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

THE STATI

was one cue anerejifi littlastit to coLlt she
thin of thaiirlettpe. ;There wan mice betweem,the
Hpgltolt ad if Irish ettrriiicy of ne-thied per coif. The I
Hawkweed iliyari that all contracts were made agrAblf
to the currency of the country. When the Chief Baron
4oteeetkiskr hht ofier.lbere were f. es ebirßid as feat
-him, which. In several of the offices, were paid is 'lrish'
cermet?. 'Pg. Cook of, Exchequer war divided into
.the Law side, the Revassme side, and the Equity side.
In the Law side the charges were made out to English
currency, and paid in Irish to the. Chief Baron. If any
objection was taken. the difference was given to the offi-
cer who struck eat the diffetence. The Chief Baron
aught to have introduced a uniform and regular'systein ;
instead of which, were payments ought to be made in
Irish currency, he directed that they should he made in
the English, and rice versa. The statements now. made
were from eases which he (Mr. Rice) was prepared to
support by evidence. • He should be extremely sorry to
misrepresent any thing. The Hon. Member then ad-
verted to the-Report of the Parliameetary Commission-
ers respecting the syitem adopted in the Courts of Law
in Ireland, and contended that it was entitled to the
greatest respect from the House. The Commissioners
had acquitted theniaelves to the entire satisfaction
of the country, and their -Report gave the best
sanction to the present motion. ThcHouse ought not.
therefore, to stop short, nor ought any Gentleman to
say that the Commission knew nothing. about the matter.
It should be recollected that all the Balls which had pass-
ed for altering the present system in the Courts of Law
in Ireland were founded en the Report of three, very
Commissioners. It was said by the 'Hon. and
:Learned
*Member for Oxford (Mr. Wetherell), that lie would, nit'
have proceeded on the Report alone, as he would hire
required evidence. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
said there was no precedent for such a course ; but lie
(Mr. Rice) maintained that there was. The proceeding
in the case of Lord Macclesfield was founded solely on
the Report of the Commissioners. At that time Sir
Giles Oxenden grounded his motion on the Report o f the
Commissioners, stating that ehosee•-existed in the Court
of Chancery. Sir William Wyndham and Mr. Pulteney
objected to the course, and the former said that the Re-
port was not sufficient without a Committee of Inquiry ;
but his proposition for that purpose was negatived. foe
same occurred in Lord Melville's ease, when Me.- Pitt
said that it was one that ought to come before a Select'
Committee. But Mr. Whitbread denied that the Report
of the Commissioners was an ex-parte statement. He
(Mr. Rice) insisted that.the Report, in. thepreseot case,
was entitled to the greatest respect. A Statute bad been
passed for abolishing fees in the Courts of Law in
laud; but if the House did not interfere insuch instances
as the present, the, late Acts would sfford no protection
whatever. 'it was known that the officers took fers,in di-.
rent contravention of the prohibition. Looking to the
future from the experience of the pint. the people 'of Ire-
land could give Ministers no credit for Statutes! µBac-
companied with decisive measures. He held in his hand
a documeut from the Court of Exchequer, in which the
Report of the Commissioners was judged sufficient to
ground a proceeding against an officer of the Court. That
officer hat; in conselnence, been removed, andsnother
appointed in his place. The individual to whom he al.
hided was Mr. Pollock, the first, Deputy Clerk -of ,t_lae
Pleas. The Hon. Gentleman then referred to the!ceseof
the lire Sergeant Runniegton, the Judge of the lesavent
Debtors' Court in England, who had been removed for
misconduct. lf, that individual was found guilty ender
the' circumstances, stuedy the misconduct of the Chief
Baron ought not to go unpunished, unless the House were
prepared to maivige the monstrous proposition -that a
person who preMd in an inferior Court ought. to ,be
treated with more rigour than one who presided , IF. one
of the highest Courts in the realm. Unless-they , were
prepared to say that there should he one rate for Iceland
an .l another for England, as was said in the was 4( Lord
Coningsby and' it Charles Porter in the reign of :Wil-
liam 111. . He had now performed the dutyhe had ender-
taken in bringing this matter to issue. It was only jos-
tice to the Learned Judge himself that he should do eo,for
no Judge on whose character so serious an imputation
was cast, ought to continue in office. It was the pare
mount duty of the (louse to see that the laws should be
not only above reproach, bat above suspicion. The
Hon. Member concluded by movinga series of Resolu-
tions, founded on the Report of the Commissioners incul-
, pacing the Chief Baron upon the several details in Ties-
tion. • •
. The CHAIRMAN haring read the first Resolution,

• .
CaptairtollßADY'ream sad assured the Committee,
that be nicer felt Alan embarrassment thaw on the pre-
sent occasion. He was but little accustomed to public
speaking, and his embarrassment was now. the more in-
creased from having heard that on a former oceasion he
was so unfortunate as to give offence to the late Chief
Jnsticeof the Court of King's Bench in Ireland, by some-
thing he had said. It was not iu consonance either with
his interest or inclination to sav any thing offensive to
that Le trued Lord, for whose distinguished name ha
entertained the highest respect. It was not unnatural
for him, in such a case as the present, to refer to the sane-
tion of the Court of King's Bench in support of his
ar-
igament : but in doing so he disclaimed the slightest
idea of casting ant imputation whatever on the Learned
IJudge who presided there. He (Capt. O'G.) hoped
that the Chief Baron's 'defence conld be sitisfactorily
established without any such means. It was impossible
for him to describe the anxiety with which he had
awaited this discussion. That anxiety was still more
heightened when he considered the great disadvantage
which the cause of the Chief Baron mast labour under,
is tieing advocated by him .-414 ear, hear.)—He would
have remained silent if he did not feel persuaded Oat
tenth and justice had in them treater force than talents,
however distinguished, could impart. He was not dis-
posed to refer to the forms and usages of Courts of Law,
matters of which he could not he supposed to know much,
he shonhl confine himself to the criminal charges which
were alleged against the Chief Baron. lie was aware
that in the relation in which he stood to the Chief Ba-
ron, he could not give an unbiassed opindon; he was
sure that his feelings would render it impossible for him
to do so, hut he trusted that those feelings would do hint
no discredit with the Committee.—(Hear, hear.)—But at
the sometime he must also caution the Committee not to
be led away by the statement of the Hon. Gentleman who
had hron„wht forward the charge; for without casting
any imputation on his motives, he mast say, that he was
not capable of coming to an unprejudiced conclusion on
any thing that related to the Chief Baron. He desired
that the House would
.judge of the charges by them
selves, independent of all other considerations, They were
chiefly founded on the Ninth Report of the Cornmixistoners
,:to inquire into the re,s taken in the Courts of Justice. in
Ite!and. Those Cointnis•ionera disclaimed any intention of
becoming the Chief Heron's accusers. It %venial be in
'the recollection of the House that, three years ago, be-
fore that Ninth ltrport was laid on the table, the Hon.
Gentleman, as it' by the aid of prophecy, pruclaimml to
tile House th'at such charges would be 'ironed against
the Chief Baron. There were 'in the first instance
eleven Resolutions, containing nine or ten charges; but
on further inquiry an I examitivian those were sulase-
anently minced. But, like the hooks of the Roman Sy.
oil, as. the number of the charges were diminished the
value of those remaining increased in the estiniatari of
the Hon. Geetlemon—(Hear, hear) —and af.er dive of
th,,'m ttere entirely abandoned es untenable, the other
four, were now 'revived with greeter impottaine'e, aid
were embodied into twelve Resolutions. But the Coin.
inissioneee. on whose Ninth and Kleventb. Reports, !bust
charges were fonnticd, could not pet:net-to Ire govemd
I.lls ;hose rules of evidence which. were necessary to oriii-.,

~~

'AN

...

Amte.,lo.eireosatieu of this nature. 7'.ll** did not mean to
Impugn timmonduct or character of ihoie comniissioners,
Nut by the peculiar return of theiktudoiloos they must
have haa a selection of witnesses to well as iselectina of
, the questions they put to those witnesses—Ohara hear)
—without affording an Opportunity to the partY thereby
itimugned 'to , cross-examine them or produce rebutting
evidence. He reminded the House that the Chief Baron,
was not charged in the body of the IL;port of the Com-
missioners, but the charges against him 'were con'ained
'in the A?peudix to the several. Reports comprehending-
the evidence. Lrt the House not forget the manner in
which the Chief Baron was driven to his defence, is
which be cleared away above one-half of the original
charges. It could be no matter of surprise or of infe-
rence against him that he did not clear away all—be ap-
pealed to the House, considering that the Chief Baron
had no opportunity of crossexamining the witnesses, ore
_whose depositions those charges were made; whether it
was not more a matter of surprise that he succeeded with',
ages materials, in clearing awry even a part, that" that hi I
did not refute the whole? He called the attention of thi
House to the evidence, and to the proceedings en part of
it, against other individuals implicated in those Reports.
He took the case of Mr. Pojlock, who was chief clerk he
that Court, because much stage effect was given to those
charges in consequence of those proceedings against that'
individual. He was tried on the charges and found*
guilty; not on the evidence in the Reports, but by a re-
gular trial in the Ceti& of Exchequer, when witnesses
were examined anditoss-examined, and counter-evidenct
adduced ; and the result wile, that he was dismissed.- very.
properly, from his office. Bet the next rpse to whiolelie
called the particular attention of the House, was that ;A
Sir James Hadbreith, who held another situation In the,
Court. and who was likewise impugned by the Commit
'loners Reports. 11. was put on lostrialornd after thee
fullest investigation he otta,,acqnitted, so that if those
Were found to be trim 'in one case, they were as urn-
, pnlously dieproviel iii Op other case, in which they had'
completely failed—eer. ;agar.)—The Report of thel
Commissioners, therefore, woe not sufficient evidence tr
ground on ItA criminatnry charge against &Judge, o ith
out giving hbn an opportunity of being heard. The
Chief Baron had .given up a better situation in order
to ge: on the nßench, in whirls he succeeded Lord AYOl=
more—as great a man u that country could bout'
of, and a man that was too far idiots his praise. Bel
a remissness, however, which sees incidental to Vette'
men, he suffered" the offieeri; of his toter 'tit -teke
renter fees than were -before allowohle. By his Op;
cutout illness also. and • tardy recovery, great armies,
accumulated in his Court. It was in that situation the
Chief Baron came to preside in the Court, and it ices
out of thom'circoinstances that the present charges aro o.!
It was no; all at once he would wake bitnr•lf acqtrainthl
with all the allowed fees and charges of office. He had to'
rout the officers, who before were on fees, in•
possession of their legal rights. lie with confidence stp.
pealed to those Hon. Gentlemen in the house, who were
acquainted with the Courts of Law in Ireland, whe'her
the arrangements then made by the Chief B won were
nut equally useful to the bar and to the public, to the
advdcates tp well as to the clients. How were the up-
Lames in' which the Chief .0 .ron was now inculpated?
If Ire made an increase in,io.ne chorrs, it was f*r the.
public convenience, and belwiged to toll that he relin-
quished (Aber charges Altogether. lie called on the
Cuscunlttes- to east their. eyes over those charges; one
of tl.etu regarded the Bills of Cost, another was found-
ed oil the signing of writs. The next charge regarded
the p. .11i. Those were made the foundation of a crimi-
nal a barge against the: Chief Baron individually, al-
thongh the other Judgeis dill the rains. The error, if
error I t was, was a common one, and at least the same
indulgt rice ought to he ext-nded to all. Ile did n d
deny ti at abases did exist in so tse of the offices of the
Court; but, hb denied that the Chief Baron had any
knowle4 go of them: The II so.Gentlernan (Mr. S. Bice)
heti at p,resent onsitted.the charge about the decrees, end
he (Mr. O'Grady) would accordingly pass it over.—
The !loft. Gentleman then read extracts from the Re-
ports, and contended that the Chief Baror. proved in his
defenceth it he went by the book of 1731, sta'ing the
fees that were received by immemorial usage. at th
defence he pet fords at least grounds snffirient to
prevent the House from firing on him the severest
censure that Palliantent entald inflict. To all the charges
be pleaded the law and immemorial usage of the
Court. But he would suppose, though it was not on that he
rested his defence, that the Chief Raron had to create more l
fees in conjun.ution with the other Judges for the payment I
of the officers of the Court ; would he not have the sanction
of his predecessors for the last 100 years? That was not his
line of defence. though lie thought.it might be a g*od one.
In the Fifth Revert the Commissioners declared in what
cases the Judges might grant new fees. They said "we
do not take on osrselves to judge; but it appears to us that I
the usage of striking new tables of fees had lasted for the
last Joe years." Ile mentioned that es a possible line of
defence, but he ditl not avail himself of it. These arrange-
meets were made 15 years ago, when the Cnief Baron was
raised to the bench ; and if abuses existed in them, they
were now done away. That the House, therefore, should
take a retrospective view of those abuses, which was of no•
interest to the public, es they no longer existed.—(Hear,
bear.) lie had reason to complain of delay in bringing for-
ward of those charges•which were kept menacing a Judge
for three successive Sessions, daring which time attempts
were made to increase and to support them by all possible
means. if those charges were to be made in Ireland he
need not have taken the trouble of a lengthened defence, be-
cause the Chief Baron's character was known, and it was!
there be-hod oftelfreeelved praise for his long and laborious
services. lie **mild leave the charges with the Committee.
who he was sure would give the Chief Baron credit for his
services for eighteen years that he sat on the bench. He
was sure they would not, by a criminal charge supported
like the present. sully the administration of justice in the
person of a Judge, wha as well as all other Magistrates,.
especially In the admitestratlon of justice in Ireland, should
have the protection of Parliament.
The first, second, and third Resiolutions were then put by
the Chairman, seriatim,andagreed to.
On the fottrth Resolution, Mr. HUTCHINSON said he
did not think the Committee in a state to press a censure on
the Chief Baron. If his Hon. Friend (Mr . Rice) were de-
termined to tako the judgme-t of the House, it would be
his duty to institute su-lt a •eoorse as would bring
the Chief Baron, to the Bat of the Heine before he
could proceed to 4. sentence_ which would hurl him from
the bench in Ireland, Illeither himself, nor, he believed, the
Ccintuitteri were pre,vred, as men of honour, to cast a sen-
tence of condemnation on the Chief Baron. They were not
natileienly let:witted-oft y had nA saftHent knowledge.—
The three Resolutions to which the Committee assented,
were Resulntions of fact—matters of cnurse—assertions of
Bret principles —hut the present Resolution went to Con-
demn the conduct of the Chief Anion, and that the Com-
mittee ought not to do withoet evidence and the presence of
the Chief Heron himself. Ile should also be acquainted
with the questions of fees in the Courts of Westtnioster;
and with Inc right of taking them, before he could CondeMn
nne of the most diAinpiished Judoes•in the Irish Courts for
the last eighteen years. Ile was still hound to presume the
Ctiirf Baron to he en honourable and an !vastest man. Let
another process be instituted, and be was content to sit in a
solemn proceeding fir month after month, but he would net ,1
ceridemn a Judge or any other person unheard. He witeld
rather move the previous question.
The CtIAIRSI AN said that, the Honourable Member
could nut move the previous question in a Connaittee. If
fie wished the Committee to route t> no vote on tne Reso-
lotion. the Hen. Member might move that the Chairman
r leave the Chair.
TheSOLICITOIt-lf EN BRAT. said that, though•he
was one cattle Comm.:tee appointed by the House un the
Reports of-the Commissioners, he was not able •to give
?roper attendance. ' was, therefore, unable to say
shat conebision he would (omen) if he heard all the eel-
denim before that Committee. lie, however, reminded

,N

A

-

i Committees,i e
c o ot
11:: lion.ed tia t Gentleman
was l'
figi
irelair:t°lolr
the lion. Gentle man of the unfairness of the prolmeding;
obfyttwhoosesucceesonusf
After the Remy rt of the Commissioners, and the opinions
lowed those up by two other Resolutions, not suggested
3yeittee
well as unfair. The reports of the Conamlasioners were
founded on ti to testimony of witnesses whom the Chief
Baron bad tat topportnnity of crossmrernining,ov of an.
tradicting I. counteuevidence. To, conienin him now
on those chi rg-3, and unheard, was as unjust as it was
ttnebristitud en.ll. The Chief Baron ought to have an op.
.ptimorituiloitaystef.f repewhlielinneemtrhopseolicolricrgweiras
bberafourgehtthhe
t Gout of El icelregner, was the evidence of those Reports
taken in si ippon of the accusation ? Certainly not ;•blit
he was elbowed to eell witnesses againsi the charges,
which, ho wever, at length were affirmed, and he was,
found gWilty. Sirjames Galbreith had the sante °ppm.-
funky ;Vie question was investigated in a way usual in
Venni of justice, and the result was that he was acquit-
ted of file charges. Ii was fair to infer that theCoinwit.
tee world Mlle to a similar conclusion if they had beard
ervideut et on the other side. He celled the attention of
the Co mmittee to the Report, and to the return of the •
chargt.ts. It was said that the Chief Baron hail increased
the fe es on the swearing of affi I Arita. It was supposed
that as the otficer who took those fees was a relation of
!tie ( the Chief Berme.), an .I that he slid indirectly put in.
to titiOsirnifneket a part of those fees But on further
ior isdigatiOW,that charge was found not to be supported,
anif 13t seas accordingly abandoned. This eas the nature
of it. ..The 'charge for swearing affidavits in. Court
wl:s isi sd. each, but at the Judges' Louses it was
or sly is. • The Judges, supposing that the attorneys
w mild go with all thaitc affidavits to their houses, on
a imount of the differenee' of the charge,' azreed toge.
they in ripen Court, to raise the fees and elle ilia,, thew..
This was a public matter; and the profits from the in.
crease were not confined to the Clilitf Baron. This
charge Was abandoned, but still it was material for the
Committee to see how those charges stood. The next,
which .was also abandoned, respected the Commission-
ers for taking affidavits. By the book of 1734, Is. wee
allowed; hnt the Chief Biiron, with the other Barons
raised it to Is. sd. So the Chief Baron got five far-
things more than lie was in'itled to bithe old usage;
but he lost more than that by the regulation. The Om-
matte had decided that that charge could net be allele.
ed ; and therefore, the Honourable Gentlemen h 4
properly ahandond it. The 'text charge in the Report
of 1321 was that of a mere clerical error. With revert
to the charge in the resolutiou before the Home, the
Committee had made no decision. They cettoinly did
nut negative, bat they did nut ter the length of affirm.
ing it. They state c rtaim facts on one side, the Chiet
Baron denied them on the other, and • hew *as the
House, in such a case, without more inthiedation, to the
ride between them? Who could say, on their Lonon
that the Chief Baron, was guilty, or who could delibe-
rately agree to a resolution of the lion. tier-Alen"
which implied the guilt without further inquiry? And
lie (the Solicitor General) had given it the most snivels
attention, and he could conscientiously state that he etas'
not prepared from it to form an accurate kid:re...tit. "Ile
did not mean to say that there was no •cherge against'
the Chief Baron, hut be would not nay that there was a
charge which, ,:id not admit an explanation, nub regaid
to one point, that of the taxation of costs. The Kew:
, said that the Chief Baron altered theensial.cnstom of
Isigning writs, and.bills of cost, and signed the writs for
taxation only, charging on that the disable fee. if thist
' MU wrong, nine tenths of the fees taken in Westminster
Mill would be illegal. He was even reminded that Load
Avonmore in Ireland followed the same practice. It was
however, admitted, that fees on costs were taken,
where the writ • it texatrun did not issue ; b;:t. the Chief
Baron alleges it was done. in mist Ile., a 1 i that lie WAA
not a party to it. The fees were cett dilly paid over to
him, but it did not appear that there was riot any dere!
by which he could know that they were illegally talte4
After a few further remark., the Learned Gentleman
said he would move the previous question ; but after a
short explanation between him and Mr. C. liutchinein.
lie concluded by moving that the Chairman do leave tic
Chair.
Mr: Tlptsgy said he felt great diffvul!y in the tare
he had to give. He was totally at • loss to know what
the object of the' learned. Gentleman was, as the course
he pursued woe that which alone would prevent the an-
swer of'the Chief Baron being heard. In the case of
Lord Melville there was an interval given, which tie
availed himself of and came before tile bar flitter Honse.
'lf sat li a mode mould be pointed oust, by which the Chief
Baron could avail himself of the same means of defeiwe,
he nouhf readily agree that the solijcct 'tumid ha put
off for anOffier Session. He begged to he understood as
not giving any opinion on the case, until he more hely
heard all its bearings.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL and Mr. C. a. HUT.
CHINSON explained.
Mr. TIERNEY again rose to say, that he would agree
to pass the Resolutions and then stop, and wait to seo'if
the Chief Baron applied for a hearing. If he did not do
se, it would be an obvious admission of the facts, The
Resolutions might be agreed to without any pledge from
the House, as they arose out of matters contained in a
Report of its Committee.
Mr. CANNING said lie would not vofe for the amend.
!tient, as it would be construed into a wish to get rid of
the question. If he arereed to the Resoletion, he might
do so in onesense, in its initiatory words only, referred to
in the Report of a Committee of time House. But if, by
agreeing to that Resolution, he could be considered as
expressing a conviction that the charges were made nut,
be must hesitatebefore he did so. He hesitated to bind
,himself to a conclusion of criminality, as, if he did so,
the high station and the office of the individual railed
only for one proceeding, that of impeachment. if the
resolution was affirmed, there was no other proceeding
consistent with the nature of the charge or the station of
the officer. He admitted that the only mode of crania(
to a satisfactory decision would be by referring the no.:-
ter to the highest tribunal. But, perhaps, at that period
of the Session, and particularly with reference to the
appearance of the House at that moment, it might set
besatitfactory to enter into the proceedings at precut.
It would be difficult to put the Chief Baron in toe posi-
tion of defending himself without bringing forwod as
arraigning ocrusation ; but perhaps the Resolatkeis
Would be sofficient to call upon him to state the case
aeon which he meant to rest his defence; and upon this
ground he was not unwilling to secede to the Resole•
lions; but if it were ineent,.bY the motion of the Nom
I iientletnan, to gnash the proceedings, he should feel it
his duty not to assent to it.
Mr. WYNN said that if the proceedings against the
Chief Baron were bar an Address to the Crown, lie would
at once admit that it was not necessary that he should lie
allosied the right of Idling winesies ; but if, on the
contrary, the House were of opinion: that the cheer
should be by impeachment, then it wool•I be mental
that the Cinefßaron should he heard. it wee true that&
Chief Baron bad written two letters, hut still these 'boa
not be considered as answers to tile charges brought
option him if lie desired to be beard. Ile teouthi
it
would be more prudent to adjourn the proceedings. IT
the Chief Baron oilfield wish to be heard in his defence:
hut if not, it would be exceedingly hard to deity the nat-
ter arty lonvr. ..e.
Mr. SCARLE rr said that lie felt himself b:med to
declare that„ deter the deepest coesbler ition, he saw 0
ground for the last censure to which it might he prop!''
eil to the Heim to come ; but if the Resolutions of the
Hon. Gentlemen were acceded to, they would, in his Or'
Ilion) imply censure, because they suggested thel B.

S.

„

1 ••,:i
•

• t'

)
)
. 1401
.3

• C
•
a
e

9
io

t,
Ot

~:

41
•

' ti

a+
4i
„~.it

2

?It tail

al
isl ti

•01
"

irt.tf

*MAI
'ON
4111
4r

• -In.
"le
Ao<
it

'Ps
.s.
Ch

:9

714
.t..

• 411

.1 a

. of
• I
cv
vim(..
•

041:.

41••
Is

• tfie
'A.

11
:tan

-F4311
Ott',
Ord
the

thei
trig
coin
stio
pen
the I
ter:

Bill
• iipoi
lief.
Oat
son'
ei•l