The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-05 00:00:00

highest credit ; and amongst them was one gentleman, who
transacted business to the ameunt of sixteen or eighteen mil-
lions a year, and his case would occupy but little time. The
question really wa., whether three persons were to ha►e
the power of resorting to the means which the law and the
Constitution recognised for eliciting truth. Every. one se-
acquainted with the administration of justice was aware that the
impression of eviOenee on the Judge and jury was very different
after hearing the observations of counsel, and he was convinced
that much time would be saved by conceding this claim.
It was said that these holders Lad no legal right to have their
claims investigated ; that was certainly true ; but if ever there
was a claim founded in justice, the claim of an innocent holder
of one of these bills was so founded, and if these persons had
no legal remedy, that was their misfortune. He trusted that
the Committee would not be led away with the idea that per-
sons would arise from no one knew where, to take up the time
of the Commissioners by claiming a right to be beard, or with
the idea that a multitude of issues would be raised if counsel
were employed. The only question that could be raised would
be—first, it the holder of the bill had received the bill properly ;
and, secondly, if the authorities issuing the bill had exercised
proper care and precaution. He should therefore move that
the clause be brought up and added to the Bill.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the observations
of his Hon. and Learned Friend did not remove his objections
to the clause proposed. His lion. and Learned Friend's
argument went to show the right on the part'of the bill-holders
of being heard by counsel. No doubt they had such right,
but the question was, if they would leave the decision to the
discretion of the Commissioners, or if they would allow any
person who chose to describe himself as an owner of an Ex-
chequer bill to attend with his counsel and witnesses. But the
clause would not attain the object in view. How
could the attendance of witnesses be secured? There
was a clause giving the Commissioners the power of sum-
moning witnesses, and no doubt, on any party applying to the
Commissioners, they would exercise that power. But if they
left the summoning of witnesses to the discretion of the Com-
missioners, surely they ought to leave the question as to the em-
ployment of counsel to their discretion also. His Hon. and
Learned Friend's speech seemed to say that they (the Govern-
ment) were opposing the attendance of counsel in all cases ; but
such was not the case; on the contrary, they (the Government)
contended that they ought to leave the decision of the question
entirely in the discretion of the Commissioners. What he
objected to was the taking out of the hands of t►,e Commis-
sioners all control ever these proceedings, and compelling them
to hear witnesses in every possible case. When the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman spoke of the power of the Commissioners
to report the result of their inquiries, it should be recollected
that they had no power to make any final decision—that would
Test entirely with the House itself. On these grounds, there-
fore, he must object to the clause proposed by the Hen. and
Learned Gentleman.
The clause was then brought up.
Sir R. INGLIS said it appeared to him that the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman desired to give to the claimants an advan-
tage which was not sought by the Government, and on that
ground he thought the proposal objectionable, The Commis-
sioners would have no power to decide that such' and such a
sum was (ie to a particular person, but would merely report to
the Queen, and through the Queen to the Parliament, that
such and such had been the mode of issuing Exchequer bills,
and such and such persons had been the holders of them. He
could not see why an advantage should be possessed by the
holders which was not possessed by the Government.
Lord EBRIN G TON was understood to say that he thought
both the Government and the claimants should be heard by
counsel, as they might think fit.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he concluded the Government
would have the power of being heat d by counsel, and he thought
it would be wrong of the Government not to have recourse to
professional assistance, while the claimants availed themselves
of such an aid.

Air. WA KL EY said that the parties at all events should be
heard by couusel, as was the case upon all other similar oc-
casions.

Mr. C. BULLER asked why the House should depart from
the usual course of proceeding, and not allow the evidence ad-
duced on the various questions to be brought under the Com-
missioners to be sifted by counsel. It was only by the proper
sifting of the evidence that the real state of the facts would be
really coal. at.
Sir R. PEEL said the question was, whether or not they
would trust the investigation to the Commissioners, who were
most calculated to elicit the truth—whether or not they would
confine their instruction to them, or give a right to every
party to be heard by counsel ? Of the Commissioners, one
had been a Master in Chancery, and must be a good judge of
the nature of the inquiry which was best calculated to al rive at
the truth. The other Commissioner, Mr. Sergeant Stephen,
in addition to his long practice at the bar, had served on the
Commission to Inquire into Real Property, and was,
therefore, well fitted for conducting such an inquiry.
It was generally admitted on both sides that by their integrity
and professional attainments, they were well fitted to conduct
the inquiry, and meet the ends of justice. If it was necessary
that counsel should be heard on the part of the holders, it may
be also necessary to hear evidence on the part of the Crown.
( Hear, hear.) The duty of the Commissioners was to lay the
evidence in the most satisfactory manner before the House, and
he thought it better to leave the matter in the hands of the
Commissioners, who, he had no doubt, would call counsel if it

was necessary.
Sir THOMAS WILDE said, that if the evidence was.
legal, no Judge in the land would have the power to refuse,
and why should Commissioners have that power ? It was
said that Parliament was to decide on the evidence, but who
was to decide what the evidence was to be? He did think that
would be a full, fair, and satisfactory way of proceeding.
It might be necessary for the holder to propose the evidence
of bankers, bill-brokers, and stock-brokers, touching his
ownership of a bill. Who was to decide which of these was to
be selected, and when ? In his (Sir T. Wilde's) opinion, the
holders of hills should be represented by counsel, and so should
the Treasury.=(Hear, hear.) Let the Treasury state their
objections openly to the bill-holders, and let the holders state
theirs by counsel. Was it just to prevent a party from bring-
ing forward any evidence necessary to make out his ease? If it
was not just. why withhold those opportunities? Would not
counsel be heard before a Committee of that House? The
Commissioners being ignorant of the case of the parties, and
of the case of the Government—being ignorant whether
the case arose from negligence, or from circumstances neces-
sarily connected with such, could not know where to send fur
information; it was not safe to apply to either side, and
whatever they heard, ought to be heard in the presence
of both. Was the ordinary mode of proceeding in all
utherl cases to be withheld in this? It was illusory to say that
all would be done that was right ; it was not Parliamentary—
whatever was proper to he done ought to be expressed in
the Act. It was not safe try leave a clause of doubtful con-
struction. He trusted, with regard to the permission to be
heard by counsel, that the holders of these bills would not
be prevented from having recourse to the ordinary means
of justice.
Mr. V. HARCOURT was anxious to do justice to the par-
ties. concerned, and he was still more anxious to do justice to the ;
He would not willingly be aparty.to bringing the question
before the House with a prejudice against either the holders •
or the public, and from the strong opinion which had been
expressed by Hun. Gentleman opposite that justice could not
be done unless counsel attended on behalf of the bill-holders,
he felt convinced that if the proposition were not acceded to,
the question would come beiure the House with a prejudice
against the public that full justice had not been done towards
the holders. The Hon. Gentlemen opposite had said that
full justice could not be done unless counsel attended to protect
the interest of the bill-holders. Under these circumstances,
he hoped the Government would give way, and permit the
cla'ise to be brought up. Although, if he were a holder of
Exchequer hills he should be perfectly satisfied to leave the
whole question to the discretion of the Commissioners, yet,
considering the Learned Member for Worcester as the repre-
sentative of the bill-holders, and having heard what had fallen
from that lion. and Learned Gentleman, he thought it would
be the least inconvenient course to accede to his proposition.
The only inconvenience that could arise from doing so would
be delay, and for that the holders would be answerable, and by
it they alone would be the sufferers. For his own part he
thought there would be ample security in trusting to the dis-
cretion of the Commissioners, and therefore he should vote
with the Right Hon. Baronet if the question came to a di-
vision, but he had thought it right to say what he had said to
guard against a prejudice which he foresaw was likely to arise.
111 r. KEMBLE wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet
Whether it was intended that the investigation should be open
to the public?
Sir R. PEEL replied that was intended to be left to the
discretion of the Commissioners themselves.

Mr. KEMI3LE said, that having undertaken to present a
petition from senie of the holders or the bills, he had no hesi-
tation in advising them not to press to be eard by cornice!.
There was one reason why he thought they would suffer in•
jury from such a privilege, namely, that if counsel were heard
for the holders they must also be heard for the Treasury. The
Government would thus lee placed in direct hostility to the bona
fide holders. —( Hear, hear.) As he could not ' see, therefore,
what advantage the holders would derive from being heard by
counsel. he would fe«.l it his duty to vete against the proposal.
Mr. BARING said, he thought the parties bad a right to a
full and fair inquiry, and full opportunity of laying all the facts
before the Commission ; on the other hand, he thought the
public had an equal right to the examination of witnesses, in
order that all the circumstances of the case might be fully made
krrawn. He believed, notwithstanding all he had heard, that
that object would be' far more effectually accomplished by
both the Treasury and the. parties being heard, than by leaving
the matter entirely to the Commissioners. He did not under-
stand how it was possible to hear counsel on the part of the
Treasury, and to refuse the bill-holders the same advantages.—
(Hear, hear.) 1-le thought that no steps should be taken in
these proceedings without counsel on the part of the Crown, to
defend the interests of the Crown, and counsel, on the part of
the bill-holders, to defend their special interests, and he hoped
Government would not oppose the employment of counsel on
botk sides.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said there was no clause in
the Bill requiring the Commissioners to have counsel on either
side. As the Bill stood it was quite in the discretion of the
Commissioners, . and it was not to be supposed that they would
allow the Crown to be heard by counsel, and not allow the
bill-holders.—( Hear, hear.) The Bill was framed in such a
way as not to compel the Commissioners to hear counsel in
any case, and yet to leave it open to them to admit counsel
on both sides, if they thought it expedient.
Mr. HARDY thought, that instead of leaving it to the Com-
missioners to say what parties should be heard by Jounsel, it
would be better to declare at once that all parties should be at
liberty to call in professional aid as they might think proper.
In case the Commissioners should at any time refuse to hear
counsel, if that power were given to them, this inconvenience
would follow—that the House would subject itself to the ne-
cessity of hearing the complaints of parties hereafter.
Mr. HAWES said that he did not think it advisable to leave
it to the Commissioners to decide what parties should or should
not be heard by counsel. They should then be told by those
parties, whose counsel had not been heard that the inquirieshad
not been fairly and fully conducted. The inquiry should be
conducted according to the ordinary forms in such cases, and
the parties should be at liberty to oe heard by their counsel in
all cases in which they might think proper.
Mr. W. ATIVOOD thought the Government ought to pay
the amount of those repudiated bills to the owners, provided
they held them in the course of honourable business, but con-
ceding that much, it was certainly the duty of Parliament to
examine into every circumstance which might throw suspicion
on the manner in which the holders of those bills came by them.
The holders were men generally of the first respectability, and
men who courted investigation. He could 'not see, therefere,
why they should refuse to allow them to conduct their case be-
fore the Commission in the manner they thought most advisable.
Mr. RIGBY WASON knew of only one objection in this
matter, and that was the delay to which real bona fide holders
might be subjected, by persons who were not bona fide holders,
coining forward with witnesses, and having them examined at
great length by counsel. He thought they could meet that ob.
jectisn by directing the Commissioners to report from time to
time.
An How. MEMBER observed, across the table, that there
was a provision to that effect.
Mr. RIGBY WA SON then wanted to know what became
of the objection.-(Cries of «« Divide.")
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the Amendment
Against it
Majority
The remainder of the clauses were then agreed to, with some
verbal amendments, the House resumed, and the report was
ordered to he brought up tai-morrow.
INCOME TAX.

()Lithe inotion of Sir R. PEEL, that the House reeolve its]
into a Committee of Ways and Means.