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

a‘liil bins no discredit.—:(Hear, hear 1)—On that account he
• knew tha his case must suffer; but he hoped, on the other
litintl,lhat Hon. Gentlemen would not suffer themselves to be
led away by the abilities of the Hon. Gentleman who had just
sat dowti, and who, without .impugninglis general discretion,
was equally incapable of arriving at a candid decision on any
matter that respected the conduct of the Chief Baron. He-there-
fore requested the House to dismiss all undue colour that the
representations might receive from either side: the result ought
to depend merely upon matters of fact.—(Hear, hear !)—The
charges professed tube founded upon the Ninth Report of the
Commissioners of Inquiry into Courts of Justice; but it was
equally true that the Commissioners themselves, in the most
pointed and solemn manner, bad declined any intention of
e becoming the accusers of the Chief Baron. It remained,
therefore' for the llonourable allemberfor Limerick to charge,
and- for the House to detertrane. The Ninth Report had
been laid upon the table three years ago ; but previous to
that event, the • Honourable Gentleman, as it were in a pro.
phetic spirit, /had moved for its immediate production. An in-
vestigatton4f its contents was instantly actively set on foot, and
eleven reSolutioos,. containing eight or nine charges, were
founde4 upon it. These were examined by two successive'
Compiittees, and the charges were reduced to three or four ;
and one of the hardships of which the Chief Baron had to com-
plain was, that in proportion as the charges were lessened in
number, like ahe hooks of the Sibyl, they were magnified by
his enemies in value and importance; and whereas formerly
eight or nine eharges were embodied in eleven resolutions, on
the present occasion only three or four charges were extended
over no less than twelve resolutions.---( Hear !)—The charges
were stated to be grounded upon the evidence apatended to the
report ; but it was not to be forgotten that the Commissioners
for the furtherance of their object had the power of selecting the
witnesses, of' determining upon the questions to be put to them,
and of inserting just so much of their testimony as supported
the point that was to be established. Yet it was upon this very
Appendix that the Chief Baron was obliged to rest his defence;
and when it was remembered, that 'with this only he had
teen able to rebut so many,. of the original charges without
being able to examine or cross-examine a single witness,
• the wonder rather was, that he had been able to eccom.
plish so much, rather than that he had not been able
wholly to do away with the few remaining accusations.—
(Hear, hear I)—The caseof Mr. Pollock had been brought for.
ward to show that the Court of Exchequer had acted upon
the report of the Commissioners, but the fact was precisely
the reverse: the Court had decided that the Report formed no
reason for imputation, and that it ought never to be received in
evidence.--( Hear, hear !)—Nevertheless, much stage effect had
been attempted to be given to this case. Another instance
cited with the same object was that of' Sir J. Galbraith, but
'there the 12 Judges unanimously held that the report formed
no sufficient ground for putting a man upon his trial, but the
'Attorney-General must adduce his evidence on 4he prosecution.
Ile did so, and the accused party was acquitted.—( Hear, hear!)
Ile would now shortly call the attention of the House to the
eircumatances attending the elevation of' the Chief Baron to his
present dignity. In the first place he gave up an office of
nearly double the emolument, and he succeeded Lord Avon-
more, who, while he devoted the most anxious attention to the
public interest, paid but very little regard to his own private
concerns. He had thus allowed a system to prevail, which
'threw all the fees of the Court into the utmost confusion. The
declining health of Lord Avonmore had also occasioned a great
smear of business. Under such circumstances the different
arrangements were made by the present Chief. Baron, which
were now wrought up into a criminal charge.. The Chief
, Baron, in fact, on coming into office, had been compelled to put
both himself and his officers in possession of, their legal rights
.--an arrangement necessarily attended with uch trouble and
difficulty'. Still he had in the end accomplished his object;
and he (Mr. O'Grady) appealed to every gentleman conversant
with the Irish Courts, whether the measures which he adopted
had not been attended with an increase of business at the bar
of the Court of Exchequer? If the Chief. Baron, under his
arrangement, had taken some fees to which he was not entitled,
he had lost, on the other hand, many to which his title was un-
doubted; and It was only asking common justice from the
Committee to ask them to look at the whole of his conduct in
office, and not at isolated parts of it. The first charge now re.
lied upon by the Hon. Member for Limerick, was that as to
the feea.aken for signature to the bills of costs. He was free to
admit that the spirit of the Chief Baron's order had not been
sufficiently attended to upon that point, and that some small
addition to his receipts might have been the consequence of that
error ; but the House would recolleet,that there was no evjtience
.—no point of evidence—that, before the appearance of thhcom.
n-,iminoners` report, the Chief Baron had been aware of such a
fact. Upon the next charge against the Chief Baron—that
connected with the oath of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of
Ireland--the Hon. Member made some observation which was
inaudible in the gallery. As to the third charge—the Chief
Baron's having taken his fees in English instead of Irish cur-
rency—he (Mr. O'Grady) would merely remark, that the same
course bad been pursued by the Judges of the Court of Common
Pleas, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Masters in
Chancery if, therefore, he had been in error upon that point,
it was an error into which he had not fallen alone. The Hon.
Member then proceeded to touch upon the last point of accu-
sation—the fee taken for the decrees— but we were unable to
collect the substance of his,ittatement he contended, however,
upon the whole, that wherever abuses had existed, those abuses
had been unknown to the Chief Baron, and that there was
nut a shadow of foundation in what appeared before the House
upon which a criminal charge could be set up against that
officer. Throughout the measures which the Chief Baron had
adopted, it would be seen that he had advanced his claims either
upon legal right or general usage. But even supposing the
- Chief Baron to give up that ground of defence ; suppose him to
say inertly, that in consideration of the alterations which he in-
troduced into the practice of the Court, be had thought is ne.
calvary to institute certain fees in place of others which he gave
up; supposing him to rest his defence merely upon that state.
merit, would he not have the example of judges for the last
hundred years to bear him out in what be bad done ? The
Cominiesioners distinctly declared in their Report--no matter
how far it might be legal for the officers •of' Justice to create
new fees—that the practice of so doing within the last hundred
•yeara hail existed to a very considerable extent. And let it be
recollected that this inquiry went to facts which had taken
piece eighteen years since ; that the public had no interest in
It ; and that no prospective advantage could be looked for
to it. Let it be remembered dolt these charges had been
hung up over the Chief Baron for three Sessions, new proof
being in process of collection ffom day to day in support of
them. Had the chargem now brought forward been brought for.
ward in Ireland, the character of the Chief Baron would have
been his sufficient protection against them. As it was, lie (Mr.
O'Grady) could only entreat the House not lightly to cast a
slur upon the administration of justice, especially in a country
where the administration of justice needed every protection
which Parliament could afford it.—(Cheers, as the Hon. Mein.
ber sat down.)
The Resolutions were then put seriatim from the Chair, and
the three first agreed to without a division. Upon the fourth
. Resolution being read,
.Mr. C. HUTCH INSON rose and declared, that the Coin.
mittee could not be in a condition to pass any vote of censure
upon the conduct of the Chief Baron of Ireland. If his Hon.
Vnend, (Mr. Spring Rice) meant to push his Resolutions to
any serious end, he owed it to the interests of Ireland, to the in-
tereetieof the empire, and to the interests of justice, to institute
• in the most selemn manner an investigation before the House,
and to call the Chief Baron himself to the bar. He (Mr. H.)
already knew,enough of the case to see that there was no suffi-
cient ground before the Committee for censuring, and in point
of fact dismissing one of the best Judges upon the Bench of
Ireland. Before he could consent to the Resolutions proposed
by the Hon. Member for Limerick, he would not only insist
that the Chief Baron should be allowed the fullest means of
defence, but he wool(' have evidence called to show the origin
of fees in the Courts of Law in England. Mr. Hutchinson
sat down by tweving the .previous question.
Mr. Illt,oo DEN informed the i fon. Member that it was not
possible, under the circumstances, to move the previous clues-
tion. He might move, however, that the Cbaltinall do leave
the chair, which would have the same effect. •
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, that although he had
been a Member of the Committee above stairs, he had been .pre-
vented from attending its proceedings aoregelarly as be could have
wished. Whether, with the ad vantageof more constant attention,
he should have concurred in the opinions expreasedby the Com-
mittee, he could not, as at present situated, with certainty say;
hut he felt himself, under every circumstance, hound to oppose
the unfair course attempted to be taken by the lion. Member for
• Limerick. The nine first resolutions of the lion. Member for
Linieriek were resolutions of' affirmation—the last two were re-
solutions.of censure; and the effect of voting those resolutions
would be most illegally, most unjustly, and he would add most
unconstitutionally, to condeinti an of of rank and character,
without giving him an opportunity of being beard in his de-
fence. The House was bound to look with caution at the Re-
port of the Commissioners; and it could not take the state-
ments contained 'in that Report as evidence. The Court of
Exchequer in Ireland, in the cases of Mr. Pollock and Sir
James Galbraith, had refused to accept the Report of tho Com-
missioners as evidence ; and Sir James Galbraith bad actually
been acquitted of the offences which that Report alleged against
him. The witnesses upon whose testimony the
:timers had founded their Report had not been, it should be
remembered, cross-examined on the part of the Chief Baron ;
nor had that officer been allowed to call other witnesses for
the purpose of rebutting their statements. His (the Solicitor-
General's) opinion distinctly, was, that die Honourable Gen-
tleman (Mr. Spring Rice); if he meant any thing serious by
his motion, was bound to give the Chief Baron a full op-
portunity of appearing at the bar of the House, and calling

Witnesses to exculpate his conduct. But Since the Honourable
Member relied so entirely upon the Report of the Commis-
sioners of Inquiry, it was worth while for the House to look at
that Report, and judge to what confidence it was entitled.
What were the charges originally.brought forward by-that Re-
port ; and what had become of the major part of them ? The
charge of an increased fee exacted upon affidavits sworn, had
made a great show at first in the Report of the Commissioners.
The fact was, that ;the Judge's fee upon affidavits sworn in
Court was one shilling and fivepence, and upon affidavits
sworn at the Judge's house, only one shilling. To prevent
the attornies from carrying all their affidavits to the Judge at
his own house, the fee was made one shilling and fivepence in
both Situations; and this was one abuse--concurred in, too,
by all the Judges—which had been strongly insisted upon in the
Report of the Commissioners. This charge, he knew very well,
was now given up, but still itivas necessary for him to advert to it.
In judging of the value of the Commissioners' Report, it was fit
to see not only how much of it remained, but how much of it had
already been abandoned or disproved. A second charge in the
Report was for an addition of five farthings to the -fee upon
an affidavit taken under particular circumstances; it turned
out that the loss arising out of that arrangement was greater
to the Judge than the gain from the increased fee. Another
charge of the Commissioners, and one which had made a -con-
siderable impression, was for an increase of the fee taken for
swearing in the Sheriff. Now, there certainly was a particular
Act of Parliament, fixing the amount of the fee to be taken for
swearing the Sheriff;. but there was no reason to
.believe that
the Chief Baron had been cognizant of that Act; and his pre-
decessor (Lord Avonmore) had uniformly taken the same fee
which he took. And here he (the Solicitor-General) would ask
the House whether it was reasonable to expect that .a Judge,
when appointed to his seat, should set about investigating, upon
the instant, the origin of every fee which he took ? Of course
'he would leave such a matter to his officers, and take probably
the same sums which had been taken by those who sat before
him. The charge, however, as to the fee far swearing the
Sheriff was given up, and the next charge in the Commissioners
Report was declared by the Committee to have originated in a
clerical error; so here were four charges, and four of the
gravest charges, in the Report which the Hon. Member for
Limerick so much relied upon, entirely abandoned. With
respect to the charge contained in the resolution now in debate
(the 4th resolution in the list of the Hon. Member for Limerick),
the Committee had not negatived it, but on the other hand,
they did not confirm it; and until the Chief Baron himself was
heard upon it, how was it possible for the House to decide?
Who was there in the House so well informed upon the case,
that he could lay his hand upon his heart,.and say to the Chief
Baron, standing for judgment—" I find you guilty ?" Had
the written evidence, such as it was, been fully considered by
the House ? The Honourable Member for Limerick, perhaps,
had read it, anti one or two other gentlemen ; but was it fully
in the knowledge of the Members, generally, of the House?
For his own. part, he (the Solicitor-General) had eatain-
ly read the evidence; but his opinion was, that if it made
out a case against the Chief Baron, it was at the most only such
a case as admitted of an answer , and therefore, again he said,
he would pass no vote of censure without the Chief' Baron being
fully heard. Much stress was laid upon the change of practice
with respect to the fees upon the bills of costs. The case in
reality stood thus—'the Judge signed the writ of taxation, and
lie signed the bill of costs, and lie received for each signature a
fee• of one shilling. The signature to the bills of costs being
merely a matter of form, the Judge gave up the practice of sign-
ing them, and directed his officer to collect the two shillings upon
the signature of the writ of taxation : and certainly it had hap-
pened in some cases under this practice, that the clerk had col.
lected the fee of 2s. where only Is. would have become due;
but that fact had been utterly unknown to the Chief Baron, who
had only gone on in the same course which his predecessor, Lord
Avonmore„ had followed before him. The instances of undue
charge had not been known, and how were they likely to he
known to the Chief Baron ? For the argument that it was an
abuse to take the fee without giving the signature, where the
signature was nothing else than a matter of form, it was an
argument which, he thought, could hardly require an answer.
The officer took the fee, it was said, and did not perform the
duty. Well, and half the fees taken in our Courts of Law
were taken under the same circumstances. The Chief Justice,
in the Court of Common Pleas in England, took a tee for the
taxation of costs, and the duty was performed, not by the Chief
Justice, but by the Prothonotary. Ile (the Solieitor.General)
could not help repeating, that lie thought the measure of the
Hon. Member for Limerick contrary to law, to fairness, and to
constitutional principle. flow beat to meet the measure, he
hardly knew; it could not be met by a direct negative. As
" the previous question" was not applicable, he should move
',that the Speaker do leave the Chair.
Mr. C. HUTCHINSON suggested that he had already
moved that amendment.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in that case, would sit
down by seconding it.
Mr. TIERNEY thought that the House could be no way
bound by the Court of Exchequer (Ireland) having rejected
the Commissioners' Report as evidence in the case of Mr.
Pollock. To the Court of Exchequer the Commissioners were
strangers ; but they were the officers of the Maloof Commons.,
and therefore entitled to its confidence. Ile begged to be un-
derstood at present as speaking only to the point of form. He
thought that the time was not yet come for the Chief Baron to
be heard ; and the course winch his friends were taking was
such as would preclude him from being heard altogether. The
matter, for the present, ought certainly to go on. In the case
of Lord Melville, it was after inquiry, and previous to a de-
termination to proceed by impeachment, that an interval had
been afforded in which the accused party had been heard. He
thought that the Chief Baron should be heard, and lie did not
urge it in any other way than as a dry question of form. He
pledged himself to no specific opinion upon the case.
The SOLICITOIt.GENESAI., Mr. C. HUTCHINSON', and
Mr. Ti EItNEY, said a few words by way of explanation.
Mr. CANNING said, had the resolutions been simply an
extract from the terms of the reports, he was ready to affirm
them without any immediate inquiry. But as they com-
prised matters of charge for which he found no grounds
sufficient to satisfy the House, he recommended delay. At any
rate, he was not prepared to go along with the lion. Gentleman
who moved them. If the Committee should entertain the
charge, he saw no other way of following it up hut by im-
peachment. Perhaps, in the present time of the season, and
with the present appearance of the House, that might be too
difficult. If there were any better Mode of proceeding, he
should be glad to hear of it. It was possible that the
.proceed.
ings might be suspended after the adoption of an initiative
resolution, which would operate as a warning for an application
on the part of the Chief Baron to attend fur his justification at
the bar.
Mr. C. 'WYNN said, that as the two reports of the judicial
commissions contained charges against the Chief Baron, that
personage already had warning to apply for hearing in his
defence, and that had in some respect been done by the two
letters which had been written by the Chief Baron to the Com-
mittee. He thought it advisable to suspend the proceedings in
order to give the Chief Baron an opportunity for applying to
be heard at the bar. He would be glad to know from his Hon.
and Learned Friend opposite, if the Chief Baron was desirous
of appearing at the bar. If not, the Committee had no reason
to delay proceeding.
Mr. SCA it LETT saw no ground whatever for coming to
the last resolution, in the contents of the reports. lie thought
that any resolution, under the circumstances, would be excep-
tionable, which implied a censure, as the Reports only related
to facts, front which no direct insinuation could be drawn.—
There was no proof before the Committee that the Chief Baron
might not be entitled to the fees -which he was said to have
received. If the question were to go, to the vote, he would
move as an amendment, "hut that such" (the practices in
question) " was not known to the Chief Baron."
Mr. S. RICE justified all the proceedings which he had
taken upon this question for three years past. Sufficient notice
had been given to the Chief Baron for his defence, the proof of
which fact lay in the two letters of the Chief Baron, in answer
to the reports of the commissions. He defied any imputation
of unfairness. Those who could make such a charge ought to
point out a fairer. mode of proceeding than that which he had
adopted.
Mr. PEEL said, if there were any difficulty, it was not to
be obviated by postpsnement. There were several modes, but
he preferred that of impeachment. lie did not approve of that
course which would fix a resolution of censure upon a Judge—
a person of that station should be dismissed altogether if guilty,
but he should by no means be partially degraded. fie did not
approve of proceeding by mire Alias, nor by address to the
Crown. Ile thought impeachment the only constitutional
mode but he could not consent to follow any of these courses,
for to each of them many and serious objections presented
themselves. His opinion in this respect had not been formed
withoutdue deliberation, nor had it been influenced by commu
&cation with any other persons : it was founded on the nature
of the charges themselves. Supposing those charges to be
proved—which but for the sake of the argument could not be
admitted—still they would not amount to the high crimes which
had been alleged against the Chief Baron. II e (Dir. Peel) could
very well conceive that in such a court as that over which
the Chief Baron presided, improper charges might be made
without his knowledge. He would not be understood to deny
that it was the duty of a Judge to examine accurately and scru-
pulously the conduct of the officers of his Court; but if that
case had not been shown in the present instance, lie could not
think, taking into consideration the character of the indivi-
dual, that the neglect called for so grave a punishment as im-
peachment. Another objection which he had to this latter
measure was its importance and solemnity, which rendered
it unfit to be applied to the charges now brought against
the Chief Baron. He knew that it would be easy for some
Gentlemen to rise and say to him---" Will you, then, con.

rive at offences so reprehensible in their principle, because
they are only small ones ?" but he should reply that he did
not connive at them, nor did he go the length of vindi-
cating the Chief Baron, but he objected for the sake of the
public interests, which were so powerfully upheld upon im-
portant occasions by the pro.ce.edin_g by impeachment, that
its solemnity should be dimpnshed. by exercising it for an
inferior cause. If it were objected to him that what lie had
now urged in favour of the Chief Baron ought to have been
urged three years ago, he would admit that, as applied to him-
self, the argument ad holland)t would be opanswerable, but as
applied to the House, he thought it would be amore dignified
as well as a more candid course, to say we have let pass the '
time at which this charge and the defence would each have had
a sure efficient operation ; and for this reason it would be better
now to postpone it. At the period alluded to, it must be re-
membered that the charges were of much graver import than
they now appeared to be. That relating to the fees taken
on swearing in the sheriffs had then seemed to be a serious
violation of the law ; but no person could now say that it
had not been materially altered ; for it seemed that this
practice, unjust as it certainly was, had at least the sanction
of the Chief Baron's predecessors. To this charge he might
with great truth reply, that his attention had never been drawn
to the particular statute under which it was received, and
that he had never required of his officer information on the sub-
ject. He (Mr. P.) knew this was no reason why Parliamentary
proceedings should not be taken ; but he thought it was a
reason why an impeachment should not be the course adopted.
There were other charges made against the Chief Baron with
which he (Mr. Peel)4as not satisfied. Considering the burden
which the Judge's duties imposed upon him, the time which
they occupied, the importance and anxiety of the office, and
the character of the individual by which it was filled, lie was
prepared to believe, that although grounds might exist for
those charges, still they were far from authorizing the charge
of corruption against that individual. He (Mr. Peel) could
not conceal from himself, that a very lax method of proceeding
had been adopted for many years in taking fees in the Courts
of Justice in Ireland.. The remedy for this was not to select any
individual as a victim for these offences, but to abolish the sys-
tem ; and this had been dune by an act of the Legislature. 'the
Right Hon. Gentleman here referred to a list of the fees claim-
ed by
the Masters in Chancery in 1815, contrasted with those
allowed in 1715. This long continued practice weighed, in his
mind, as a powerful reason why they should not select the pre-
sent case to visit with a punishment which had been withheld
for so many years. So strongly did he feel this, that if he
were now called upon to choose between the evils (for they
were both evils) of passing by altogether the further investi—
ation of these charges, or of proceeding to impeachment,
he should feel inclined to choose the lesser evil, and to pass
them by altogether. When the House should have decided
to pass the resolutions before it, it would have to decide
upon the mode of proceeding, and he had therefore risen at
this time to call to their notice the difficulties which in his view
of the matter seemed to beset their future progress. He could
not sit down without bearing testimony to the pains arid intel-
ligence with which the Committee of Inquiry had discharged
the duty imposed upon them by the House. He had had fre-
quent opportunities of observing and communicating with
them, and he had never beheld a more inflexible resolution to
surmount the obstacles which had been opposed to them. They
had, as was their duty, exposed themselves to misconstructions,
in their task of pointing out all that was wrong, and of prescrib-
. ing a remedy for it. Some allusions had been made to the
Committee in the course of the debate, and he could never hear
. any thing like censure cast upon them without expressing his
. opinion of their merits.

Sir J. MACKINTOSH thought the House had heard a fu
and fair charge, and the defence for that charge. Anon he
(Sir James Mackintosh) left the House, which he had been
unavoidably compelled to do, he understood that the difficulty
was not whether the House should proceed, but the manner in
which that proceeding should be conducted ; but now, from
the last part of the Right Hon. Gentleman's speech, he under-
stood there was an objection to ulterior proceedings.
Mr. PEEL had expressed an opinion, that proceeding by
impeachment would be better than by address.
SirJ. MACKINTOSH said, the Committee, so far from being
called upon to decide that question, had no right to give an opt..
nion upon it. Ile objected strongly to the argument which hail
been used, that the smallness of the offence ought to excuse it
froM punishment. To sanction thisprinciple would be to sanction
the destruction of the judicial body and the character of the
House. He thought the Chief Baron ought to be heard before
the House, if he thought fit to apply. Three years had now
elapsed since these charges had beep preferred ; and during
the whole of that period the Chief Baron had not thought fit to
present a petition for being heard by himself or by counsel, or
for permission to refute charges by the examination of wit-
nesses at the bar of the House. If his lion. Friend would
therefore withdraw his amendment (which though it should be
carried. would be no acquittal for the Chief Baron, but rather
an escape, which he (sir J. Mackintosh) would disdain), lie
would then move that the Chairman should report progress,
and ask leave to sit again on this day fortnight, while in the
mean time the Chief Baron would have time to prepare his de-
fence, and vindicate his character.
After a few words from Mr. J. P. GRANT, the amendment
was withdrawn, when Mr. S. RICE moved the insertion of some
verbal alterations in the original resolutions, which were adopted.
Mr. SCA ItLETT thought it appeared from the present dis-
position of the Donee, that it would be a waste of time to enter
now upon the discussion of the general question. He supposed
the Chief Baron would be upon the circuit in a fortnight, and
he did not see how the postponement could answer any useful
purposes. He knew very well it might be said that it was the
as it might be necessary to pro-
ceed course should be resolved
deeuetdy ofith w the
an llottse to
impeachment,s it as lo
on ; but he knew also the difference between theory and prac-
tice, and he knew it would not so sit.
Sir J. MACKINTOSH felt the force of that argument ad
inertiam so ingeniously used by his Hon. and Learned Friend.
He should propose, that if the House would pass the first reso-
lution amended, the others should be proceeded with, and an
opportunity would then be afforded him of moving an adjourn-
ment for a fortnifht.
Mr. R. SAIP 11 thought a fortnight would be too soon,
and yet the House could not afford much more. He was
strongly disposed to concur with the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber for Peterborough (Mr. Scarlett) in opinion that the busi-
ness had better be postponed until the next session ; but still
he thought the House ought to make such an entry upon the
Journals as should show they had entertained the business,
but not at the same time to imply any thing against the Chief
Baron.--( Hear !)
Mr. CANNING had no objection to vote for the first re-
solution as altered, but he was far from concurring in the
statements of the other resolutions being correct inferences
drawn from the reports of the Commissioners. The fact stated
in the Report of the Commissioners might be true ; but to
admit this was very different from admitting the truth of the
resolutions.
Mr. S. RICE said he had taken gnat care in drawing up
the resolutions, anti indeed there was no Gentleman into whose
hands he would not put them for revision. As his only object
was to convey by them the sense of the Commissioners' Report,
he believed the best way would be to adopt the words of that
Report, and he thought if they were compared together no very
material difference would be found between them.
After some further conversation it was proposed—'
Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The motion vies agreed to; the House resumed, and the
Chairman obtained leave to sit again on Thursday.
LAW EXPENCES BILL 11,1 IRELAND.
Mr. It. MARTIN 'Moved that the second reading of this
Bill be postponed for three "weeks, in order that the Chief Se.
cretary f'or Ireland might, in the interim, consult with the 'rig&
Judges upon the subject of it.—Agreed to.
The Irish Court of Chancery Bill went through a Committee.

USURY LAPS REPEAL BILL.

." That the

Mr. DAVENPCißfopposed the second reading of the Bill,
and after a few observations, moved as an Amendment, that it
be read that day six months.
Mr. RICARDO supported the Bill. Monty was the same
as any other commodity, and, in
his opinion, borrowers and
lenders stood in a similar relation to each other as buyers
and sellers. At present, borrowers, in order to attain their
object, were obliged either to evade the law by indirect and
expensive
sale. The Usury Laws resembled a law not long repealed,
means, or to bring their property to an inconvenient
against exporting the coin of the realm. That law did not pre-
vent the exportation of the coin, but it threw the trade into the
hands of persons of ..bad character, and the Usury Laws also
forced the borrowers of money to deal with persons of bad
character.
Mr. J. SMITH, so far from considering the present Bill in-
jurious to Country Gentlemen, should, if called upon, point it
out as a measure calculated for their relief. It had been
proved in a Committee of the House, that money could
not be obtained on annuities for less than 15 per cent.,
and he himself had known many persons who were reduced to
beggary
by being connected with such transactions. To shew
the house what opinion was entertained of the present Bill out
of doors he need only state, that he was frequently Chairman of
a meeting of Bankers in the City of London, and they were
adverse to the measure because they thought it would reduce
the rate of interest. He should only add, that in Holland,
where there was no fixed rate of interest, money was always
cheaper than in any other country in Europe.
Mr. PHILLIPS warmly supported the Bill, and trusted

the Hon. and Learned Gentleinan who introduced it should
be disappointed this year in the accomplishment of his object,

that he would still persevere in his endeavours to abolish the
Usury Laws.

Mr. T. WILSON and Captain MABERLY supported the
Bill.

Mr, F. PALMER opposed it.
Mr. W. Smith, Mr. C. W. Wynn, and Mr. Bennet (Wilt-
shire), supported the motion for going into a Committee.
The House then divided—
In favour of the motion, 33—Against it, 15—Majority for
going Into a Committee, 23.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee upon the
Bill.

After a few words from Mr. RICARDO,
Mr. M. A. TAYLOR objected to the discussion of so im-
portant a question with such a thin attendance of Members,
and particularly in the absence of the Attorney-General and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The House resumed, and the Report was ordered to be re-
ceived this day.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at ONE O'CLOCK this morning.