mb I t same period." Mr. RO 'WARD, ateiervibg that i ßie Honourable Gentleman had divided the eibjFd of iris motion its bir notice under two heal, maid relating to the Admiralty, the other to the Bar.' tacks, .said, that of course it could not be cx. peeled that he could speak to the latter part. As to what had been said by the Honourable Mcm. bee relative to the ease of Mr. Butt, he must be allowed to say, that he misrepresented the ease it. kV, as much as he bad done what he (Mr. Ward) had communicated to him on that subject since his coming to the House that day. The Honour. able Member had represented him as having said, that the practice he denounced, the sale of Mikes, was not an abuse. Now, he had never said so, Lr was he of that opinion. Ile had asked for the ate of• the case respecting Mr. Butt, because he lima never before heard of it. He supposed it, how ever, to live been a ceseof the'sille of .au office. Such a case; he knew, was an abuse; but, Ville practice %sea sanctioned by long usage, it, could not justly have been considered criminal in those CONCerlit'd in it. The Noble Person *hose name Lad loam mentioned by the Honourable Gentle. man could, he was cottonseed, harp no objection to the. fullest investigation .of every transacfinn which took place during his official service. But before the House should sanction such an in. glary, it was bowel to see that good grounds were laid for it. What Vas the fact'? In Mee, a Committee was appOinted to inquire into the extent and propriety of fees. Lord Barham, who was thee at the head of the I\l'Vy Board, and the otbdr Cominissioners of that Board, were examined before the Committee, and fairly and openly stated that their salaries were grade op in part of gratuities and fees received in consequence of the practice alluded to. The Re-1 putt of the Committee declared that the practice was a bed ene, but not that the exercise of it was an obese to any of those who had been concerned bit. The words of the Report were, 44 that the practice of receiving gratuities on the appointment of clerks was bad, though it had been sanctioned by tong usage." In ten years after, in the year 1706, the practice was abolished, and in cense qnstoe the salary of the Comptroller was raised from 6001. nominally to 15001. and an addi tion of 2001. given to the other Commissioners. As to what had been 'said by the' Honourable Gentleman, with respect to the promotion of a junior over senior clerks, as he had' not stated .17 specific case, nor' charged* the practice as eh% been founded in corruption or undue itrives, the House, he was persuaded, would not think this an In to be entertained, 'to the fried detriment or public business, and the mis. htnevous embariassmeneof 'the public offices. The Sitkiud /Tart Office l tio which 'the Hon. Gentle. :bee had alluded, 'no longer existed. It was in twrporated with the Transport Office, aid this thane' had given rise to arrengentents. highlrad. *antelopes to the public service. If tlte Hon. Vensber 'charged the pension *bleb tied beee . Bto Sir W. Gibbon, on the stippre'ssioto of ard to which he had belonged; as eh instance f corruption, he must go on to charge the beneficial derangement* which followed the suppression of filet oilier, as a corrupt transaction. The pension was grantedepon th e _ i same pribetple as governed *eery Similar case' Ilputt all these grOnnifs, he ehould vote ageinst Ai molten, so . tae as ihe Navy boa rd Was con tented. Mr. WILBERFORCE hoped that. the Hon. tentkmin would withdraw Isis opposition to the motion, hecause, as the question had been brought fbrward in that House, it would be much more ' reputable fur the Noble Person alluded to, that a full and thorough investigation of the case should teke place. As the friend of that-Noble Lord, he wished that the Inquiry should Wimea; and Aminl be sorry that any proceeding in that House timid prevent the question from being placed in the clearest possible light. 'He could state of his own knowledge, that all the arrangements for Re form which had been adopted subsequently to the Report of 17844.1nd been introduced at the ex. peers desire of Lord Barham. In short, that Person, then Sir W. Middleton at the time cemented to• remain in office only on the condition that these Reforms should be carriedinto etftce. Ile, therefore, in justice to a Noble Per im who had done' such service, Wished the oppo sition to the motion to be withdrawn. Mr. NOEL concurred whith his Hon. Friend who had jest sat down ; and, as ase relative of the Noble Person alluded tO, was I convinced that nothing could be more satisfactory 4 til•'his Noble Relative, than that the mono:, shotild be agreed to. Nothing, h e was *seeded, could place the character of that Noble . Person in . a higher light with the public than the fullest inqdlry into the whole of his official conduct. Sir FRANCIS BUil,Dirr thou ght the , • , necessity for granting the Papers was ammo(' from what had fallen from the Honourable Gen,,, ilea= over the way (Mr. Ward). That llonour.u, eble Gentleman allowed that the practice was an abuse in itself t though it might be sanctioned by long usage. He had never understood that 'any usage could give sanction to an abuse ; and ccr. tainly in the ease of Lord Macclesfield, though - the length of usage was not disputed, it did not avail for his defence. What his Huth Friend had complained of was, that in the year 1703 or . 1704, the fact he alluded to had occurred so long after the practice had been cundesnned in the report d 1780. This case ought to he inquired into. Mr. WARD and Sir F. BURDETT mutually, explained. . Mr. ROSE bore testimony to the hononrahle stied and pure principles of Lord•Berham, but thought the jewelry proposed unnecessary. Ur. WARDLE replied, that it was not to the aighorlikr Willie* Gibbons he had alluded, but dd.Mlmmilatyrof maid tided and health, areseleat frees office *4th his full ',MN a salary of 10001: had been • *saes. lie Cad not enbrepresent. ! is y.lblak4l•oAlaatimesaa (Mr. Ward). Ho hail , • o pt mill t Asa la dm 4= • was usual when Wet loPelw iry .. lided 7 ht understood / • Mb Is Mb . ._ ;t _ ~;i:..: F •_ 'Wet It would be stilted • at .1. hisau.. Mr. WELLESLEY POLE. begged• to state, that whoa be was Secteiary to the Admiralty, it was the antloue wish of Lord Wily:ye, that the same regulations, which prevailed .in the Navy ' Pay-Office and the Admiralty, might also be: adopted in the Navy Office. Bat from the con stitution of the establishment of the clerks, it was found, after an attentive investigation of the case, that these regulations could not be introdu. ced into the Pay Office, without a considetable sa crifice of expense. In this opinion too the Com missioners of _Naval Revision concurred. This statement he kit it his duty to make, and he hoped it would be satisfactory to the Hon.Gentkinati. Mr. WA R E explained. Mr. IVIIITBREAD did•not think the expla. nation of the Hon. Gentleman satisfactory. Ile should therefore vote for the Papers, on the ground of what bad been stated by his Hon. Friend, and the two Friends of the Noble Lord (Mr. Wilber force and Mr. Noel). The CHANCELLOR . of the EXCHEQUER did not think the House ought to feel in the same manner liS the Friends of the Noble Lord, nor agree to the motion', unless a sufficient ground were laid fur it. The Report of the Committee of 1788 teeth:naided the abolition of fees, and an in crease of salary in lieu of them. The Order in Coun cil fat the abolition of the fees did not issue till 1796, so that the old practice continued till that period. As the fact,' to which the &per moved for applied,• had liken pica before that period, he trusted the House would not think any inquiry into a practice, not then prohibited, necessary. As to Whit had been said relative to a transaction in the Barrack Department, it would have been desirable that the Honourable Gentleman had been more explicit. If the transaction had taken place at the time stated - by the Honourable Gen tleman, October last, and had come to his knowledge, he was sure he must have made inquiry respecting it. He begged the Honourable Gentleman to be more particular on that bead, in order to enable Gentlemen to apply their minds to the particular case. • • - Mr. WARDLE, in reply, informed the Right Ihineurable Gentleman, that a stritten statement had been given in td the Commissioners of the Barrack Board on the 31st of October last, by Wm. Pierce, a Clerk in that department, contain ing an itemisation against a Mr. Prentice, another Clerk, employed in a very responsible and confi. deutial office in that department, that lie had sold the Unica hi it, and that too since the Bill of the' Right Honourable Gentleman (the Chancel. lor of the Exchequer) against the sale of offices. It also charged him with having employed clerks to prepare Mtge accounts. He had further to •state, that a letter had also been written to the Lords of the Treasury, stating the practice, agd eallitig tht•ir attention to it. He had himself seen the letters, aid he could assure the Right lion. Gentleman, and the House, that they would bear outhis statement. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCUEQUER declared his readiness to agree to 'the motion fur the productioh of these papers. • Lord FOLKESTONE having received inform , ation, that, lh consequence of a prosecution some tine since initituted against a firm for the sale of Akio hi the City, the penalties of which prbsecu. Lion the parties were now suffering, some papers or letters &pile:sting other • parties in similar offences had been put into the hands of the.law officers 'of the Crown, •he wished to he informed by these Gentlemen, whether such documents had been ,given to them ; and if so, whether it was their Intention to•take proceettings against the parties so implicated. The ATTORNEY-G EN ER A L answered, lfiit it had been stated by the parties, the objecti of•lba prosecution (Messrs. Pohlman and Keylock), in order to give colour to their own practices, that persons high in office wore concerned in the sale of offices. Amongst others, it had been stated that the ke of Portland matte 30M01. a year by the sale of offices, and also that the Lord Chancellor was engaged in the practice.. Upon such groun4s tie could not harbour the. slightest suspicion, still less institute a prosecution. Be had no paper of the kind mentioned by the Noble Lord put into his hands, and consequently he had no proceedings to Institei. The SO lACITO R.G EN ERALabegged to give the same answer. • Mr. IL A.DDINGTON. declared his intesttion to• vote for the Papers relative to the Barrack De. partment, for which a Parliamentary ground had been laid, but should oppose the other motion of' the lion. Gentleman. The question was then put upon the first mOwl Lion, • and negatived without' division. . Miry WARDLE?, neit moved, " that there be Lid before the Howse a general Retura of all that Park, employed, in the diffcrent. Departments of , the Navy Office, Navy Pay Office, the Transport Office, andtho Sick and Wounded Seamen and Prisoners of War Office, with the date of their, original entry Into.the' same, their ages, number, of years service, their . salaries on their entrance into Ahem - offices, together with the subsequent additions which may have been made to the same." • After a few words from Mr: Robert Ward and Mr. Davies Giddy against the motion, -and a few observations from Mr. Wardle in support of it, this motion was also negatived without a division. Mr. WARDLE then moved, " That there be 'laid before the Houle a Copy of a Memorial itiveu in by William Pierce to the Commissioners fur the Barrack Department, dated October 31, 1809, and also a Cop/ Of a Letter from the same Person to the Lords Com'mis'sioners of the Trea. Bury, calling thoir attention to that Memorial." This Motiois was agreed to. BMBEZZLENIENT BILL. On moving the Order of the D.ty for the fur.. ther Consideration of the Report Of the Embezzle ment Bill, Sir JOHN NEWPORT moved that it be. re commhted. The . Hon- e having resolved into the Committee, Mr. I t ushington in the • Chair, the Committee**. proceeding with the Bill, *WO ! , f I Mr. RtOSE thought tet inthAfinle shisuld haul been .laid before the. Heesekkkelie Honourable Barditet, as the ground upon which he !hid itbqught it right tit britig forward this measure. c did not feel it necessary to augment the. list of ' (ebonies, without cause ; and be **Apprehensive, that if the Bill were to pass in its present farm, it be . prodective• of great inconvenience and embarrassment to the public service. Gentlemen of ropectability would not feel desirous of engag log in the public service in places of great trust in the collection of the revenue, with the penally of transportation banging over them, as would be ' the' case if this Bill sere to pass ; and upon a charge so difficult to be defined, and so easy to be misrepresented and misconceived as embezzle ment. • • Sir JOHN NEWPORT expressed some sur prise at this delicate sensibility on the subject of penalties when they approached a public Office, where the son or the brother of a great man might be affected:. He had stated the - circumstance of a Collector, who had absconded with 27,0Ci01: of the public' oneyin his hands, and had afterwards been taken with 70001. of it iy,bis possession, as the ground of this Bill. in thatcase, if the Clerk of that Collector , had been guilty, he would have suffered death '; but as the law at present stands, no adequate punishment could be inflicted upon the principal, and, therefore, the Law Officers lied nut thought it desirable to proceed against him.: it was to remedy this glaring defect in the law that he hail brong.ht _forward this Bill. When he con. sidered that the Right !Jon, Gentleman must hare been a party-to the passing of a Bill imposing' the penalty • ot.death on the clerk or cashier of a bank ler Imbezzlement ; and also to the Act, rendering it; transportable offence to shout, ensnare, or kill.dter in a close park or paddock, he could n6t help admiring his. tender sensibility on the present occasian. But whatever might lie the tender sensibility .of. Gentlemen, he would contend, that it was the duty of that House, to mete out equal justice to all—to have but one and the same law for the rich and the poor.—, Could they forget the cases of Mr. Villiers and M . r. Hunt, as weft• as ethers: which had recently oczurred, or could any one, who reflected upon the consequences of such cases remaining unpu nished, think the punishment of , transportation was too severe for the crime of fraudulently em., bezzling or making . use of public money ? It would he for a Jury te,determine what w.as the ettibee. zleinent. Convinced of the justice and necessity of 'die measure, he had brought it fOrward. Mr. ROSE, with some animation, disclaimed any wish to protect public delinqiients; and de clared himself as ready as the Honourable ILle ronet to punish any offender of that description. • The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought there was a very essential difference between the em bezzlement of Bank, S'outli Sea Company, and Merchants' Clerks, from . thesituation of eeceivers of piddle money : these receivers .mixed the public money with their own, and had. fre quently a certain Lime allowed them to . keep it. in tlasir hands, so that it would be impossible to say When they fraudulently 'made use of 4 whereas, Clerks s .M e rcha n t s , : of the. Hailkyr South Sea Company / had lin .r44lit to mie,ttselr . master's money with their own i , and 'if thee did, and made use of tti as 11?40t to be able to pay when called on, It .wits a.fratuieletat e o !Itsetzleinent. ' He thought the doctrine urgell by the Honourable Baronet, .that the Howie made se vere la ws •for the poor, and not for the rich, was as improper as any that had been used in that House. Mr. H. THOItNTON objected to the term fraudulently made use of, and proposed, that: in. stead of . " us:: of," should be substituted " away with ;" so that the words would then be " frau. dulen tly made area., with." Sir J. NEWPORT acceded to this amendment. On the.questiou being pet. The SOLICITOR GENERAL rose, and spoke at great length against making any new felo nies without the most urgent necessity. Sir S. ROMILLY spoke a few words its favour of the amendment.' The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought that even with the Amendment, the Bill would not be effective. He thought, therefore, thetas another suliject of importance was coming on, the [louse would do well not to come to any t/sitermination to-night. The CIA IR NIAN reported progress, and asked leave to sit again. The House then went into the Committee on the Walcheren Inquiry ; and Mr. YORKE •made his usual motion for the ,explesion of strangers, on which the Gallery was cleared. JAW INTELLIGENCE. , • Ofi*ixql BENCH, ]J, V.•MORTON. . The plaintiff is a surgeon.dentist, and brought this action against the defendant, a master of aO ucademy, for furnishing him with a set of artifi. cial teeth and gums, &c. The defence set up was, that they did not an., swer the purpose fur which they were intended,- that of mastication and articulation ; but after an investigation "it the particulars of the cue,..the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff'.—Damages 521. being the sum claimed." NOLTE AND ANOTHER V. TOMLINSON AND TANNER. It• will be remembered, that some time since we gave rather a detailed-report of this most.import_ ant trial, which took place at Guildhall, on the 20th January, the defence to which was Usury, and in which the Jerry returned the following ref. dict—" For the defendant, Tomlinson, on the gesseral issue ; and for the defendants generally, Do the ground of the (Iced of co-partnership be.. Meet' Mr. Tanner and Mr. Tomlinson being Usu rious, end that the plaintiff , Workman, was cog. Meant of the contents of it ; and that as to the crin►n►ission of one 06 cent. we find that, with re ference to the trouble the plaintiffs have had in this ease, it was not excessive ; and we fin►l against the,ples of Usury as fonuded upon the amount of such cuutn►issioa." • • . , . • - the plaintiffs were entitli The plainlith e citi the 26th of January, 7 1 2 for a Rule to show cause why this verdict t h e ' r i : nut be set aside, and a new trial granted, ee ith .'. occasion Mr. Serjeant -Shepherd, in a most !ck, when the Court requ est. and learned argument, contended, that t h e d °4 on which the Jury founded their verdict w ee ~,g e ql usurious, and was proceeding with the othe r pois "l k in which a w lt hie u h ie h i c o c s o h n e r c d i o u i s l, e, ed copies of the deed might be . left with th e lett. ral Judges, who would take time to consider it; and, on Monday last, the Ri g h t R n. th : CI, i 4 Jus rtcc deliVered the opinion of the f" Au k that the verdict of the lary was riot, mid Chert: fore the R u l e Ni s i was refused, by which Llei ee , mittalion the plaintiifi are defeated in recuseels. from the defendaks' jointf.y; a sum of 23 )2ta1 l 2 1 . 8 1 1. w hich h a s b een (wins to the pluis4, ever s ince the 30th of May, 1807. The ree„ , however, against thu estate of Tanner, i s este L fished. :. . . NEwma s a. 11URFORD. The plaintiff is a printer i n F r i t h -street, succeeded to the business of th e defendam g h e ret i re d . lie was engaged in priming 4 on Mineralogy for a gentl eman o f the n 4 Atkins. At the request o f - t h e deftedin,, plaintiff continued the work, arid, p.hen ha' he, agreeable to the order of the defenda n t vered it to Mr, Atkin, the defendant end'. lug to pay the. plaintiff's demand, aniuuntiag 431. 34. 9d. : . . The defence was, that the time of credit• months) was put aspired at the time the sal mi brought, the plaintiff boring eetered us his p an or the work its,February 11109 and contostpr e d il a action in Sell(eintier !eat: it ho w ever appears( 4 evidence, _froyv Mr ! Atkins, that his origis t i agreement with 'Mr. Burford was fur 12 mist y credit from the corntnencemeot of the printing,! the mock, which was in April,.lBoB, and (lit he had, in fact, paid Mr. Burford for the printisi Of the 7shole. work.. .. . The Dory E mit! a verdict for the plaintiff—Di, meges 431. 3s. ill. citoss p, BUJILKLfY. . . Mr. harts stated this action to be for tat b i , lance of an account between the po.rties.f4iimi sued and didoviled, in rho cabinet-raakino ai nest, and 'which had hecn eiold at ready : ' t price; and ror . riedY.nioney. . . .i Thu defence. was p As; •-the 'One of ctedit, • incinths t by bill of excharigh, apeeptostby $h fentlint, had not esTire4t : . at the time of , • fheat!ion ; thisapplied only to the second in goodt ; the first lieidmitted to have been for R 4 41 Wai l money, but ,as to . tliskt•tbasmijunt liii4 has t ail tiered to plaintiff. i It. appe.ared in evidence chat this was 644', but that in a connotation between. tb e ,yl ' 1 and defendant there was a misnotsterstaudino r tWeeu them, ulion the tiooptiot.of .wheiljertfo i &oasis of:Messrs: Inglis end cu. wer e tu g ..., (he payment of the dutatidaist's acceptance; , plaintiff alledging that 1* kite. 00e111 partof . • agreement, the defendaat insisting that the ment only was that the bill should be r itealt bow*, 'up + Orhis6.LOrd.tilenbor , imam,- to iniot. the . justiFe of this case,. .. Piaisitiff tiling ; a Vuraict , for the balance . . case,, him, without ciosti,llolthich the parties OM • . Verdict fur plaintiff , ;—"Damoiis 1451. 19s: wit of . .‘ diets.. WOLPE 0, TOMiINSOW. . The Cutts jurricx said, that. 1110 a was set* in whieh the Court 44 taken lime to CODIAS whether a tule phonic' . - be granted to sheet arty why . there should not be. a - Espy trial, and Ilt Jadvv had taken this tieed of partnership vill theist ,and Ilsf4 ,tb,o offidaeits to peruse; apel which the)? .viers Satisfied there was tot mg ground to doubt of the propriety of the oeidr skin which 'the Jury had drawn. in favour of 1k defendant In this cuoty therefore no nay hid ought to be granted, and the posica must be doh, vcred to the defendant, * The Arronsci.Genisir. Aid, he w a s to hit shewu cause,against a n . 0(1,01%11'1* by Mr. V ford, fora mandamus to •be directed to the Jr. ticcs of Staffordshire, commanding them to lee and deterniine on certain claims made by reel Roman Cathdlics who nought .the benefit d a certain Friendly Society, of which they tot metobers ; but is Mr. Clifford was out of ink he should let' the rule be enlarged until theuel term. . . Lord ELLENBOROUGU observed, that if ast person moved to enlarge, or to revive the ralft the Court would order it of course, if sot op posed, but otherwise it must fall and expired course ;; for the Court would only act whee jO4 daily put in motion. . The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, he happeoeilts know, personalir, that Mr. Clifford intesdeili lepport the rule, and therefore . some. Coati .shotild; on ble'beheicitian h motion for Pk*" it, aced that should by given is to.the office Gil that purpust Bond-street s on Wednesday, was more eh I, " 4 '. Iy croullod with pedestrians of broth sexes, and!! carriages .extended in double rows from Picci# l l tio Oiford:street. A dashing Jehu of cel e ".,_ ' threw down 'his greys .and overturned his eetflo :near Couiluit-strear, hilt little damage "•° talky tained.. . . ~ .....-.4 . . . hIAKR I ELi On the Ith of Janunry,.it Coilii, bathe Rer :nia Dr o . t ham;*cialrison ► 'Chaplain of Gibraltar, Joky Wi ._. Esq. to Maria, seeoad of 41. 8. li atltl,tirr Consul of the Uoipsi Staiss at o i t t ig r oeslea.at Cad . 11/IA. GOSS, SURGEON, ; has the hollow IP INA inform his' Friends and Co rrfiontiebb, ibelf"m„„il coatinaed .lacrease of applicationfoe the eUre REAL CDlti PLA IN TS and Debility, be lis bets take. a Partner, and the corers bar&dfOrth eat "` all ducted under the Arm of GO9rand Da. He M M , also that•the same prlbripits et integrity, ewe"' — kyr casy . will tie imafiiikiy • abiory.4.. , hitnerle., marked a practice as toinceisfitias k . viMy enilleeet.„1 0 Letters trom the &ntary, coptainiag a Mush NikeeTr id ii, In particulars ut ttt g eaft e ,s a u, wit *email "" punctually attended. to, and Advice and Malkin part of (We K ingdtan. 15, Ilidierie sue* .Am Streit; LON r Primed and paraid by U. Lori:Lit It STIITESSI4I3I, OFFICE, Eli, rietwarem.