Star.
London, England, 1823-06-18 00:00:00

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.

MOOSE OF LORDS, JUNE 17.
At a quarter to four o'clock the Rail of Suarressuar, the
LUMP CuatExt.i.oa, and (the first time) Lord libiattioaonott,
sat robed as his Majesty's Lords Comnibudoners for giving the
Royal Assent to divers 13111 s ; and the Yeoman Usher of the
Black Rod was directed to require the presence of the Corn.
mots in this House, who, preceded by their &mem, soon af-
terwards came to the Bar.
After the reading of the Commission (which was dated this
day, and signed. by the Bing), the Lotus Cuasettios notified
the Royal Assent, and the Clerk proceeded to pass the Bills fol-
lowing:—The Masters, Servants, and Apprentices Regulation
Bill, the Mersey Canal Company's 13111, the Tay Ferry Bill, the
Liverpool Church Repeal Bill, the Halifax Improvement Bill,
the Bermondsey Improvement Bill, the Mansfield Improve-
ment Bill. the Skipton Waterworks Bill, the Limerick and
Shannon Bridge Bill, the. Imperial Metropolis Gas Light Com-
pany's Bill, the Northampton Gas Light Bin, the Dublin Gas
Light Company's Bill, the Mirisfield Gas Light Bill, the Stamford
Gas Light Bill, the Bristol Gas tight Bill, the Ely Fens Drainage
Bill, the Philanthropic Society's Land Bill, the Fife and Fa far
Justices Bill, and several Road
.and Inclosure 13111 s, with some
Naturalisadoo Bills, to the number of 42 in all.—Adjourn:d
during pleasure.
On the motion of Viscount Stotiocul. the Report of the Pri-
son Laws Consolidation Bill was ,ctivóswd agreed to.
• Numbers;of witnesses were swsen to 'ilia evidence on the
,Spitalfields Acts Committee, which is to assemble fur the first
time to-Morrow.

YR' GRAND JURY (IRRLAND)PRIVIENTMENTS BILL.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN now moved their
Lordships to go into a.Committee on the above Bill,
which motion was agreed to.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY having taken his
seat, as Chairman of the Committee, it was agreed
that Counsel bh ould forthwith be called in, and heard
for the Petitioners in opposition to the Bill.
-Mr. Thomr., the Counsel for the Petitioners, then
appeared at their Lordships' bar. lie went over
the ground taken by the noble antagonist of the
Bill in this House, and contended for the vested
rights of the Petitioners in respect to fees, which, al-
though they had been commuted by Acts of Parliaa
mesa, were recognised by those very Acts, which, in
reality, had secured the right of freehold now claimed
lty the persons on behalf of whom he had the honour
to address their Lordships. Here the Learned Coun-
sel dwelt upon the arduous duties of Clerks of the.
Pence, the qualifications required in the individual
.who happened to hold that important office, the obliga-
tion to residence in the County, and the inadequacy
of the salary to support the office, as scheduled in the
tables of the present Bill. He trusted, in conclusion,
,that the noble sense of justice, which had never been
appealed to in vain, would induce their Lordships to
suffer the Clerks of the Peace to be fully heard, by
witnesses, ar their Lordships' bar.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY here asked to what
particular points it was the wish of the Learned
Counsel to call evidence?
Mr. TYNDAL said that, in the first place, he was
desirous of calling in evidence as to the inadequacy
of the salaries of the Clerks of the Peace.
- The Marquis of LANSDOWN said, that if it was
the opinion of their Lordships that the Learned
Counsel had made out any claim io vested rights of
fees in the Clerks of the Peace, then, and only then,
it would be necessary for their Lordsbips.to go into
the hearing of evidence on such claims. But, on the
other hand, if their Lordships were satisfied .that such
vested claims had not been satisfactorily niade out, it
were superfluous to proceed to consider them in a
Committee of the whole House.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought, if their
Lordships were disposed to admit the argurnentsund
representations of the Counsel fpr the Petitioners,
that they were of 4ulEcient import to induce shell
Lordships to entertain the question of vested rights.
•

The Marquis of LANSDOWN said, that the real
question before their Lordships was, whether, at this
late period of the Session, their Lordships would pro-
ceed to go into the exanrination of witnesses for or
against the Bill, seeing that the Clerks of the Peace
themselves had not opposed a former Bill ? When,
therefore, it was .notorious that some such Bill was
agitated, inj likely to pass, it certainly did appear
rather strange to him that their Lordships should be
asked, at the present protracted period of the Session,
to wait for information. He, however, would not
undertake to say whether the proposed scale of sa-
laries had, altogether, been well proportioned to the
' respective scale orduties ; but, in his opinion, it were
better to postpone the present Bill, than to argue it
now, with the intention of hearing evidence►
The Earl of DONOUGHMORE wished for no
delay. These were two witnesses, now sworn, com-
petent to give full information to their Lordships,
and there remained time enough to hear them.
The Earl of lIARROWBY was satisfied that Par-
liament had a right to legislate on vested rights, when
Parliament had undo taken to commute, net to say
commit, those very rights. The only true question
was—whether a sufficient remuneration was pro-
vided, by the present Bill, for the Clerks of the Peace?
The LORD CHANCELLOR was willing that the
Clerks of the Peace, abandoning all presentments,
should rive evidence as to their tees only.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN had no ohjection
to a similar course, if the object of the Petitioners
.was stlely to establish their right to the ancient fee;:.
Lord AUCKLAND here suggested thepropriety
of recalling the Counsel, for the purpose of enquir-
ing what he intended to prove, and what witnesses
he proposed to call,
The Earl of BELMORE was not friendly to the
introduction of evidence except to prove a new matter.
The Earl of LIMERICK thought, that the salaries
of the Clerks of the Peace, especially under the pre-
sentment system, ought to be regulated. Ile knew,
for example, that the Clerk for the County of Tip-
perary had !..:3,000 and upwards, so presented to hint
during one year ; and that last year £B5O was.claimej,
in addition, for service dune under the Insurrection.
Act. It was true, however. that the-Lase of lifsrif
I had reduced thedemand to forty guineas Irish; but
it should be 'observed, that this demand was for
duties which could be discharged II a deputy who
possessed no knowledge of the law. He had not
had the pleasure of hearing the Learned Counsel
against the Bill, who, he supposed, had conducted
his argument with considerable skill ; but if it had
been argued, that there remained at any time vested
rights in the office of Clerk• of the Peace, those rights
lapsed with the fees, which were regulated by Grand
' Juries; and were their Lordships to be itr4veiy told,
that Parliament was not paramount in power to
. Grand Juries? His object in supporting the fill
was to prevent an accumulation of expense on an un-
happy country, the inhabitants of which were totally
unable to bear it.

Tne Earls of DEL MORE and I.I',MICK explained.
The Earl of DONOUGHMOI{E said, that he
wished their Lordships to be informed in evidence of
the real receipts of the Clerks of the Peace. Speak-
ing as an honest man, he would atfiim, that nothing
could be mote inadequate to services than their re-
muneration. He could not abandon this point.
Counsel was called in, and a ked, with respect to
the scope of the evidence wished to be pro,luced ; when
the LORD CHANCELLOR remarked, that the 4xamina-
tion must be long, as •it referred to compensation, it
might (Le did not assert that it woulj) embrace the
salaries of the Judges, the Lord Chan for of Ii eland,
and others. What the Counsel should beiteady io
prove was, that the ancient fees jeceivild by' the
Clerks (4. the Peace, were larger tharfthe talaries nows
proposed by the Bill.
The Counsel said, on the gnestillkbeingiput, that
he was not prepared with evidence so remote.
The Earl of LIMERICK was co ced, that if
the Clei ks of the Peace succeeded, the. Petitioners
would be the Clerks of the CroWn.
The Earl of CARNARVON had no wish to ang.
tient the salaries of the Clerks of the Peace. lie
would rather wish to abate the salaries of the Cle:.ks
of the Crown.
_After some remarks from the Earl of DoNoecti.
MORE, the question fir hearing witnesses was negat ved.
The Noble Earl proceeded to examiue the Bill,
clause after clause, during which -he moved some
amendments, which, were not adopted by the House.
The Earl of LIMERICK, Lord CALED.,I6 and the
Earl of Donotionmons explained..
The amendment for exempting the Clerks of tee
Peace from the operatiou.of the Bill was i.ezatived
without a division.
The other clauses of the Bill, with a few verbal
amendments, having been agreed to, their Lordships
resumed. The report was brought up and read,
and the Bill was ordered to be read a third time next
Monday. Their Lordships adjourned at eight o'clock.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The Srraczu was sunimoned to attend the Hotue of Peers.
On his return to the House, be acquainted the Members thia he
bad been in the House of Lords, to bear the liuyal !Went given
bfeommission to certain Public and Private Bids—(for which
are the Lids' Iteport).
Sir H. PA ftblEf.l. postponed his notice on the Endowment
of Catholic Schooliin Irelond until this day week. • • .
Mt BROUGHAM alio postponed his ',Mice of motion re-
•i lathe to a Petition now in his possession, signed by certain Ca-

thoUcs of Ireland, relative to the maladministration of justice in
that country. He should certainly bring on this motion upon
Wednesday week, unless something particular should occur In
Ireland which might have the effect of inducing him to post-
pone the subject until next Session.
Mr. S. WORTLEY, in coniequenee of the elrvarionlif his
Noble Friend to the (louse of Peers, postliontd the further
consideration of the Report on the Sale of Game Dill until the'
30th of June. lie did pot mean to press the passing of the fill
this Session. _ _

The Assessed Taxes Composition 13i3 went through a Com-
mittee, the Report WAS ordrrcd to be r.•ccived to morrow.

BEER BILL.

On the motion of the CllANcEu.nn of the ExcztE-
QUER, the Beer Duties Bill was read a thin! time.
On the question being put that it be passed,
Mr. MAI3EItLY said he could not permit this Bill
to pass, altering the whole system of property of a
most valuable native, merely as a speculation. He
should take the sense of the House on it if it wete
now so inindiciously pressed.
Mr. 11 ME contended that it was injudicious for
the sake of the interests of persons connected with
breweries, and the payment of very considerable
di:ti.2s for the public advantage, that the security of
property of this valuable nature should unnecessa-
rily be disturbed.
Air. Alderman C. SMITH opposed the Bill
Mr. 13. COOPER supported the Bill, as assisting
tlie •aitiniut ck,iag any injury to the morals
of the peoplz.
Mr. MONCK condemned this interference of the
iieg:satuic as most mi:chi.]:ous to privets. property.
lne beer thus brewed, h^ considered, would be de-
-creased in value and strength two-thirds, and increased
in price one-third.—The house then livid' d
For the passing of the hia - 6 t
Against it - 26
38

Majority
The Bill was the!' pal,ed.
PRIZR MONEY.

Mr. HUME aid he wished to draw the attention
of the Hon. Gentleman opposite to the circutmtance
of the delays which were reported to take place in
the distribution of prize money ; where the imputed
blare teAed he knew not ; but as there was a Bill
now hefore the House which had tele; ence to the sub-
ject of prizes, he hoped the official Gentlenv oppo-
site would endeavour to redress this grievance by the
intro ;action of some remedial clause.

Afixr a few woids flour Dr. l'utu.tmonz and Mr.
Hume, •
The Cll ANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
by rnakin; application to the proper quarter, imme-
di at: information might be obtained on subjects
relative to prize money.
Mr. M. A. TAYLOR, as he was understood, corro-
borated the statement of the Right Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. CANNING said, that if there was any delay,
it arose from supposing that around-about way of
obtaining information was preferable to that of
making direct application to the proper office. The
last was by far the surest and readiest method.
After a few words (roar Mr. WILLIAMS and Sir I.
CoFFN, the Dill was (A &red to be read a third time
to-morrow.

The Report of the London Bridge Bill was received,
and the Bid ordered to be lead a third time on Friday.

CIIILP BARON OF IRELAND.

Mr. S. RICE moved the Order of the Day for the
House going into a Committee on the conduct of the
Chief Baron of she kid) Exchequer.
On the que,:tion that the Speaker do leave the chair,
Mr. S. RICE said, he felt, in presenting himself
to their notice, how inadequate he was to discharge
the duty he had undertaken. At the same time, he
was aware that this gave him no claim to the indul-
gence of the House, as it rested entirely with him
self to proceed or not. Theme were, however, con-
siderations connected with the subject itself that must
recommend it to their serious attention. The first
was, that the question was a personal one, involving
the character of a high judicial officer. But, besides
this, it concerned most nearly the administration of.
justice. In a similar instance which lately occurred,
Gentlemen on both sides of the House gave it their
utmost attention, but the demands on their most se-
rious notice were augmented in the present case, as
it concerned the administration of justice in Ireland.
In that country, where the laws were not in accord-
ance with the feelings of the people, there was the
greatest danger, if any circumstance should arise
that tended to diminish their confidence in those
whose duty it was to administer then. Ali who had
be.rn appointed of late year; to judicial situations in
Ireland, were calculated, flora their learning and in-
trity, to give weight to them, and the importance
of appointing such persons was acknowledged in an
earlier period. Lord itac•x, in writing to the Duke
of Buckim,haen, spoke of the necessity of appointing
proper and fit persons to administer law and justice
in Ireland, and he recommended Sir %Vali= Jones
to be Attorney-General, though he was oppix.ed in
Parliament to the then existing Government. Sir
Gilbert Elliott said, it would be as easy to make laws
for India as for England, were it not for the distance
that intervened and rendered it difficult to superinH
tend their 4.We execution. This was not the case with
regard to 144;t:,d, though short the distance that se.'
parated both commies. There it was the duty of the
house to create a correct moral influence, by teaching
the highest authorities that there was a power which
would punish de.inquency when detected. It had
been said, that this questron was a speculative one,
that the fees having been abolished, it was no longer
necessary for the House to ;rite, fete. Did he think
so, he should have been the last to bring it forward..
This case was different from those of Lord Melville
and Mr. Ilastings. Utley wet e not in office when the
charges were brought against them, and the only
object, therefore, was puniAtment. Ilere the indi-
vidual was still in office ; and if the charges were
true, he could not stand in the light'he ought, with
respect to those who might coma before him in his
judicial capacity. He should cautiously abstain from
all language that might give offence. He was not
actuated by any personal motives. If he were under
the influence of such, he would not b:ing the subject
forward. In speaking to the facts, he laboured under
some inconvenience fr um want of pri,fessional know-
ledge ; but a i.erson, rot -a lawyer, might, perhaps,
discess the subject, with some advantages arising
from that very circumstance. Here the Honourable
Member read some observations from Nlr. Burke,.as
to the peculiar fitness of the House of Commons for
judging, of questions similar to this, in consequence
of weir being free from professional prejudices and
habits. Ile would call upon the House not to aban-

don their important Meg, by refusing, non light
grounds, to entertain the charge. The Statute sir
often referred to sheaved the necessity of Parliamen-
tary interference, in all cases where Judges were
supposed to have neglected or overstepped their
duty. It did not give to the Crown the power of
appointing Judges during good behaviour, for the
Crown possessed that power before: it only took
away the power of granting patents to Judges
during pleasure. The Bill contained a clause giving
Ito suitors the tight of action ; aid upon this, ground
the King refused his assent to it. Some time alter the
differei.ce was compromised, and Cie right of action
given up. The inference he drew from this wai, that
as that right had been taken away, it became more
peculiarly the duty of the House to superintend vigi-
lantly the conduct of Judges. It was under Sir Joliii
Davis that the liiiti h Laws were first introduced into
Ireland ; and Lord 13 icon, at that early period, con-
templated its a great evil the exaction of henvj fees.
If (contintsed the Hommrahle Member) the Chief Ba-
ton possessed the power of creating new fees, lie had
not one word mote to say ; but he contended that no
Judge possessed such a power, and that if he did not
possess it, the attempt to put it in force was an of.
fence for which he was punishable. He did nt.t
argue the case whether the Court could impose a fee
or appoint a reasonable fee for its wan officer. His
case was, that one individual Judge, Without order
of the Court, impo.ed fees which were a burthen to,
the suitor, a:id were not sanctioned by any other au-
thority. This, he contended, was punishable. In the
27th Finance Report, fees weie.delined to be taxes
imposed on the subject, for defraying the charges of
proceedings in the Courts. Now, it they were taxes,
he would ask, whether any individual could impose
them on his °all authority.? Lord Coke went so far
as to say, that the Crown itself had not the power to
.
create an office with a new fee; that this was the
common law; but that inroads had been made on it.
If this authority was good, it would be folly to say
that a Judge could introduce new fees for his own
profit. It was his business to prove that the Chief
Baron had done so ; and in doing so had acted
wrongly, and was punishable by law. Here the Hon.
}Member quoted the authority 'of Blackstone and
Hawkins' Pleas of the Croton, to sh?.w that the extor-
tion of improper fees was punishable by fine and im-
pt isonment. He would not say that the Court might
not regulate the fees of its officers, but he contended
that a Judge could not set a value on his own time.
It had been decided by trial, that if a Judge- took
' more than his usual fees, it was punishable at com-
mon law. This being the case, there could be no
doubt as to the power of the House to interfere. The
principle to which lie adverted was laid down in the
case of Lord Macclesfield, who said that the only
justification lie could shew was, that the fees he took
were the usual and ancient fees. Did he possess the
power, he would have needed no reference to usage.
He came now to the charges themselves, which he
would comprise under four heads. The four cases
to which he should allude originated with the present
Chief Baron, and they were cases of fees not autho-
rised by usage. The first question referred to decrees
of costs in the Court of Exchequer. When a case
came into Can't to be set down, if the parties wished
to proceed they obtained a decree. It was probable
that many causes were set down for heating which
were never brought to a decree. To exemplify the
matter, the setting down of a cause might be likened
to the introduction of a Bill in that House, and ob-
taining the decree to the passing the Bill. The pre-
sent Chief Baton found that there was a fee on de-
crees. He-Said, however, that many obtained them
surreptitiously without any fees, and he ordered that
the fees should be paid at the earliest stage, that was,
on setting down the cause. He, therefore, obtained
fees as for a decree, where no decree had been even
taken out. That was not al" ; for after this, transfer
fees were still taken on the decrees. Here was a case
that clearly came under the authorities he had quoted,
of taking money that was not due under the colour of
an office. He was not prepared to say whether the
sums thus received were great or small. . During
the interval to which the returns extended they
amounted to 1,0001. The smallness of the sum
was nothing, it was, if anything, rather an aggt a-
station of the offence. lie looked to the principle.—
The first defence sit up by the Chief Baron was,
that the fee paid on setting down the cause was
contemplated by him in the nature of a deposit,
and ought to have been returned. He gave No di-
rection, however; that it should be returned, and in
tact the suitors never received it. The suggestion -of
the Chief Baron was not supported by the evidence. In
the precedent referred to, of 2- Judge who directed
fees to be taken as a deposit, the fees so taken were re-
turned. This precedent therefore failed. The fee could
not be said to be doe on an exemplification, for the
instruments were quite distinct. To enter and decide
'upon the merits of the case it was not necessary that
Hen. Gentlemen should distinguish the classes of
writs, it being sufficient for his purpose to say, that
on one class of writs the Chief Baron had been en-
titled to charge a fee, and on the others he was not
entitled to such fee ; at least such had been the prac-
tice of the 'late Lord Chief Baron. On his appoint-
ment to the office, the present Lord Chief Baron ap-
plied regulations respecting fees to all descriptions of
mks. Oa that ground and to that particular point
he begged the attention of the House. It was well
skilaWil that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was an
ollizer of that Court. It seas the duty of the Chief
Baron to seal all orders of Court. '1 he Chief Baron
maintained that, as no order of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, with reference to the Court, could be
complete without the seal, such seal could not be af-
fixed without his (the Chief Baron's) authority, and
that that authority could only be communicated
under his own signature. He went further, and said,
that for such signature be should,-have a fee, and ab-
solutely established a rule for the recovery of it—
thus omitting that which was a necessary argument
in support of the practice, the signature, and tetain-
ing that which was not necessary to his justification,
the fee. There was, however, an exception where
wi its were executed. The other writs in question were
mere matters of course, and were called preliminary
'processes, which were, in 99 cases out of 100, quite
unnecessary in the cause. Hence it happened them
we.e more fees in proportion than signatures, for
these were never affixed but when the writ was to be
put in execution.- The next head to which he should
advert was, that of taxing of costs—and would con-
fine himself solely to the taxation of a bill of costs of

a party sued at the law side of the Exchequer. The
last Chief Baron, Lord Avolimme, used to sign all
billy of costs, when taxed, and took the fee to which
he was entitled by law, and by having the signature
or the Judge, the suitor • as sure to have his bill exa-
mined. When the pi esent Chief Baron was appointed,
he discontinued signing bilk of costs, but he took a
fee on the writ ; thus he got t!.e lee in every case as
for,sigringa bill of costs, a:timugh he signed no bill
and in many cases, no bill was ever taxed. The next
head of charge related to the currency. The Court
of Exchequer is divided into three parts, the Law
side, the Revenue side, and the Equity side; and
here, as a mode of profit contrary to former practice.
he ii:variahly directed fees to be
.paid in English
currency; thus establishing another and a !IC N source
t:1 pr.,.fiL to liiinse:f. This was the case he had to
charge again.,t the Lord Chief Barpn ; or d he had en-
deavoure.t to state it, v, ithout exaggeration, as it ap-•
peareJ upon the Reports of die Commissioners. And
here he must be permitted to c.b;erve on the
manner in which the Commissioners had drawn up.
tkcir neorts, and conducted the important inviry
in which they had been engaged. The lion. Gent 1.,-
man then referred to the case of Lord Macclesfield,
which had been founded on the Report of Com-
missioners ; and the proposition that the Report was
not a sufficient authority had been negatived by a
con,iderable majority. The case of Lord Melville
was abo founded na the R.'port of Commissioners ;
but in the pre,eut case their . was. toil the Report of
Commissioners and the opinion of a Committee. If
the House did not spew themselves id ea: nest, the
Act for the abolition of fees in Ireland would be a
de id letter. But he had a document, by which it ap-
peared, that an officer of the Co nt of Exchequer had
been dismissed from his office. The'namc of the of-
ficer was John Pollock, Deputy Clerk of the Fees, who
had bees disinissed, and another appointed in his
place. An officer in the Insolvent Debtors Court had
also been proved to have taken illegal fees, and timnd
it necessary to retire from his office. It surely would
not be contended that the pure administration of jus-
tice was of less importance in a superior, to what it
was in an inferior Court. The Chief Baron ought to
be either free from charge or be removed from his
office. The Hotta. Gentleman then read the Rei.olu-
tions, stating the fact of Commissioners having been
appointed to inquire into the fees of Coos is of Jus-
tice in Ireland ; that the Commissioners had made
eleven Reports, tfic 9th and 11th of which related to
the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, and had animad-
verted on the conduct of the Lord Chief Baron, as
having taken ices to which he was not entitled. A
Committee of the lim=e had afterwards reported,
that the defence of die Lord Chief Baron had not
been satisfactory.

Captain O'GRADY said he must observe, without
impugning the motives of the Member for Limerick,
that he could no more form an impartial opinion re-
specting the Chief Baron than he himself cotkl do.
The Commissioners had their choice of witnesses and
questions, arid Could also insert in their Report what
part of the evidence was agreeable to themselves:
but the Chief Baron had not the means of examining
or cross-examining a single witness—and yet, with
such impeifees means of defence, he had rebutted
more than half the charges—(Hear, hear).—ln the
case alluded to of Mr. Pollock, he had not ben con-
demnedl upon the Report, but upon evidence. In ano-
ther case, that of Sir J. Galbraith, the twelve Judges
had been of opinion that the Report of the Commis-
sioners could not be acted upon as evidence. That
officer had been afterwares tried and acquitted. The
Honourable Gentleman theft proceeded to stare, that
when the present Chief Baron was raised to the Bench
the greatest confusion prevailed on the subject of the
fees of the Court. On the first charge of the in-
creased amoui,t of bills of costs, the whole had pro-
ceeded from an inferior officer, and was unknown to
the Chief Baron till the appear'ance of the Report.
He Lad to complain of the great delay that had taken
place in the investigation of these charges. In Ire-
land the character of the Chief Baron wanted no de-
fence. Ile belted the HoUse not to sully the admi-
nistration of justice in the person of the Chief Baron.
The question was then put upon the three first Re-
solutions, and they were carried in the affirmative.
The question being put on the Resolution relative
to taking illegal fees, .

Mr. HUTCHINSON contended that the Commit-
tee could not be prepared, without further investiga-
tion, to come to a vote of censure on the Chief Baton.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL would submit to the
Hon. Member (Mr. Rice) the unfairness of his mode
of proceeding, which would be to condemn the Chief
Baron unheard. The Commissioners had come to an
exparte resolution ; the Chief Baron having no means
to cross-examine witnesses, or to call other witnesses
in his behalf. In the cases of Pollock and Galbraith
witnesses had been heard, and in the latter case it
had been decided, that the Commissioners had come
to an erroneous concl vsion. The principal charge
against the Chief Baron, viz. fur taking fees upon
affidavits, had been abandoned as wholly unfounded,
and the Committee had reported that the Commis-
sioners had been misled. With respect to the Ices
'paid• by Sheriffs, it appearid that fur nearly thirty
years the same fees had been received by the last
Chief Barcn, Lord Avonmore. Fiiur of the chat ges
at first brought against the Chief Baron had been
subsequently abandoned.. Till he had heard the
Chief Baron examined he never could colisent to the
resolution before the loose. By a similar mode of
reasoning nine-tenths of the fees in NVestminster Hall,
might be pronounced illegal. He should move that
the Chairman should leave the chair.
Mr. TIERNEY said, that the Hon.. Member who
spoke last seemed to think the House should pay no
attention to its Commissions appointed to examine'
evidence upon oatho Why had tint the Hon. Gen-
tleman previously •stiggested that the Chief Baron
should be beard ?—(C/seers). He would press the Re-
solutions; and if the• Chief Baron wished to be heard,
let the House by all means hear him.
Mr. Secretary CANNING could not say that these
proceedings should terminate in the imperfect man-
ner in which they must end by agreeing to the.
amendment of his Right Hon. and Learned Friend,
the Solicitor-General ; nor could he vote for the Re•
solutions, unless, after such vote, some special proviso
was inserted. If he were compelled at once to vote
' for affirming or sienying the Resolutions, he should
have no hesitation, in one sense, in affirming them ;

himqufitreomsurte°l6'.'ll'
be
begt"lantot be
but when he said in ore sense,
derstood as confining his observation to the initinr'
words, "it appears" so and so. He was pre,:ared.
vote for that Resolution, provided this.ne4;tng
attached to it. Not that it was made out to In; •
that the charges which followed 'sere true, bur
they appeared to be contained in the former Itt,pc,
from the Commissioners of Inquiry.
~ti icted serve he should feel no hesitat.on ill voto.
for the Resolution ; but that vote should be made
parent by some very ►ntelligible explanation. That
were three masons v. hich prevented
for the Resolutions fi arned AS they were at pre,enrl
the list place, though he was satisfied that the
solutions sere drawn up with tolerable fairnessoe
.hey would requite mere satisfactory evidence cit
the Reports on which those Itescriu ions Ni ere funuje:
His second objectioa was, that he was not et pl.,
involrel
p.►red to come to any resolution ci imitating the
c,,:a.
ratter of the individual accused. His
was, that the affirmation of. those Resolutinic,4„
the House but one mode of proceeding—theillea'fj:
went of the Chief Baron at the bar of the lieu*. tr-
the Resolutions were affirmed, he WAS
there was no other mo.ie suitable, not to the r0a8,..i.
Lode of the offence, brit to the importance and statiol
of the offender. V'it'a thee consid,!rations, aadrrm
the late period <•f the Session and the present strrri
the ILuse, he could not make up his mind top,.
teed at present with this question. 'rove r;,oas
Resolution, .which went sui:cli further, and
A charge of crimiriarity, he could nut agree. Butif
by trassin; the three first liesoi talons tte.cLarge
should rest there i fir tl.e present, he should 10„:„Ile
stipi.ort that motion, an , thus give to the Chief 4,4
all which he could require---an ample oppommity
et.
meeting the charges 1 referred against him.
Mr. WYNN said, it would be perfectly easy ;0
suspend the proceedings, if the Cniet Baron u•izea
to be heard.

Mr. SC A RI.EIT said, that as the Resolution flea
stood, it would seem to imply a ceibute. He show,'
move, as an Amendment, that the tact (as to the
iila
gality of the fees) was unknown to the Chief Btron.
Mr. S. RICE had never wished the Chief B iron not
to be heard. The Chief Baron had made hiselectioN
and been heard by letter, but might -ttil be hewn
the bar of the ilou:e. He was prepared to go into
the charges, and only ask the votes of 1t0... ,Ilemben
who considered that they were pr.veJ. He wasvil.
ling to adopt any course of pioceedin:z which the
Cominittee would point out as most convenient.

Mr. PEEL said, it appeased that they could 04
pass over the Resolutions alronbether • atlit m the Ht.
solutions of fact, and stigmatise the Chief Baron;
address the Crown t- remove him from the B:nch;
or proceed against him by way of eacnment.
He, therefore, threw out of consideration any !wad-
ing in the nature of a scite facia:. Ile shouid omit
any Resolutions degrading the Chief Baron uithout
his being heard in his defence. The question 14y,
therefore, between the proceeding by Address, or by
Impeachment, and he preferred the Later, as WI
the most solemn and dignified coarse of inquiry. Still
he objected to imreachwent, because the charge
against the Chief Baron did not amount to those hid{
crimes and misdemeanours which could alone 11116
art an impeachment against him. lie did not dray
but that there might have been some cmruptionii
the receipt of fees without the Chief Baron',
ledge. lie eulogised the conduct of the Comn,is.
sinners of Inquiry irt_o Courts of Judicature in be
; they had done their duty laic ly and manfully
in spite of any obstructicn.

Sir JA MACK!NTOSII said, it was in wit
to say, that the a 110..% ing improper fees to be taken
by a Jndgc was not a grave and serious matter—
Now, in his opinion, the Chief Baron should be in.
formed of the charge, and time allowed him to ask
leave to be heard at the Bar of the House. Ile should
therefore move, if the Amendment was v‘ ithdrawn,
that • the Chairman should report progress, and ask
leave to sit again on Thursday nest.
Mr. J. P. GRANT proposed that the Chief Barn'
should be called on to answer the charges.

Mr. C. HUTCHINSON with& ew his Amendment.
Mr. SCARLETT thought it would be the best
way to adjourn the case till next Session. It would
not be expedient to censure a Judge by a Resolution,
and then allow him to ccntinne in the discharge cif
his functions.

Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH was against delay.
Mr. R. SMITH thought they might mark it in the
Journals that the Hquse had noticed this case, and
would rcsume it early in the next Session.
Mr. NV ETHERELL objected to this course.
The CHAIRMAN then obtained leave to report pro,
gress, and asked leave to sit again on Thursday,
which was granted.
The Occasional Freelaciders Bill went thrones a Coossiuse.
--riLport to-morrow.