The Sun. — London, England, 1823-06-18 00:00:00

~- ',, ) -- kt , -, - ::-• t '+'..4• - -1 . • ir - ' oz.- vat,..,..nr,, T . . -- • - vA `, *ig ti .. ~4..., ' is• j, - . -- -'07“0• ' '''CL • r i - - . A z .. . --f .... . . ~. . -,s, - nr4 .. '• , 1 , 4 . NO . , QIY (i l 434 - .: -- (4114.1.,1 ' ~ i .eii ,--) 1.4.--t--- !'; •t• 3i ++mr f P~ ~✓~ NUMBER 9615. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 1823. .........,... i., ..1. PRICE SEVENPEI4'CL •HIS is to give notice, that in Pursuance of Directions - from the COMMIS4ONERS fur VIC TUALLING HISMAJNSTY"S NAVY, I shall be ready at this place, on WEDNESDAY, the 25th inst., to receive Tenders in writing (sealed up), from such Persons as will undertake to Purchase .the HIDES, (except -what may be wanted for the Dock Yard), and FAT that may be produced from-the Oxen slaughtered for the service of His Majesty's Victualling De partment at Portsmouth, from the Ist day of July next en siting, until the :10111 day of September' following. • The 'renders to contain distinct prices, expressed in words at. length for each article.--Tl►e same to be paid fur a the end of each month. WILLIAM MELLISH. Shathvell-Dock, June ii, 1823. NOTICE TO CREDITORS. ALL Persons having any Claims or Demands on the Right Honunrable JOHN EARL of EGMONT, or upon his Son, LORD VISCOUNT PERCEVAL, are re quested forthwith to send an account thereof (in writing) to us, with the amount of their Claims, and the date and par ticulars of their respective Securities, in order that an Ar rangement now in progress to secure and discharge the saute may be carried into execution. VINES and ADEY, Solicitors, 6, Stone-buildings, Lincoln's Infs. • CITY OF LONDON TAVERN, JUNE 16, 1823. AT a SPECIAL MEETING OF SHIP. OWNERS of LONDON, held here this day, conforma ble to public advertisement, to consider of the Bill proposed to be introduced into Parliament to authorize His Majesty in Coun cil to equalize the Duties on Goods imported or exported in Bri tish anti Foreign Ships; GEO. LYALL, Esq. in the Chair ; Resolved, That the Bill which is proposed to be introduced into the House of Commons to authorize His Majesty's Go vernment to admit the Importation of Merchandise in Foreign Ships at the same rates of duty as Importations in British Ships, from Countries the Governments whereof may think fit to act upou a similar principle, a. • ars to this Meeting to contem plate a departure from the : ritish Navigation Code, fraught with the most dangerous consequences to the British Shipping Interest. That the British Ship Owner is not in a situation to main tain an open competition with the Ship Owners of those countries which will be principally aft'ected by the proposed measure. That for objects of great national policy the British Ship Owner is, by legislative enactment, subject to the must rigid restrictions in the building, equipping, and navigating . hisahips, and is made to pay heavy duties on some of the most important articles used for these purposes. That the Ship Owners of the ports in the Baltic and Norway have the means of building, equipping, and navigating ships at . infinitely lower rates than the Ship Owners of this kingdom, the former having all the materials for these purposes at hand in their own countries, and being permitted to consume them free of ( titles ' the wages paid to their seamen being not one half t h ose p a id by British Ship Owners to seamen in the same voyage, a nd the cost of victualling in Foreign Ships being also much less. That the present protecting duty in favour of importations of British ships is not found even adequate to enable them to sustain the competition to which they are exposed, the propor tionate number of foreign ships employed in importing goods to this country from Prussia, Norway, Sweden, and Holland, having within the last three years materially increased over the proportionate number of British shipping employed in the same trades. That ship-building has been rapidly on the decline in this country, as will appear from the following official returns for the last five years : In 1818, the amount of tonnage built in the Bri- Tons. tish dominions was - 104,366 1819 112,173 1820 - - - 84,582 1821 - 74,847 1822 - - - 62034 That, since the restoration of pease British shipping has de . dined in value full one half, and the remaining halt has for the most part been unproductive of income to the owners. That, under these circumstances, any decrease of the protec tion now afforded to British shipping appears to this Meeting to threaten its gradual and certain decay, and ,to deprive the empire of that resource for seamen for the supply of its na tional marine, which the commercial shipping of the country has hitherto been made the means of affording. That the principle of protection to domestic industry from foreign competition has been recognized by successive legisla tures from the earliest periods of our history, and has from time to time received the sanction of the highest authorities. That under the operation of this principle, British Shipping, as well as many of the most valuable branches of native pro duction and manufacture, have been fostered into importance, and are maintained in existence. That its relaxation, there fore, in favour of Foreign Shipping, to the injury of British Navigation while its protection continues extended to Agri culture and Manufactures, would be a manifest act of inequa lity towards the British Ship Owner. That this inequality is rendered doubly severe by the expensive restrictions in man , tying and navigating, to which for objects of national policy he is subject, in addition to the burdens he sustains in common with other branches of the community. That if, therefore, it be now deemed expedient to alter the laws, upon the faith of which British Ship Owners have been induced to embark their property, the principle, which has been so frequently recognized in other Acts of Parliament, of in. demnifying vested interests, ought, in common justice, to be extended to the present proprietors of British Shipping. That a Petition, founded on these resolutions, be presented to the House of Commons, and that Thomas Wilson, Esq. M.P. be requested to present and support the same, an ti that the other Members of the City of London, and the Members for Middlesex, be solicited to give it their earnest support. That tha Thanks of this Meeting be presented to Thomas Wilson, Esq. M.P. for his kind attendance and able assistance on this occasion. That the Thanks of this Meeting be presented to the Chair man for his able and impartial conduct in the Chair. S. COCK, Secretary. This Day were published, LETTERS to the CONTRACTORS of the - COLOMBIAN LOAN, on the Illegality and Non. gratification of M. gefeS powers, under which the Loan was contracted, and the Debentures created. BY a Member of the Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn. Printed fur Hurst, Robinson, and Co. N 0.90, Cheapside, and No.,a, Pall Mall, London; and Archibald Constable and 4:0. Edinburgh. . ftOBINSON'S PREPARED BARLEY, and PREPARED .GROATs,. for making SUPERIOR BARLEY WATER or GRUEL, tn Ten Minutes. MATTIJIAS ROBINSON, Inventor of the above highly esteemed Articles, respectfully cautions the Public against spurious imitations offered for Sale ; and which the Venders have unblushingly stated to be Robinson's Preparation, or 'the same as Robinson's. The Prepared Barley, and Prepared'Groits, are Patronized by the first Medical Practitioners in the Metropolis, and in every part of the Kingdom where thy) , have been introduced, and as they are generally used in cases of Illness, or as a pe culiar fine Food for Infants, ton much cat': cannot be taken to prevent an improper commodity being substituted. R, begs to state, his Pteparations are ma d e f ront the finest Pearl Barley, and best Emhden Groats, under his own immediate inspection, and will keep in any Climate. Sold wholesale and retail, by Matthias Robinson, 64, Red- Liao-street. Holborn : Messrs. Butler, Chemists, 4, Cheap. side, St. Paul's, 920, Regent-strCet, London; Waterloo-place, Editthurgh ; Sackville.street, Dublin, sole Agents for the country ; and Retail by the principal Druggists in the King. don,, in Ob. Packets at tad. and Tin - Canisters of tabs. each at 4s. *** Be careful to ask fir Robinson's Prepared Barley and Prepared Graati, and to observe. none is Genuine which has Ptot his Name and Address printed on each packet. SPANISH COMMITTEE. TIIE SPANISH COMMITTEE have great pleasure • in laying before the Public the following addi tional List of Subscriptions : Amount already advertised ,£4.7g7 Lord Lynedock • Lord Glenorchy It. (1., Esq. - John Wishaw, Esq. A Friend - x3O ( 0 1- 1 1 10 0 1 1 F. Barnard and Son £2OO 0 Miss Barnard . 5 5 A Friend to the Cause 010 F. K. Eagle, Esq. 5 0 John Blaekett, Es.. 5 5 James 13urton, Esq. 10 0 Marquis of Lanadown 105 . 0 Mrs. Jesse Middleton 5 0 William Griffith, Isq. 5 5 William Eiffel, Esq. I 0 Wm. Leader, Esq. 51. P, 10 0 T. A. Phipps, Esq. News Office - - 5 5 Edw. Carlile, Esq. 5 5 Robert Ferguson, Esq. 10 0 Thos. Morgan, Esq. 6 0 Andrew Marsrell - 0 10 A First Lieut.ofMarines 1 0 Geo. Gray, Esq. - 1 0 D. C. Collinge, Esq. 1 1 Jones Burdett, Esq. 5 0 Mr. A. 'Wright • . 1 Mr. S. J. Richards 1 1 Examiner Newspaper 5 0 A. J. Hamilton, Esq. (by the Editor of the Sun) 5 5 Four Poor Men, friends 0 4 Sir J. Aubrey, Bt. M.P. 50 0 Mr. Bremridge - 1 0 Capt.J.B.Curran, R.N. 10 0 Luke White, Esq. M.P. 25 0 Day.Ricardo,Esq.M.P. 50 0 Jas. Hutchinson, Esq. 10 101 John Venn, Esq. - 5 0 A Friend, by J. - 1 1 John Holloway, Esq. 5 0 Edw. Hancock, Esq. 5 0 Isaac Stride, Esq. - 5 0 Joseph Forster, Esq. 1 1 Bryan Troughton, Esq. 5 0 .John Williams, Esq. 1 1 Joseph Young, Esq. l I Samuel Hanbury, Esq. 1 1 Robt. Mandeville, Esq. 1 1 Messrs. W. & D. Ewart 5 0 Messrs. Lett & Dugleby 5 5 John Haycraft, Esq. 3 0 A. B. - - 2 0 John Linton, Esq. 5 0 J.C. C., Esq., per W. E. 1 1 James Prowett, Esq. 2 '2 C.R.F. . • 1 1 J. A. - 1 1 B. B. 0 6 Win. Fryer, Esq. 10 0 Messrs. Kdby & Carroll 10 10 C. D. . - 0 5 George Pole, Esq. 2 2 P. Martineau, jun. Esq. 1 1 Charles Lean, Esq. .1 1 J. W. 3 0 C. L. & 31. A. W. 010 G. S. . - 2 2 Jas. Wilkinson, Esq. 2 2 Richd. Smith, Esq. Stoke . Newington - I 0 10 A Friend - - 1 1 H. F. Harrison, Esq. 5 0 John Bayly, Esq. - 1 1 Mr. G. Dyer - 1 0 James Barnett, Esq. 100 0 J. W. Liyersedge, Esq. 5 5 John Diggins,Esq. 1 1 Edw. Austin, jun. Esq. 5 0 Anthony Austin, Esq. 6 0 John Austin, Esq. 5 0 A Common Councilman of theta ard of Broad -st. 11 0 'Wm. Mellersh, Esq. 1 1 John Pinder, Esq. 1 1 James Hoppe, Esq. 5 0 F. Valpy, Esq., - 1 1 John Martineau, Esq. 10 10 L. J. Marshall, Esq. 5 5 Alderman Thorp 5 5 G. B. 5 5 Francis Cooper J. H. - F. S. W. - Messrs. Thos. Spencer and Co. - 5 5 George Lyall, Esq. 10 10 Richard Fen wick, Esq. 10 0 Edmund Ludlow, Esq. 2 2 Mrs. Thwaltes, Fen- church-street - 60 0 Wrn. Bayley, Esq. 2 0 W. D. Saul!, Esq. 1 1 Raphael Bon6l, Esq. 2 0 Thos. A. Teulon, Esq. 10 0 William Smith, Esq. Gravesend - John Blomtield, Esq. of Warham -, 5 0 Mr. Lawson - 1 0 Fines - 3s. 3d. Hon. Wm. Booth Grey 10 0 General Sir Chas. Bast ' ings, Bart. - 50 0 D. W. Harvey, Esq. 10 10 Chas. A. Elton, Esq. 2 2 C. Henderson, ag. 20 0 G. Roberts 25 0 William Portal, Esq. 20 0 R. BlegbOrough, Al D. 10 10 David Bailie, Esq. 15 0 G. Thatcher, junr. Esq. 1 1 Vincent Figgins 5 0 R. Alger, Esq. . 1 0 Lieut. Wm. Tait 4s. 6d. Thos. Adlington, Esq. 5 0 Thos. .11111, Esq. 31i1- ton-hill, Berks 10 10 C. Beckford Long, Esq. Langley-hall,Newbury 10 0 Messrs. T. &B. Hawes 10 10 Messrs. Williams and Co. bankers . 100 0 Friends to Freedom at • Finchley . 5 0 George Scott, Esq. 10 0 Messrs. Macauly and Babington - 10 10 G. T. Goodbehere, Esq. 5 5 Rd. Wm. Ripley, Esq. 50 0 Lord Sondes - 315 0 James Webber, Esq. 10 10 Jonath.Brundrett, Esq. 10 0 Michael Shepley, Esq. 50 0 Hon. Anne Seymour Danner 10 Dean of St. Asap!' 20 Earl Grosvenor 105 Rich. Long, jun. Esq. 5 Admiral Sir J. S. Yorke 6 Major Alger. Langton 1 Joshua Gngston, Esq. Drinkston, Suffolk J. H. Powele, Esq. Charles Barrow, }-sq. Lient. her, Royal En gineers Edward Emanuel, Esq. 10 Rt.AS'illiatns, Esq. 2 Thos. J. Clarke, Esq. 20 Mr. G. Harper . 1 R. Sewell, Esq. 1 G. Lernaistre, Esq. 5 Wm. White, Esq. 2 Fowler Hicks, Esq. 6 Mr. Charles Barron 3 5 0 1 0 1 0 William Rice, Esq. A. Hooper, Esq. - Th_gnas Wiltshire, Esq. Gambill - 5 0 B. E. - - - 1 0 5 0 1 0 1 1 50 0 10 0 3 3 Mr. A. Spear . 1 Wm. James, Esq. M.P. 5 Rev. G. C. - Rev. Rd. Goddard 10 Chas. Shaw Lefevre, Esq.. 5 10 10 2 0 G. T. - 1 0 1 Francis Ellis, Esq. Rev. W. G. Townley 10 01F. P. - - Donations of arms, accoutrements, and military stores a every kind, for the use of the Spaniards, will be received for the Committee by Messrs. Hayter, Howell, anti Co., 68, Mark lane, London. Subscriptions will continue to be received at the Committee Rooms, at the Crown and Anchor and London Taverns, where the Committee sit daily ; Lloyds ; the Stock Exchange ; Messrs. Smith, Payne, and Smiths'; Messrs. Ransom and Co.'s ; and at all the other London Bankers. The Spanish Committee earnestly request that those Gentle men who may have contributed to the Subscription, and whose Names have not appeared in the Lists already advertised, will immediately give notice to the Committee of the Bankers, or other persons, into whose hands the Subscription was paid. ERRATA in the former List of Subscriptions. For Robert Manning, Esq. 501. read R. Manning, Esq, Stock Exchange, 501. For J. M. Kendy, Esq. 201., read J. M. Fra Ich. Esq. 20L • For M. Wekeroth, Esq. read Mr. M‘Lerotn, 101. For Ed. Austen, Esq., read Ed. Austin, Esq. 251. A WAItMOLL and CO. caution the respect /1i • able Public to observe, it is at No. 23, LITTLE BELL the back orthe Bank of England, where great advantage is allowed in buying superior genuine Teas for cash. One Ounce extra in taking a single Pound, anti One Pound allowed in every Twelve Pounds, and every Order for 12Ibs. and upwards, is sent carriage free to any part of the kingdom. All Orders from Country Dealers, Families, Proprietors of Inns, Taverns, &c. must be post paid, and accompanied with a remittance, or an order for payment in London. A single trial will prove the libeial system of this Establishment, and convince every purchaser, that their Teas are of the choicest kinds, warranted. Genuine, being selected and tasted by the most eminent Tea Brokers. And it is the determination of Messrs. A. WARMOLL and CO. to send all Teas, from their Warehouse, packed as they come from China, to preserve their superior strength and flavour. Coisgou, 63. ; fine strong Souchong Tea, 6s. Rd. ; superior fine Breakfast Sottchong,. 75.; best ditto, Bs. to 10s. ; remarkably fine Green Tea, Ilyson kind, Bs. to 9s. ; real Hyson, very fine, 10s. ; best Hyson, 12s. ; Gunpowder Tea, 13s. • fine Coffee, 35.; very fine 3s. 4d. ' • best Turkey Coffee, -Is. lid. to ss. NORFOLK and SUFFOLK TEA WAREHOUSE, No. 23, LITTLE BELL ALLEY, Up Leathersellere-bnildings, London Wall, leading to the Bank of England, London. AO Country families are recommended to write to the ab ove Wholesale Warehouse,• to obtain superior genuine Teas ; sent -carriage free. •;•ir-f„.,171 1 ,,,,. ..-aT,'_,,,,,,,__,_.,..._ : -.---.. --,-7.:_r-17,,,,,,, ~ . •., ii __..„ ~,_.,.____,,._......,,,-..„:._,,._ .;_,..,„.,:_. 1 ... . 7. - ‘ : -" - •4:A.m.iiiiia+liZZAr t 4 A' i t ::1 ; " I i , 111 . 1,,,,,- .%: -.04 ' f.tatg . . - \k, .; . 2 , T. • ' •- ~..F . -., N.,. ,„,,,,,,,..,... e 4 .,. ,f,,..,..._,....,.-i• I'4l' -- 1 ' ~ , ', te , ,:: :' , ,-..1 , ! ,- ..'. ..:` veraio • . „ .„;,..,.. :4 .' . .. . 011 . ' .--- .i ......,..,. ; K ' It ." rt 1 1 1" ' ( ,',,.'' KAS • . ' ill r...t, _,kr...4,--, .•---- T9 I. - - - ..--:= ' .'' - ' 4l- ''' . .... ..."*".-. ' . .. . PARLIAMENT, HOUSE OF LORDS, JUNE 17. The Royal Assent was given by Commission to the Menial Servants' Bill. The Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Shaftesbury, and Lord Maryborough. Amongst the Private Bills were-the Bermondsey Improvement Bill, and the Mersey Canal Bill. PRISON CONSOLIDATION BILL. On the notion of Lord 'SIDAIOUTII, the Prison Con. solidatinn Bill was ordered to be read a third time,to-morrow. GRAND JURY PRESENTMENT BILL. Their Lordships having gone into a Cammittee on this Bill, Mr. TYNDALL appeared at the Bar, and was beard Counsel on behalf of the Clerks of the Peace in Ireland, against a Clause in the Bill, which regulates the Fees of Clerks of the Peace. The Learned Counsel, in his argument, con tended, that the Clerks of the Peace had a vested tight in Fees, and-that the Dill unjustly interfered with that right. He prayed that witnesses might be heard in tlitir behalf at the Bar. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that although there might be an estate for life in the office, the fees might still be open to the interference of Parliament,. The Earl of DONOUGHMORE'contended that, on every ground of justice, the parties ought to be heard by their wit nesses. In his opinion, many things h a d p asse d i n a noth er place not very creditable. The interests of individuals were swept away without any compensation having been given.— There were no less than three Committees of. Commons sat on the Bill, and a great deal of evidence was taken—but no evi dence whatever was taken by their Lordships. The Noble Earl concluded by moving—that the persons attending as witnesses in the case might be called in and sworn, and that M'Creagh (one of the witnesses) might be examined. The Marquis of LANSDOWN said, ,that if the House was of opinion that the Clerks of the Peace had not a vested right in those fees, it would not be necessary to call any wit nesses. The Clerks of the Peace did not, during the last Session, discover that the fees allowed by the Bill were inade quate; they took no steps whatever, and only found that they had cause of complaint when they discovered that some alter ation had been made with respect to the salaries of Clerks of the Crown. The Earl of DONOUGHMORE explained. The Earl of HARROW BY said, that it was impossible that the House could be able to learn from witnesses whether the fees were inadequate or not. Lord lIELMORE said, the duties of the Clerk of the Peace and the Clerk of the Crown were very different —the duties of the former were much greater. The fair way of dealing with the question was not to say that persons at a lower sum might be procured to do the duties of the office ; it must cer tainly be the wish of the House to have those duties discharg ed by competent and respectable persons, at the most reasona ble rate. The Earl of LIMERICK said, that the apprehensions that the Clerks of the Peace were not sufficiently remunerated were perfectly groundless. He denied that these officers had any vested right in the fees of their offices. By the Ist and 2d of the King their fees were to be regulated by the Grand Jury ; could it then be contended that Parliament had not an equal power with Grand Juries ? The Earl of CLARE was'of opinion that the remuneration given by the Bill was sufficient. After a few words from the Earl of DONOUGHMORE, Couhsel was called in, and asked what were the points on which he wished to have evidence called? Counsel replied, that he wished to examine witnesses to prove the average amount of fees received by Clerks of the Peace for a limited time past ; the general duties of Clerks of the Peace ; and'the general nature of the duties of Clerks of the Crown, fur the purpose of comparison. He was then asked whether he was prepared to give evidence as to the amount of the ancient fees He answered, that the evidence he had at present did not go so far. After .a short conversation betwowthe Lord Chancellor, Earl Donoughmore, and Earl DazAje,Y, the motion was nega tived without a division. Several clauses of the Bill were then ag ree d to . The House resumed, anti the Report was then received, and the Bill ordered to be read a third tune on Monday. The House adjourned at Eight o'Clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS. The SPEAKEtt took the Chair at a quarter before 4 o'clock, soon after which he was summoned by the Deputy Usherof the Black Rod to the House of Peers, to bear the commission read forgiving the Royal assent to several bills.' On his return, he informed the House of the several public and private Bills to which the Royal assent had been given. ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITION RESPECTING THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN IRE LAND, Sir H. PARNELL, in postponing his motion respecting the Roman Catholic endowments of schools which stood for to-day, to (we think) to-morrow week, took the ttpportunity of asking his Learned Friend, whether it was his intention to present to morrow the petition of which h e h ad given not i ce . !Jr. BROUGHAM was anxious that the question should be brought on as early as possible. There were many Irish Mem bers now absent,. and the number of such must be increasing every day. He would in compliance (as we understood) defer presenting it until to-morrow week, on which day he would po shivery submit it to the !louse; sinless some arrangement should be made in Ireland, which might render farther delay desirable. In that case, he would defer it altogether to the next Session. BEER DUTIES BILL. The CHANCELbOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the third reading of this Bill. It was accordingly read u third time. On the question that it do pass, Mr. MABEEIX objected to the measure as most unjust in principle. It obliged brewers t o erect t he new works aluded to in the Bill at a distance from their preont premises, and at great expence—to try an experiment which might not succeed. To marl his opinion of such a measure, he should take the sense of the House on it. 3lr. HUME also objected to this measure, and entreated that it might be allowed to Stand over till the next Session. Mr. Alerman C. SMITH said a few words against the Bill. Mr. B. COOPER supported it. _ __ _ .. Mr. MONCK opposed it, and contended it was by no means calculated to remedy the evil which it affected to remove; for though any man may erect a new brewery in any town, with the view of selling under the price he found th ere , st ill t h e Magistrates would have the power of preventing the vending (which power was the great cause of all the monopoly), by refusing licences to new houses where the new beer might be sold. The House then divided— For the Bill, 64 I Against it, 26 I Majority, 38. PRIZE MONEY DISTRIBLTTION BILL. On the Motion of the CitAxcEr.t.on of the EXCHEQUER, the House went into a Committee on this Bill. Mr. HUME objected to the great delays which so 'often took plact in the distribution of prize money, and hoped they might be remedied. . ' Dr. PIIII4LIMORE said, the present measure was intro ' ducal to remedy a defect in some Acts passed a f ew years ago, for regulating the distribution of prizes to foreigners in the of the delays complained British service (in consequence of which defect the money due to foreigners was still undistributed). from them- After a few words from Mr. HUME and Mr. M. A. TAY- Lon, which were not audible in the gallery, erroneous impression on this subject, which ought to be removed, °s them selves. : bi ts : t 1 C 1 oA"N There wN hit S r e seemed saidde d c la t oi claims ) that r s r e t v ° a many i P l r i a z e very ln" " arose It was that of persons making applications by round-about ways, and through personal favour, instead of a direct application to the depart ment which had charge of such affairs. As fa r as hi s observa tion went, he had seen every possible facility given to the c l a i ms of those who made their application directly to the prop er of fice.—(Hear !) Mr. W. WILLIAMS bore testimony to the readiness with which prize claims, when made direct to the Prize.ofliee, were attended to. After a few words from Sir I. Caryl:sr, who complained of the frauds practised on the unwary seamen by Jews, with re. spect to their prize-money, the House resumed, the report was brought up and agreed to, and the Bill order 1 et to be read a third time to-morrow. LONDON BRIDGE BILL. Sir G. COCKBURN brought up the report of this Bill, which was agreed to, and the Bill ordered to be read a thi r d time on Friday. CHIEF BARON O'GRADY, Mr. S. RICE moved that the House do resolve itself into a ccnumittee to consider of the conduct of the Chief Baran oldie' Court of Exchequer in Ireland, and also that two rep orts o f t h e Commissioners oflnquiry into the Coons ofJustice in 'lreland be referred to the Committee. The House having gone into the Committee, Mr. S. RICE said, that in presenting himself to the House, he felt how inadequate he was to the important task which he had felt it his duty to undertake, but having in the discharge of that duty undertalcen it, he was aware he had no claim to any other indulgence than a patient attention to the statement which he should submit. There were, however, considerations con. netted with this subject, which made it of importance. The first was—and to that he should implore the most serious attention of Hop. Alernbers—that this was a personal question, involving the character of a high judicial officer in Ireland, and from those who might defend that character, and above all from those who might feel disposed to affirm his (Mr. Rice's) resolu: tions, their duty to the House and the country, and to the high officer. in question, required the' most minute attention to the facts of the case. There were besides these, other grounds on which the question recommended itself to the attention of the House ; for if ever any subject more par ticularly than another demanded the attention of Parliament, it was that which concerned the administration of justice in the country.—(llear !) —lt was found that in cases of that nature in this country, the best attention of Members was given ; but in cases relating to the administration of justice in Ireland, the demands on their attention were augmented for, assum ing the case, that d e li nquency, great or small, had found its way to the seat of justice in this country, that would not coun teract the due reverence for the law, or the feeling of respect for those who administered it. But in Ireland, where Unfortu nately so many circumstances had concurred for a long series of years, tending to create a contrary spirit, there was great danger in suffering any matter affecting the administration of justice to pass without the most strict investigation. If the House should find, that in the reports before them there were any matters tending to diminish the resp ect f or t h e l aws, and for those who administered them, it was the duty of that House to inquire into the case, and, if the facts admitted it,, to clear the party charged, and restore him unsullied to the discharge of his functions. If, on the other hand, it should be found that the reports were well founded, he trusted that nothing would prevent the House from doing justice to the country. It had been stated that this question was now a mere speculative clues tion ; and that as the fees had been abolished, it was no longer worth contemplating in a practical point of view. He wi s h e d to God that such were the case; but if he had not thought that this question bore upon the present and upon the future condi. tion of Ireland, no consideration of the past would have induced him to have brought it forward. In performing the task whi c h he had taken upon him se lf, h e wou ld abstain as much as he could from wounding the feelings of any individual ; for he could assure the House that he was not actuated by any en. mity or ill will to the party whose conduct was implicated by his resolutions. If lie had been actuated by any such mo. tives, he would have allowed the reports to have remained un contradicted on the table, and would not have given to the Chief Baton any opportunity of exonerating hiniself from the charges which they brought against him. Those charges were confined within a narrow compass, and embodied so many general principles, that though they related to the judi cial conduct of a great public funcuonary, they were quite in, telligible to any individual of ordinary talent, even though he did not belong to the profession of the law. The Hon. Mem ber then proceeded to contend that it was the duty of Parlia ment to watch over the conduct of the Judges, and to take care that they did not ex ac t any fees to which hey were not fairly anti lawfully entitled. Having stated the opinion of Lord Bacon upon this point, he informed the House, that in a commission which was Issued in the reign of Charles 11. to prevent the improper exaction of fees in court of justice, it was well set forth that the taking of improper fees was " a dishonour to the King's justice, and an increase of charge to the suitors in his courts." In the reign of George 1., when it was necessary to provide a similar remedy for a similar abuse, the preamble of the Act of Parliament which was passed for that purpose contained these words—" Whereas divers improper fees hare been taken in several of his Ma- Ujesty's Courts, to the gr ea t o pp ress i on o f his Majesty's subjects." Under the sanction of s uc h au thority he had not hesitated to condemn, in his resolutions, the practice of exacting improper fees in the very terms which were first used in the King's Corn. mission, and were afterwards employed in the Act of the 4th of George I. Hellcat reminded the House, that in the . year 1n1.4, on a Friendnthloeti3lnembbmerugfohrt ‘ fo r r a w t e a r r i d h b r db? it hadis bßighteen admittedou ra Honourable all hands that the fees exacted in the Courts of Justice in Ireland demanded inquiry, and that in consequence a commis. *ion of inquiry had been instituted. That commission had presented several reports; and the question on which the House had then to decide was, whether it would allow those reports to remain as waste-paper, or would deal with diem as'the ground of inquiry and judgment on the conduct of the Chief Baron of Ireland. It was now the third Session since those reports had been laid upon the table; and he trusted that when that cir cumstance was taken into consideration no individual w ou ld think that he wait ac ti ng wrong l y in calling upon the House to decide upon them without further delay. The charge which was brought against the Chief Baron in the reports in question was, that he had taken other than the ancient fees to which he was by law entitled—that he had introduced new fees, and had increased the old ; anti that, by such conduct, he had increased the charges of the suitor, anti had violated his duty as a Judge of the land. He knew not what kind of answer would be offer. eel to this charge. If it were asse r t e d th at a J u d ge, of h i s o wn authority, had - a right to exact any fees that he thought proper, and if' that assertion were to be considered as law, there was nothing farther to be said on his part, and, as far as the Chief Baron was concerned the mutter was brought to a triumphant conclusion. But he contended, that, if such asser tions were made by the other 'side, they were not, maintain able ; and was prepared to prove, that if a Judge exacted im proper fees, under colour of his office, he was indictable at common law, and was therefore liable to Parliamentary censure if his conduct was submitted to Parliamentary discussion. Be fore he proceeded to the charges against the Chief Baron, he thought it might be advisable for him to call the attention of the House to this question—What are fees ? In the 27th report of the Finance Committee, they were defined in thefollowing manner : " Fees in a Court of Justice are se many direct taxes levied on the King's subjects f o r th e d e f ray i ng t h e charges of' the offices to which they are incident." The older authorities, however, car ried the point still further. Lord Coke stated, that under the statute of Edward the Ist, the Crown had no power of itself to increase the fees of an old office, or institute those of a new one ; for that would be an imposition and tallage without the consent of Parliament, If these authorities. were to be. relied on, it was clear that'no judge possessed the right of creating fees by his own authority for his own private emolument, and he would next proceed to prove that if be did so exact fees, he was guilty of a great misdemeanour. Blackstone said, " Ex tortion is an abuse of public justice, which consists in any Mil eer's unlawfully taking, by colour of his office, from any man any money or thing or value that is not due to him, or more than is due, or before it is clue. The punishment is line and imprisonment, and sometimes a forfeiture of office." In this opinion Serjeant Hawkins also concurred therefore, if lie should be able to prove that the Chief Baron had taken that which was not clue to him, or more than was due to him, he should make out a case that would call upon the House to in terfere, unless it were of opinion that a judge had a right to set a value upon his own labour, by introducerg fees that were not sanctioned by ancient usage or supported by some express act of Parliament. lie now came to the charges against the Chief Baron, which were comprised under four distinct heads. lie should, in the first instance, open the whole of his case, and should afterwards, when he moved the specific resolutions on each charge, refer to the evidence on which he remitted it. All the font. heads of charge arose out of practices which had originated with the present Chief Baron ; all were cases of fees, Which were unsanctioned by ancient usage, and which were instituted for his own emolument. The first head of charge related toTees taken on a decree in the Court of. Exch equer. It was, perhaps, only right for him to state, that when a case was brought into the Court of Exchequer, it was first of all set down for hearing ; and that after it was so set down, it was heard, and a decree obtained upon it, for which a fee was paid to the Chief Baron. It happened, hoWever, that cases were often set down for hearing which never cam e to a d ecree , from a compromi se being Made - by the parties. Ile would O.; lustrate what he meant by reference to what daily occurred in that House. Bills were often brought into that House, Which, owing to various circumstances that they all could imagine, were never . passed into laws. In the same manner cases were instituted in the Court of Exchequer, in which decrees were never obtained. The Chief 'Baron finding this to he so, saide-, " Many persons obtain decrees surreptitiously, and do not tray are my fees ; I will therefore change the time of taking them,' and they shall be paid, not when the decrees are issued, but when the cases arc set down for hearing." The Chief Baron - - acted upon this principle, and in snaCting did that which was not only illegal, but visa a hindrance to The suitors in his court. But not merely did the Chief Baron charge the timeafor taking this fee, he also continued the ordinary fee on the teauirtg of decrees, and thus received twice as much as he et2s en - titled to. He contended, that by such conduct the llief Baron had made himself liable to the various penalties winds* were stated in the law authorities which lie had already quoted; for he had clearly taken, by colour .of 'his office, fees to which he was not by 14 1 / 7 entitled. lie could- riot exactly ascertain the amount cif fees so taken, neither was be very anxious to do so—as he did not care so much aboutaeshat the loss was, as he did about the principle established. alandrst this charge the friends of the Chief Baron set up two defences, of which the first was, that the fee taken in the first instance_ that is, on the setting down the case for hearing —was a mere deposit, and that it was to be returned on the issuing the decree. Now it turned out upon inquiry, that the Chief Baron had never given any order to the officer who collected these feesto treat them as deposits, and that in point of fact none of them had ever been returned to the parties wino had paid them. This defence was, therefore, a suggestion entirely unsupported by fact ; and'not only unsupported by fact, but also directly negatived bya pilot declaration of the Chief Baron himself. The Chief' Baron 'had referred to a precedent where other Judges of,'lreland had ordered certain fees to be taken as deposits ; but in the case to which the Chief Baron referred, for a considerable length.of time the fee* were treated as deposits, and when they ceased to be so treated,the abuse was committed by the Officers of the Court end not by any of the Judges. Another defence set up for the Chief' Baron was, that the fee was due upon the exemplification, which was an en grossed copy ofthe Bill made out upon thedecree; but that defence was not more valid than the preceding one, because the fee has been levied in cases when, with one solitary exception, it ought not to have been taken at all. He now came to the second bead of charge —namely, the question of writs. Writs were of two classes : on one• of them fees were due, on the other not. The Chief Baron, however, immediately after his appointment to office, ordered fees to be collected upon them all. On what grounds ? He would shortly tell them. He believed that it was generally known that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was an officer of the Court of Exchequer, and had the custody of its seal. The Chief Baron found out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was bound by his oath not to use that seal without an order either from him or someother Baron. He said that his order could only be communicated by his signature; that his signature could only be communicated to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by his authority, and that for commu nicating it, he ought to have a feee. This statement, how• ever, extraordinary as it might appear, was not more ex traordinpry than the practice. Assuming that the signiture of the Chief Baron was necessary for the affixing of the seal by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was strange th a t t h e fee should be t a k en an d yet that the signature should not be affixed to it. That no difficulty might occur regarding these writs, he would state that they were writs of preliminary process. The next head to which he should advert related to the taxation of cosh. The late Chief Baron was entitled to a fee on examining and signing bills of costs : but the pre. sent Chief Baron, soon after his appointment, discontinued the practice of signing bills of costs, and directed that the fete should be collected for him upon another stage of the proceed ing—via. the writ; thus fees were taken as for bills of costs where bills of costs were never paid, so that the fee was wholly imaginary. There was but one more case to which it would be his duty to draw the attention 'of 'the House : it regarded the difference between English and Irislecurrency, amounting to 8 and 1.3 d per cent. When contracts were made in Ireland without the currency being mentioned, it was always inf erre d to be Irish. The C ourt of Exchequer of Ireland is divided into three branches--the revenue side, the law tilde, and the equity side : in the revenue and equity sides the fees were paid in Irish currency, but in the law side some of the fees were paid in Eng. lish currency to the officer receiving them, who accounted to the Chief Baron in Irish currency, keeping the difference himself. Wherever, however, an objection was made, the officer took the fee in Irish currency, thus eilmitting that the additional c h arge was unsupported by u sage o r r i g ht. When the present Chief Baron came into office, instead of ascertaining what was legal lie directed that all the fees on the three sides should be paid In the English currency, the officer having participation : thus a large addition was made to hi s own emo l uments. These were the four team which he was prepared to support by evidence: if he had omitted any thing favourable to the Chief Baron, he hopedatiet the deficiency would be supplied i if he had over charged any part of his statem en t, h e was willing to submit to the censure of the House. The Honourable Gentleman then proceeded to vindicate the authority of the reports of the Com missioners, alluding particularly to the Bills that had . been founded upon them ; and in opposition to what had been ad vanced on a former occasion by the lion. Member for the city of Oxford, cited two precedents in favour of the course he was pursuing. The first of these was the case of Lord' Macclesfield, where Sir Giles Oxenden moved an iMpeachment grounded upon Reports of Commissioners. Sir W. Vi r yndharn and Itir.2 Pulteney denied that these Reports wereaufficient authority, but the /louse of Commons supported the original motion. The second precedent was of Lord Melville, which was also founded solely upon the Reports of Com Missioners. Mr. Pitt had argued, that it was a case for a Select Committee ; but the House supported 31r. Whitbread. It had been suggested by the Chief Berne, that the reports contained merely ex parte statements : the same remark had been made upon the re. ports against Lord Melville, but Mr. Whitbread had success fully contended thata Parliamentary Commisationers were en titled to all respect for impartiality and general integrity. It was true that at present a law existed abolishing fees in Ire land, but he (Mr. Rice) was satisfied that if the House did not now interpose, and show that it was no respecter oh' persons, fees would continue to he taken anti the law to be violat ed. The Court of Exchequer had itself admitted that the reports formed a sufficient ground for the diemissal of an offi cer for improper oonduct ; for it had dismissed Mr. Pollock, first Deputy Cle r k o f th e Pl eas, upon no other evidence. It was a little too much, therefore, for the Chief Baron now to turn round and say, that the Repo r t s o f th e C omm i ss i oners were not sufficient authority in his own vase. Another precedent' to the same effect was the proceedi ng o f t h e House with regard to thn'i Chief Commissioner of site Insolvent Court. It might be said.. as in the case of Lund Corningebv and Sir U. Porter, in tie. time of William 111., that one rule of action was applicable to England, and another to Ireland ; but hi' did not think that. such language would be used at the present day. After leer ing dwelt upan this point for some time, the Hon, Gentle man thanked the noose for the indulgence it hied sheivri lint:, Ile had broug►ht the matter fairly to a n issue as an net of nes tiee to the (Thief Huron and to the country. Either the Chief Baron ought to be delivered from the charge, or he might to be removed from his btatitill ; and it was a matter of Mix ore, interest to Ireland, and of paramount duty on the part of En land, that the administration of the law ehould not only be placed above reproach, but beyond suspicion. The Ifinnotir, able Member concluded by reading a string of resolutions em. bodying the four charges to which he had adverted in the eeursr of his speech. The question having been put by the Chairman, Colonel O'GRADY said, that he need not assure the }loose that lie rose under great embarrassment, which was ctinsider ably increased by a knowledge that the last time he had ad dressed the House on this subject, being unused to public speaking and unacquainted with the usages of Cairns of Justice, he gave offence by what he was reported to s have said to tho late (Thief Justice of the King's Bench. He now took the ear. Hest opportunity of saying that nothing could be further frera his intention than to give the slightest umbrage An a man of such well-merited distinction and of such undoubted ability.-- When he was quoting the authority, and, as it were: i con/sting the protection of that high authority, it Could 'nit : of etiolate be his wish to impugn the Noble Lord's practice, or to cast imPu tations upon his conduct. It was not his intention to cast a slur u Chief p t a no ro n n a c n o y u ln i ti b is e i c ti t u yn tr tea il l w re i l t ir lo p ti e t d i th rc e tl y e , f a i s an p ee th o u f d d r i t i; stand forward on this occasion, because he felt conscious that he could vindicete the injured without the /necessity of offending disrtt siaii with the painfill it ought be to him, he ag g ila r n i:e s a u . r t t m e d i t i l i n si t. t li —n d e s :vla j r n an o l ta:e r, o e icl ! -- t t Y t h n': w i t e i ! l iu l a iY e a l v i d i er a e ar b rs tl ain n i e tgea C fr°t ;Te 7 t . truths and ay ia t ex e rti t ol l tsw t : o l its t lo l l i li e :tli h lyid n e n tr n rivi:l d em s io.n i t z lti n :a u taf . ti l elc i rl i a C iiit h lt;t i es t watts e;hefet;lrliitthet ot;:yit, Iliboured and the genera l geestiont as to the, charges brou_glifesitinst the Chia - Baron, and - the _eriotinality that under all, the circumstances ingeniotts ettaek. lie would confine himself to t r iattl u jit l e d wiinws attach anrel at a s f o to it was nv i el 'o ir) r eoss t tli fi eb t l w sfu a or s re it i a lic a 4 : ws tl ea,l4d it ,, opinion—feelings must arise in his breast to obstruct the exer cise of an imparCal joegment. llc -ru to 1 ti at those,fielingis