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

'.e,de_Znai,,thatrifdallelykytitlS
7i6
11•1
Leio issolute their discretion, - while great in
mightarise from giving every one inter-
eetieved teat and le.e-arel right of being heard by counsel.
view, each side of the House had the same object
e 1, that the inquiry should be as full and core.
Dirt and that all the ev'dence on the aubject should
Sir R. before the House before the; were 'called uPon to decide.
to J. i;,sieslSE explained.
that.bOth
tePresen t osicticea'siofnt.
LL agreed with the Right Hon. Gentle-
Ile House !sad but one object in view
pith
d respect
Learnedto the Fri
efinrds t point
the
Memberwhich
.11t(et)nrneeeursattpd. bY his Hon‘.V
r' it' appeared that the Hon. and Learned Solici-
ale, so that
with reeard agreed to the introduttion of the proposed
otn that poiet there was no disagreement..
ee the Hon.o the second point, the publication of the
ht and Learned Solicitor-General, and the
.oant. Gentleman at the head of the Government, both
Rustsheell
(leg that it e)vaidgerreico asb e.ne ally ought to be reported. He
raj I,,eei with the Right Hon. Gentleman in
pdrticie gt be excessively inconvenient to hay
Trea„ur the evidence published; but he thought that
He Y•rat'sse,„ than She Commissioners should decide that
ete,,eiet°,°,l,,ht it we duty of the Commissioners to
pit to
fhPe.ertiele of the evidence to the Treasury, and then
4 Wily f Treeasury to decide if there were any special
~,„.'l;:aetvidence should not be reported to the House ;
o bet Pellet also there was no material disagree-
.6`e" himself and the Right Hon. Gentleman.
Ath r
egard to the other point, namely, whe-
t -•• not he to as h e parties interested should have a
tltd n e hard by counsel before the Commissioners.
ts,„.°‘ tuink that the answer given on behalf of the Go-
naitiwas, quite
satisfactory. The established mode of
.Iteleer " toe truth and justice of a case was by hearing
4g to i'l'ear)--and it never was made a reason for re-
s.. Wi:„r.e°, °label that it would occupy an inconvenient
Ceetht,,
~-eaat year, they were discussing the propriety of
;t‘t the 1, eetas.
e, in the Court of Chancery, it was not said
tlot kilo
-,r of time which counsel occupied was a reason
tirts 01;ig, them to be heard. Indeed, it was believed in
e law that the arguments of counsel were of
t,thoeght. v_tlabling the Judges to come to right decisions, and
otcage,4at the same assistance ought to be had in the
k)hadlt was possible, as the Learned Solicitor-Ge-
,,1.!, bittTielthat some persons might be interestedin causing.
j"`thy `gought it improbable that they could attain their
ere e
ieans.
',d',ll, that thRNE.Y-GENERAL said it was satisfactory to
e ghat differenee betieen the present and the late
.tight it w, eltl was reduced to a single point.—( Hear.) He
O-7°rtea tellaortant that the whole of the evidence should
the t° her al • Lei e.cne asesty, and that there should be. a discre-
th Parts of lerraftent to withhold from general circulation
ste aidtue evidence as it inlght be inconvenient. to pub-
v; (Nis T.l°t agree with his Hon. and Learned Friend op-
ey wade) as to the necessity, propriety, or benefit
4 t
1,44'e1f his Person an absolute right to attend and be heard
44aiposi sl,ttlerney, or counsel, before the Commissioners.
liitshj'tient that to doubt, that as far as any evidence or come
pet,evidence were calculated to throw light upon
tAtHea, set 4, Commissioners would do justice to the public.
titeekg's Learned Friend compared this proceeding with
.!Laq 4ce ttl a court of law or a court of equity, and the
• ,ale t . 'fettled to think that there was an endof all argument,
: °'n a lawyer, the moment he alluded to the supposed
tiik'ing the aid of eounael in any suit in a court
kii,r.eer.eut if the Committee considered what was the crd.i-
-e of
'w 4,proceeding in any court ef law, or in a commis-
't% af 1r "Igt.alte the trouble to compare with those two
!,t,ry,t;:ee, eding what might take
.place under the present
`tre, },would immediately perceive the absolute necessity
ois
'se cretion to the Commissioners, instead of making
tq lswve °Pon them to hear counsel in every case. In a
tle!'llitetie„°r equity there was always some sinle m.atter,
ktele b•
"“ raised between the parties, which was considered
1,4 tilt ~,,ttween them, and to which, therefore, the evidence
spr) Viehes of counsel were or ought to be directed.—
sla,,,lere a commission issued to dispose of certain funds
ke.,,°,f ere -,„ants, as, for instance, in the case of the confisca-
e(t 'n France, every person made a distinct claim,
tit if so tj
~quetions were, whether the party was entitled,
' .t'llat amount ? But he could conceive no limit to
tnie'llt`3,l4ltattiry, as proposed to be conducted. Every per-
Wa.t ft, ggest a different mode of inquiry, and would have
ep before the Committee, and raise every possible
Stage of the investigation. The holder of an
tell kith "ill, conceiving that he had important evidence to
i'mir ilesire the Commissioners to follow his suggestions,
(:1t,L4,111 eY refused, might make a motion for a man-
tleN6h.'ne Queen's Bench, in order to compel the
et:-Zra to hear his witnesses.—( Hear. ) If ever
tille,'4lai; inquiry which, by reason of its multifariousness
'I e°llfiried by no plea but wandering into every spe-
ek°4 itZought not to be admitted, this seemed to be that
setOtisCtY• To leave to the Commissioners, on their own
tY to entertain any questions, and hear counsel upon
they, in the discharge of their public duty,
intpottant to the inquirl•—to give to every person
tteltstaterht t° go before the Commissioners, and call evidence
.tlt, and to raise questions without limit, not eon-
th,lTS 111,4 the cese of law or equity, by previous pleadings
'tte eifie issue but .wt ndering into an inquiry as ta
Zot-4 the fraud—as to' the carelessness of several per-
ect Veel of six years—extending even to the mode of
tlt:t."`te,„tuis hill, alert the way in which they might have
'1114,740 tuffs
seemed to him that all this would con-
l'fi(l4,jr7 ".(ithout any sort of limit ; it would be but
teshtat d,:" tor expense--he would not say litigation—he
Itsut;Pfiace the term by calling it litigation. Such an
'0t5,:,41),-;g be a very multifarious one, and lead to no end.
°s inquir by no resent creditable to the wisdom of
'e ad Proposed tee p measure.
etet% thiTHORP wished to know whether those Corn-
pteiwart - clerks were to be paid—(Langhter)—and if
,ilt,4ler•,„l)e, Paid what was the amount? If they were to re-
ne should be happy to see a clause inserted in the
‘'E' tat,i!oet that those persons to whose negligence and
til4, 'on the transaction now under the consideration of
14hte )4as owi g he meant comptrollers and others-
5Ns t`fts's",.;thouldnbe—amerced in the amount to De paid to
',.4414c;114, He knew that in many eases where. a man had.
' f trifling set of negligence, he was
as s
.y o some
ie,,,„trtous ways, sometimes by fines, and at other
1""t1;,-,1,"rstl);'sohinent ; he could not see, therefore, why great
', who were often paid most handsomely for their
ape that penalty which, in his (Colonel &hi-
,Sti‘ e,'"rt, ought to be inflicted on them, and which, in
it ',ur rnisconduct, were almost always enforced. He
es sliti-breele to make these observations, though he himself
an E,: chequer bill, and he ould take care that
take on.(Laughter.) He hoped that those
tbruieconducted themselves would be punished, and
Heo'P he ustn. include the Noble Lord who sat oppo-
Gentleman the late Chancellor of the
Ile trusted his Hon. Friend would give him
esip ation on there matters.
; 'EEL said,ofcourse the clerks of the Commission
ttoi ,
ktie't'ta such remuneration-as their services merited ;
tht,7ticr,4 to the Commissioners, they had undertaken the
tll;°°°t any stipulation as to remuneration. ; but he
'te question stipulation
be postponed till they saw whate
e: the duration of the Comn:ission. Be must,h ham.:
:het if they invited professional men of
time was theft property, it was too much to
.ex-
'o) t° dth tinie wout reuneration.
tt had •
unci ert
wasetiat the duty ithwithoutdue m any stipulation
clerks,f dot t
sure his Hon. and Gallant Friend
ta,,t.t 4.ieet to allow them sufficient remuneration.
gee! ar Ants were then in
part agreed o t, and the clause,
, -
vas ordered to stand part of the 8i11..,
sttj' being put,
L'elClf OR-GENERAL said (as we understood),
est„'"""‘,c) objection to adopt the suggestion of the Noble
test„'"
( Lord John 'hosed), and to leave it to the
e's ti:ne Treasury to publish such portions of the evi-
ts, ngKttieht think fit
was sort; to hear that the amendment
I,`" Lurd was about to be adopted. He thought. it
:" Public to trust to the discretion of the Commis-
(4 What evidence was to bo published, than to the
• °.,eettes• that the Treasury was a party concerned in the
Ltle,,qtirtj.',!PPort made by the Commissionerswouldeemoree
None made entirely by the administration. H
4.„'ttist, 'elale Lord would see the propriety of altering his
►hiNl, 'l,„
Fated the I',I'SSELL said, before he made the suggestion to
tee4ter ',l°o• Gentleman alluded, he had understood it to
to),"tteet. !'early stated that it was not the wish of the Go-
tN,lltrt rt, set eon ansbody_—( Hear, h 'ar)e-account of
on
k,e; fsrhs: their conduct. The only reason he could con
k,,t.N.11,qt-04fY;401 the evidence. bein.g. withheld was this—th.at.
NO To " might be, in the opinion the Government, tn.
Ikrt,t',ll of future circulation of Exchequer bills. On a
Nl' to de tnis
;othersrt he Executive Government was the best
6tti (16e
Lk' et-ett °f everything connected with the public credit,
:I`,"ill;tlrtitce‘'ne_onusotighttOilie. If they suppressed any part
eq,ehiie uuduly, they would also b
sootressible ter so
'ne Commissioners would not be to the same
brt„,,°' all these reasons it appeared to him that the dt.is,-
riet,'''t the re-ponaibility ought to be with the Lxecu e
Hads-there been any. wlsh to screen anybody,
air (!a e supported the publication of the whole of the
isk
he,,out suppression.
ttn 4.1. said, the production of evidence ought to be
'll t•-egetteral rule, but the withholding evidence ought to
'ghtrhPel4ibl4Ption, and' the Treasury ought to be tlie pa,rty
'‘,l' withholding it. It would not be a valid. gro_ Ted
ot7i,tlit;:4ing evidence, that any parties in power, or ino,ffienst;
t4t: ettZ)Pretnited by it, nor did he foresee any such
ibil tch;',Ption arising. But they should not reake.it erh-t
,roduce all the evidence, as some parts of it m gin
Rh,e'litt-t„Lesuch that which might refer to the mode
f''.l.j tit (rV?heqUea; bills were made..
tit tnae."AS WILLIE agreed with the suggestion that had
et4elehavlA the same time, it was essential to the justice of
Ithes:'°ers that the evidence should not be withheld
Ala eight
C 1 u,a, as then amended, was agreed to.
t3„at agreed to.
llh al postponed.
4tth, 11 tl 12th and 13th clauses were agreed to.
;,°O;tl,l4"tiett?.AAS WILDE, returning now to his postponed
`'‘se 1;111 ela 8 said no doubt that the House had
ntrle '44 .° the c,:u e • loners. The House and the public
gets MT11133
4rtiNg"4'l"-leo in the Judges, yet the Judges did not de-
•tert,' t,),, without the assistance of counsel; if they did they
l!tinie,itnti,,e4,l4`tricese that confidence ; therefore, confidence in the
11% k 4 t was no excuse for not framin the Bill in such
° Prevent the possibility of a. mistake, or an er-
1, twit f g, disposing
IN. 4(i eeedin • of cases in which the whole
Zee }Y. itt el were at stake. The Exchequer bills were a public
ent•444.-e rel:'hich men had no legal r.emedy, and differed
rtt etil'ulY which attached to the issue of a bill of ex-
Possible indulgence should be.givesknetdo the inno-
for the as-
' 'hee' ,14 the present case. The I
'las, es• Loonsel in laying the evidenceenbeyfoare the_.Commise
ie4e,,;`,. was to decide them in making their repeoritn.
evide;:e acquainted with law knew that the mtnodelit
;,I(;i:"letk,e'e was produced often decided
commonasce
anssee—w were not
,ot; ~geeeral intelligence and
I.,tale,t,,lis„::".actleal experience and professional knowledge
'kki of ,`" Why then should the Houl se refuse the
for I 0001, having no oher lega remedy, that
11,,c11„htt which a man would haver in recovering a debt of
t" fulPo' "es were notthose which his Hon.and Learned Friend
th, 'N the,
4 - CAs wed to be. If th. e bona fide holders were not
t„t;:yetteL:tiotieetyt,gwoasinsatoi the evidence, they lost the whole of
d that the Commissioners wouldh go intro
11' `now But how were they to do so,
tl° tt ?f the case ? They might as and what
was
}:' 'tile tiler udge; and he will decide upon it. .
t,nitle4 it.ss„day that the Judges refused to him depositions
sitions
de;soieh they had to try. But what are the bill-
jut Wriv his Hon. Friend said that they were not
ti hty before the Commission. Who were to be able
nesses should be called so well as they?
ir 'sett the about the long speeches of counsel, and the
khNtik, 1Y Would occupy; that was nothing new to him
Vtitie), and he had often heard gentlemen of the
et , the e eemplained of for their long speeches, when.
kelai,litt,he:otfetillti7ere just as bad themselves in complaining ut
tot", ti tits ; but the fact was, that everdy
toentehtehiorungwhnt
4- and dry except those which relate
es, •ie ties .
Pr' lett' rtatt a
"Pt after 11 as nothing at all, v.then compahredd
I; t and pressing nature of the business. He a
hDrel,„.4 eitend the inquiry, as his Hon. and Learned
let etys-,Zsti, utiles Huse were prepared to refuse
i'srseb;ge ilga t oflaying their case before the Com-
","idenvetee-e.'th edvice of councel• As to the
41+ kLt}.l4,e ground "of' delay, he cellist say, fremdwohiatirihea
-.4lthi,att,ies, that their cases might be dispose
some of them were bankers and traders of the