Star.
London, England, 1810-05-04 00:00:00

-
TIC ; nys:em which: by firer..tinf fn 11/Merida! •
resi,ect iur she -.overtign, went directly to under-
*Mee the House ot Commons. ft was the trai-
. tr. ice.s otferers of the-last fifteen years now skulk-
. ing trade a new shape, and assuming a mot dan-
gerous and deadly form. There was no country
which could bee.aid to he safe where the Legislative
.resver was attacked with impunity, and daringly.
branded in such base and profligate terms. M any
tin; would be most dangeroui,„ but at the pre-
ens time the peril was doubly hasardo;rs; a time'
when we were engaged in a most moncerions'and pi 0-
tracted war, and necessarily obliged to incur the. most
aggravated burthens, From such attempts no side of
the House was safe ; no men in the country secure.
They menaced not party, but Parliament ;, net Mi-
nisters, but the Constitution ; not any certain set of
*nen, but all the inestimable tleisinis which time,
and toil, and struggles, had secured to the country.
The question now was, whether the House would
lend itself to such attempts ; whether they would be-
come the servile ministers of their own. dishonour ?-1
The Petition had not only assailed their piactice, but
their very motives, and asserted the " suspicion and
jealousy with which'they viewed the imprisonment of
Sir F. Burdett at a time when they expected so much
from his efforts in the cause of reform." if they now
Submitted to such language, they would infallibly 1
encourage the spirit to which he had before alluded. I
The experiment of conciliation had been tried and
failed. They had been persuaded to receive the'
Westminster Petition, on the ground that such apps.
tent tolerance in that House must tend to quiet the
people, by sheaving them that their interests and re-
presentations were attended to. What had been the
consequence ? Why the present petition, still more
wrongly worded, immediately followed. If the House
now submitted, it would be termed not conciliating,
but pusillanimous. Thy were reproached with re-
spiking an army to enforce their orders. Concession
now would be only considered as 'an additional proof
t &their weakness—another argument of their timidity.
Mr. PONSONBY, in explanation, stated, that he
said the House ought to favour the right of petition.
4bg ; •he :lever asserted that it was its duty to receive
to affront ; chose who thought thii petition of such
nature, were tight in voting for its rejection.
Mr. M. FITZGERALD, in explanation, observed
lint he had not vindicated the Petitioners. He only
meant that from the general' purport they did not
deny the power of the House for committing in case
of contempt.
Mr. BYNG rose to observe, on an assertion made
by a gallant Officer, that the Vliddlesex Meeting was
not respectable. • But as the Honourable Gentleman
was not present, and had formed his opinion only on
freer-ay, that in some measure accounted for his ob-1
nervation. The melting was respectable, and nine-
tenths thought as he did, that though the House
ought in certain cases to have the right of committal,
it did not possess it in the case of Sir Francis 'Bur-
dett. If it did, it should no longer possess it, for it
might be used for the worst purposes.
Sir MARK WOOD replied, that he had not said
the Meeting was disrespectable; he had observed, it
did not consist of Freeholders, than which number, if
the Honourable Gentleman had not obtained more,
votes, he certainly would not now be Member for
Middlesex.— (Laughing.)
Mr. MELLISH said that he certainly felt it his
duty to present the Petition, which sentiment he ex-
pressed at the meeting ; at the sang time he declared
it was not his intention to give it his support, deter-
'mined, as he was, to adhere to the principles by
which he had obtained his independent situation. It
might I.ppear extraordinary if condemning such a
principle, still he had seconded the motion ; but this
Was merely a fulfillment of his promise. From
what fell from an Honorable Gentleman (Mr: Ste-
phen) he seemed to condemn, him as having acted
• tsrong ; the same course, however, he was still de-
termined to pursue.—With respect to what his Ho-
isourable Colleague had said, that nine-tenths of the
;netting were freeholders ; he would positively assert,
. 'lrons the knowledge he had of his Constituents, that
there were not freeholders to any amount assembled.
• He felt it his duty to attend the meeting, but not to
abide by its sentiments. If the Petition was rejected,
'another might be called, and he would again feel it
• his day to be there—Vicar, hear.)—Of the liberality
• and Impartiality .of that assembly, he had only to ob-
serve, that it might be appreciated by the manger in
'Which he was received; he 'was heard with patience
at first, but when he mentioned :.is intention the tu-
mult was so great. he would say? that hd was not per-
pitted to proceed any further.—(Laud tries of Mar,
Hear.)
Mr. STEPHEN said, that he never censured the
'Hon. Gentleman's conduct ; he only observed, that
it vias•the general opinion that a Member should act
!)]. precedent.
• Admiral HARVEY said, that he would giie h 4
decided vote for the rejection of the Petition':
A division was called for, when there appeared.
'For receiving the Petition 58—Against it:ls9—Ma.
lority 81.—The Petition was of course rejecfled.
IRISH ACCOUNTS. •
On the re-admission of Strangers, we found
Sir JOHN NEWPORT on his legs speaking to
promiied motion, on the subject of the Report of
`the Commissioners of Irish Accounts. He exhorted
• tbe Members for Great Britain to prnye themselves
• in this lastance abciie the prejudices so unjustly
• supposed Them indifferent to questions of Irish eco.
norny,nOt Immediately involving their own interests.
'24 thought that the • financial arrangemeats of the
Internal departments of Ireland could not be too care-
- 'rully watched by that House, and the more particu.
• larly in consequence of the system too prevalent in
that country, of carrying on every thing in that way
• fq books of-evidence—a mode so undefined' as •to
.eOurt rather than' check abuses. The Honourable
"Bato'net.then• proceeded to detail the abuses Om-
plained of by the•Commisstoners I the first was that
if the case of Jnhn Croker, Esq. Surveyor-CC al of

Oleo!. The 'Report of the Controisslonen had repro.
bated this grant, and proved the culpable ignorance
of the Board that had made it. The next case wag
that of the Right Honourable Mr. Forward, late I
•Treasurer
.to the post-office in Ireland, who after
eight years holding that office, the duties of which
he never himself performed, had been superannuated'
upon his lUD salary, though in middle age, and a
Privy Councillor, of large and affluent private for-
tune.— The Worthy Baronet proceeded to the case'
of Sit George Shee :—That Gentleman filled the
situation of Receiver-General, at a salary of RlOOO
per annum ; since the year 1808, a sum of 81800 i
additional was allowed as emoluments. The House
would naturally ask, for what were these emoluments
granted .?.--Upon no other ground but that, by a re-
gulation; that Officer was prevented from converting
the public money in his bands to his private advan- I
tage. But the management of:the Irish Revenue was
not confined to such acts of aggravated impropriety.
They were only a part of a multiplied series of pub-
lic spoil in that country: In all the departments the
same gross and reprehensible system of jobbing and
misapplication of the public means were to be found.
The Worthy Baronet concluded with proposing two
specific Resolutions, applicable to tho cases he al-
luded to ; and a third, condemning the practice of
such undue and improper waste of eic public money.
The first Resolution was read from the Chair, on
which Mr. FOSTER rose and observed, that the Ho-
nourable Baronet should have knawn more of the
nature of his office than his assertions seemed to war-. 1
rant. With respect to his statements respecting Mr.
Croker, he would broadly and roundly say, they were
not the fact.—(Loud cries of Ifear.)—The Honourable'
Baronet says, the Eighth eport states that the money
was paid for extra charges ; the Eighth Report says
no such thing- ; but if the Honourable Baronet had
read it through, he would have found that he was
justly entitled to his demand ; and for which he was
compounded with, and had received less than his right
(Hear, heir.) He then proceeded to read the Bth Re-
port, which states--,, that in consequence of the fre-
quency of arrears, several informations were filed and
judgments were obtained to the amount of .841,000.
All these were remitted, excep t the fine of a person of the
name of Edward', which was E2lO, this was exacted,
and of coursen . Croker was entitled tohalfof it (hear.)
This was not paid, but applied to the arrears. When
he received it, it cannot be considered a reward, but
his property, and a debt due; besides, the authority
under which he received it is cited in the warrant
empowering the Commissioners—(Hear, Hear.) It
was a moiety to which he was entitled by law ; it
was to be paid out of the fines and seizures at large,
or else from the revenues. He would next go to the
Case of Sir G. Shee ; but while he was in Parliament
he never liedrd any thing so rnistated ; the Honoura-
ble Baronet was ignorant of it from beginning to end
( Laughing, and cries of hear.) When Sir H. Caven-
dish died, he was under large arrears to the amount
of C 378,000; this he received in a reversionary grant.
IWhen.he came into office, he wished to recover that
sum for the public ; is :he course of the succeeding
year, he received 42700. The Right Honourable
Gentleman defended the Government of Ireland from
the insinuations of the Right Honourable Baronet,
a43,.1 contended that each department was conducted
under the auspices of the present Lord Lieutenant
with the greatest attention to the public interest, and
upon the strictest principles of ceconomy ; that the
charges which the Right Honourable Baronet had
made would recoil upon himself, and upon investiga-
tion turn out unfounded.

Mr. W. SMITH censured the report of the Com-
missioners, which, if not true, must be taken as a libel I
on the Commissioners of Excise, because it was therein
stated that the duties of Mr. Crcker were defined,
and therefore to allow him a sum of £lOOO for extra
official services was extremely wrong. The question
however, was not one affecting the merits of Mr.
Croker as a Public Officer. With respect to the as-
sertion of the Right Hon. Gentleman that his Right
Hon. Friend had been misled in bringing forward
the charges, why the Commissioners had misled him,
for their report justified him in so doing, and on them
the blame must rest. It had been stated, that half
the fine of Edward's arrears was remitted. He did
not know what was the practice in Irel..nd ; but in
England, he knew the King could remit his part of
the fine, and it might be so in Ireland ; but then what
became of the other half—Mr. Croker's share. The
Honourable Gentleman contended, that Mr. Croker
was bound to do his duty without receiving extra of-
tidal pay. -
Mr. FOSTER, in explanation, stated, that the re-
port proved what he had stated, viz. that the claim
of Mr. Croker, made in his memorial, was only re-
muneration for money illegally withheld from him.
Mr. CROKER trusted the House would excuse
him for rising to offer a statement in explanation of
the transaction, which he trusted would satisfy the
Right Honourable Baronet that he hail mistaken the
subject. In 1802 Mr. Croker was appointed to the
office of Surveyor-General of the Port of Dublin, with
a salary of £BOO per annum (being £4OO per an-
num more than other Surveyors). From the first
entry into office he conceived it to be his tounden
duty to do every thing which could contribute to the
public interest, and with this view he directed that
the distillers should pay their duties weekly instead
of monthly, a proceeding which he was justified in
adopting under a salutary Act of Parliament, which
provided, that if the Distillers were in arrears after
such notice, they should be liable to certain penalties,
one half of each penalty to go to the Informer. Before,
howeier, he filed any one information, he imparted
to the Distillers his determination, that in case they
paid up their arrears he would forego his share of the
penalises, his object being to get in the duties and to
hold the clause ót the Act for levying the penalties
ever them in terrorem. Penalties were in fact incur-
red to the amount of £41,000, his share of which
he remitted, and signed an acquittal, although tfre
House would observe that the duty he had been
performing was strictly extra-official, his duty be-
ing that of the officer of the account, and not of
wreck. With respect to the £lOOO, a distiller of
the name of Edwards had very frequently gone
into arrears for'duties, and the fines had been remit-
ted, but he at length incurred a fine of something
more than £2OOO, which he did not pay up. Mr.
Croker being absent in London, the legal officer got
the proper warrant, and recovered the money, which
the Collector paid into the Treasury on account of
arrears, instead of to die account of &tics old teizures;

tote eonsfeinertee Wag, that Mr. emitter having thr
legal right vested in him, drew up a memorial, which
was presented to the Lord Lieutenant, setting forth
the f icts of the case, and the money was ordered tc
rbe testor.d. • The Right Honourable Baronet would
see, therefore, th-it in one instance Mr. Croker re-
witted a fine of £`11;000, and in the other had restor-
ed r ) him £lOOO, which legally belonged to him.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT disclaimed any idea of
'wishing to throw blame on Ms. Croker, whom he ad-
I mitteJ was a highly meritorious officer. Being now
apprized of the circumstances just stated by the Hon.
iGentleman, which. were perfectly satisfactory, he
should withdraw the two first resolutions. At the
same-time he must still consider the Board of Excise
as very negligent.
_ _

Mr: W....PoLE, referring to the report, observed,
that if the Right Hon. Baronet had taken the (rouble
to read it, he would have found in the appendix that
Hr. Croker stated in his memorial that his claim was
proper and legal, and the Commissioners in their Re.
port beat him out by stating that he was entitled to
a moiety of the sum in question by law.
. Mr. M. FITZGERALD considered the giving of
a moiety of the fines to the informer not as an equi-
table principle. He bore testimony to the merits of
Mr. Croker as a public officer.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
thought that Mr. Croker had great ground of com-
plaint against the Commissioners for having made so
incorrect a report, which had been suffered to rankle
in the public mind to theprejudice of that Gentleman
since February, 1309. He thought the Right Ho-
nourable Baronet before he brought the charge would
have done as well to have lookedinto the report, and
I not have taken the word of the Commissioners. The
two first resolutions were then withdrawn. On the
question being put on the third resolution,
Mr. W. POLE defended the grant of a pension to
Mr. Forward, the Treasurer of the Post office in Ire-
land, on the ground that the office which he held was
a patent sinecure office—that it being judged expe-
dient_to render it an efficient one, persons were ap-
poiated to it competent to discharge the duties, and
Mr. Forward received his salary which he was enti.
tied to holding a sinecure office. The term super-
annuated" was a wrong term. The Right Honour-
able Gentleman comended that in so doing the Go-
vernment of Ireland had done no more than-what
they were bound to do, and what was usually done
in cases of sinecures.

Sir J. NEWPORT made a short reply. • He read
a letter from Mr. Forward himself,. in which it ap-,
peared that that Gentleman did not consider his situ:
ation a sinecure.

Mr. H. THORNTON observed, that *bat he had
heard upon the subject :Would make him more than
ever solicitous for the abolition of sinecures, and more
especially of those secured by patent.
Mr. PONSONBY remarked that the word patent
Appeared to carry' in the Honourable Gentleman's
apprehension some magical power. It was merely
the evidence of the Great Seal to a Grant, and could
not secure that which it was illegal to bestow. •
A division then took place, •
For the Resattion 26—Against it 83—Majority .57.
[Strangers were not re-admitted, and at Half-past
One this morning the House adjturned.]

• Of the case of Jonn L.roicer, .c.b4..,3 111 VCy LIT.A...TCIICritII CIL
tie Nit and District of Dublin, who, it appeared,
, : • bad been awarded the sum of £lOOO in remuneration
,
k . or what the Board of Excise had termed to be extra
li.
'bfficial services. Those services were nothing more
--' ithlh enforcing the 'arrears of duty from the Dublii;
• :distillers- they were, of course, not extra. official`;
tibut, on the contrary, within the strict confines of his
duty as surveyor' general of the affairs of the revenue.
. --Here Sir J,itui proceeded at consider le length td
prove that the services of Mr. Croker were not: extra
bfficial, and not emitted to the compensation given to
L .
._ • .