Commons Sitting of 2 June 1808

SCOTCH JUDGES ANNUITY BILL.
The Lord Advocate moved, That the house should resolve itself into a committee on the Scotch Judges' Annuity Bill.
Mr. Bankesexpressed himself altogether averse to the principle of this bill, and was extremely surprized to perceive it was endeavoured to be hurried through the house, when it made so great a grant of public money, and was a subject on which so many various and discordant sentiments had been already delivered. It

799
was a measure instituted without any necessity; the crown had the power of granting pensions to superannuated Judges already; and, least of all, did there exist, in the present instance, any shadow of reason for the interference of parliament. The question had been for some time under the consideration of the Finance Committee, and the report had been delayed by some untoward circumstances, but would very shortly be before the house; this would enable them to decide upon the necessity of the measure. He should, therefore, move 'That the committal of the bill be deferred until this day se'nnight.'
The Lord Advocateof Scotland saw no reason for the delay proposed, and was surprised to find the hon. member had any serious objection to the bill, which was only intended to set the superannuated Judges of Scotland on the same liberal footing as those of England. It was an improper mode of providing for the superannuated Judges from the revenue of the king; first, because these pensions could be withdrawn at pleasure; and secondly, because they would expire with the life of the king. He considered the delay proposed as dangerous to the Bill, and, therefore, should oppose it.
Mr. Abercrombywished the bill should not be committed until the report of the Finance Committee should be before the house; the delay was inconsiderable, and might be attended with advantage to the country.—After a few words from Mr. Rose, the gallery was cleared for a division. On the division there appeared for going into the Committee, Ayes 63; Noes 32. Majority 31.
The house then went into a committee. On the Clause entitling any of the Judges of the Courts of Session or Justiciary, the Lord Chief Baron, or any of the Barons of Exchequer, to retire on 3-tths of their salary, sir John Newport proposed as an amendment, that the words "or Barons of Exchequer" should be omitted.
Mr. Hornersaid, it was altogether a mistake to compare the duties of the Barons of the Exchequer in Scotland, with those that were discharged by the court of the same name in Westminster Hall. The former were merely a Board of Revenue. It had been justly said, that on an average they had not twelve causes before them in twelve months. During the term before last, he was informed there were only three causes, and during the term just finished not a single one.
Mr. Fullerthought it would be better to permit the Scotch to have all possible means of remuneration for their labour in their own country. The present deficiency was, perhaps, the reason why so many young Scotchmen thronged the streets of London, hunting after promotion. If it would be the means of keeping these young adventurers at home, he should feel happy in giving the bill its greatest latitude, and should, therefore, support the original clause.
The Lord Advocatesaid, the whole of the revenue questions in Scotland came before the court of exchequer. If it were once to be laid down, that persons who from age or infirmity were incapable of instructing the jury aright, be allowed to continue judges, the complaint of there being little revenue business in Scotland would soon cease to operate. It was necessary to take care that the Judges in that court, as well as in every other, were efficient.
Sir S. Romillywas decidedly of this mind; but he presumed to think it would hardly be said, that the Barons of the Exchequer had hitherto been inefficient. Therefore, there could be the less necessity for the present bill so far as they were concerned. He was informed, that it was quite consistent with the duties of this office, that the person exercising it, should reside in a foreign country. He expected to have heard from his learned friend, some reasons for the present measure, but he was disappointed. The learned lord had said, that 22 causes had stood in the paper for trial during the last term; but every gentleman present knew, that there was nothing extraordinary in this, as not one of them might have been insisted in.
The Solicitor Generalfor Scotland thought it invidious to make any distinction between the Barons of Exchequer, who were Judges of one of the supreme courts, and the Judges of the other courts. The labour, unquestionably, could not be compared with that of the Judges of the court of Session; but still their duties were important. They had even to controul the grants of the minister himself.
Mr. Abercrombysaid it had been admitted that the Barons of Exchequer in Scotland came in place of the old Lords of the Treasury. The duties, of course, which devolved on them, were not, and could not be judicial. The house was now called on to give pensions to the name of Barons of Exchequer, for in no other way

801
did they resemble the persons in this country exercising judicial functions. There were many offices of a ministerial nature, the duties of which were important, but still the persons holding them were not allowed to retire on salaries.
Mr. Bankesdeclared, that all the explanations made by gentlemen acquainted with the duties of the Barons of Exchequer in Scotland, did not satisfy his mind that their offices were judicial. He could conceive it perfectly possible that they might go by the same name, and not have the same duties to perform with the Barons of Exchequer in Ireland. A person might once belong to a court of justice and yet his character not be judicial. As, for instance, his right hon. friend opposite was chancellor of the exchequer, and head of that court, and, on the principle now contended for, must be entitled to a salary on retiring from his office; but this, he presumed to think, would hardly be maintained.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that it was a matter of no minor consideration that, by the act, the judges held their situations 'quam diu bene se gesserint;' and that the case of the Sheriffs of Counties in Scotland, alluded to by an hon. gent, was not at all analogous, as such officers were not thereby removed from any profession in the duties of which they had been previously employed. He denied that these pensions were so much for the benefit of the individuals concerned as for the benefit of the public, by securing an adequate and uninterrupted administration of justice.
Mr. Windhamsaid, that the question ought to be argued upon the general principle of grants upon superannuation, and not upon the strained analogy of reducing the Scotch judges to the same standard as the judges of this country. Such an assimilation reminded him of the old fable, 'How we apples swim.' And as to the plurality of duties, the division of such labour was more like the division of business between Jack and Tom: 'What are you doing, Jack r'—' Nothing, sir.' What are you doing, Tom t'—'Helping Jack, sir.' Let gentlemen speak of it as they would, it was, after all, nothing more than spreading a small substance upon a great extent. It did appear to him to be a provision not at all called for.
Mr. R. Dundasthought it was a sufficient answer to the objections why the Welch judges were not pensioned as well as the
802
Scotch, to remind the house that the Welch judges had, with their appointment, the benefit of their practice, and of such importance was that privilege considered, that there were many English barristers who would not accept of the place of a Scotch judge, and who would yet be very glad to get that of a Welch judge. Gentlemen on the other side had had recourse at the same time to two arguments that destroyed each other. It was argued that the place was a sinecure, and should not therefore have a pension on retirement, and at the same time it was apprehended that the Scotch judges would be anxious to retire and enjoy the profit of a pension without the trouble of the office. This was saying, it was and was not a sinecure; either must be given up: it must be admitted, either that, if it is a sinecure there would not be such inducement to retire, or that it is not a sinecure, and therefore worthy of a future compensation, when the judge retires through old age or infirmity.—The committee then divided on the amendment, Ayes 41; Noes 84: Majority against the amendment 43.

MILITARY COMMISSIONERS' BILL.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose to move for leave to bring in a bill to revive and continue the powers of the Commissioners of Military Inquiry. He hoped there would be no objection to pass this bill through all its stages as speedily as possible. A bill for this purpose had already passed both houses of parliament in this session, but by some accident, it had been omitted in the commission which had passed the great seal for giving the royal assent to bills agreed upon by both houses. In consequence of this omission, the powers of the commissioners had expired yesterday, and it became necessary to have this bill revived, to continue them.
The Speakerthought it right to make some observations on this case. It was contrary to the constitution that bills agreed upon by both houses should lie in the other house without being noticed, when a commission from the great seal came down to give the royal assent to bills so agreed upon. There being no reason to suppose that the present case happened otherwise than by mere accident, the present motion might be sufficient.
After some conversation, in which Mr. Ponsonby suggested the propriety of a special entry on the Journals, the Speaker stated there was no parliamentary knowledge of the facts to ascertain which, so

803
as to warrant a special entry, a formal inquiry should be made in the house of lords: but that no irregularity would be seen on the Journals of this house by proceeding without a special entry, as this case would appear to be the same as that of a temporary bill to continue another, which otherwise would have expired before the continuing bill could receive the royal assent.—Leave was accordingly given to bring in the bill, which was passed through its first and second reading, committed, reported, and ordered to be read a third time tomorrow.

LONDON VACCINE INSTITUTION.
Sir T. Turtonpresented a Petition from the managers of the London Vaccine Institution, stating the effects of their care and the exertions used under their direction, in spreading Vaccine Inoculation. The petitioners prayed public aid, the institution having been hitherto supported only by voluntary contributions. Before the Petition was read,
Mr. Fullerrose and observed with considerable warmth, that a grosser forgery had never been submitted to that house.
The Speakerinterrupted the hon. member, and reminded him that the Petition had not been yet read, and that when it was, the house would be better enabled to judge of the nature of its contents. Mr. Fuller resumed his seat amidst considerable laughter. The Petition was then read, and sir T. Turton moved, that it do lie on the table, when
Mr. Fulleragain rose and apologized for his abrupt manner of rising before. He said that this business was a gross cheat; a palpable trick to swindle the public; or, if it was not absolute swindling, it went very near the wind. When they came to solicit his subscription, he thought they were at the head of some respectable corporation, but what did they turn out to be? A parcel of Quakers or Presbyterians, or whatever they were called. They had got at first five guineas from him; but the moment he detected them, he threatened them with a Bow-street officer and a charge for swindling; and the dread of detection soon frightened them into a re-delivery of his five guineas. What a shame then was it to see their cause espoused by any man in that house. A member of parliament should be ashamed of having any thing to do with such fellows. He did not suppose that the hon. baronet shaved in their gains [a laugh.] That gentleman was welcome to laugh if he
804
pleased, and look and spout speeches like a lawyer, but it was a poor way to shew himself off, and to make a noise and stir for notoriety. He hoped the house would not countenance such a piece of swindling.
Sir T. Turtonfelt no resentment at the warm language of the hon. gent. He wished the hon. gent. was in as perfect good humour with himself, as he and the house were with him. The Jennerian Society was not instituted till 1803. The original Cow Pox Inoculation Society was instituted in 1799. The Institution which the petition related to, was established in 1806, he allowed principally by a set of Quakers, a sect to whose moral and virtuous principles and conduct, he was happy to bear testimony. Since that time this Institution had communicated the vaccine matter to 81,000 persons in every situation of life. The petitioners desired only to have the facts alleged in their petition inquired into; and hoped for public aid only in the event of their being found entitled to it on public grounds.—The petition was ordered to lie on the table.

VACCINATION.
Mr. Rosedeferred his notice of a motion on this subject until Thursday. His object was to diminish the evils which now resulted from the dissemination of spurious and improper Vaccine matter, by the establishment of some central Institution, from which the genuine virus should be distributed without expence. If the house should acquiesce in his motion, he should then propose to submit the management of the institution to a certain number of the College of Physicians. This was not a government measure, and he begged to be understood as having no particular partiality to any one of the present institutions more than another. His object was to give the best possible effect to the discovery of Dr. Jenner.

EAST INDIA COMPANY'S AFFAIRS.
Mr. Creeveyrose, pursuant to notice, to move for a copy of an exposition of the Affairs of the East India company, which had been laid before the committee by the directors. A Report had been already presented to the house by the East India committee, upon which a grant of money to the company was to be moved. His object was to have this paper before the house, in order that when gentlemen came to vote on the question, they might be as well informed upon the subject as the committee. The hon. member stated

805
that the first thing done by the committee I was to call for a general statement of the Affairs of the Company from the directors. An Exposition had accordingly been given in, presenting a view, gloomy enough, of their situation. When the committee came to consider what security the company could give for any loan to be advanced to them, it was thought best that they should present a petition to parliament, to be by the house referred to the committee. A Petition was accordingly presented (see p. 68); but in it they had forgot all their distresses. They put off their Indian debt in a parenthesis, and made out a surplus at home of eight millions. This was referred to the committee, and what he complained of was, that they had adopted the Petition as the ground of the report, and not the Exposition. Delusive, therefore, as the Indian budgets had been, they were nothing to the delusion of this report. The hon. member observed, that he could see no good reason for refusing to produce this report, although he could conceive that many of the members of the committee would not much relish the idea of its being made public. The friends of lord Melville and of marquis Wellesley could not, perhaps, much desire to produce a paper in which the directors ascribed their distress to the Board of Controul constituted in 1784, and to the Mahratta war. Still, however, before the house could justly vote away the public money to the company, they ought to have every possible knowledge of their affairs, and therefore he moved for this document.
Mr. R. Dundassaid, that the objection to the production of the paper, had been merely a question of time. The Exposition related principally to the state of the company's affairs abroad. The Report related to their affairs at home. The committee, therefore, with the exception of the hon. gent, had thought it better to delay the production of the Exposition till the second report, where those matters would be treated to which it related. He denied that any delusions had been held out, but said that the predictions of lord Melville and his noble friend near him (lord Castlereagh) were justified by the then situation of the company, and had only failed from circumstances which they could not foresee.
Lord A. Hamiltonobserved, that the question was, whether any proposition for a loan to the East India company was to
806
be made in the mean time. If there was, then the document would come a great deal too late if it only accompanied the second report. Unless, then, he had some guarantee, first, that the paper would be laid before the house at no very distant period, and, next, that no proposition for a loan should be made in the mean time, he must certainly vote for the motion of his hon. friend.
Mr. R. Dundassaid, that he meant to move to-morrow s'ennight, in a committee of ways and means, the balance due from the public to the company.
Mr. Wilberforcestated, that he had agreed with the majority of the committee, that it was best to defer presenting the Exposition, till they reported on the subject to which it chiefly related: erroneous speculations might be formed upon that document, both in and out of the house, if it should be laid on the table without the observations of the committee.
Mr. Windhamsaid, that this was a good answer as far as the committee was concerned. But the question for the house to consider was, whether they were to vote a grant of money to the Company without having an opportunity of examining this exposition of their affairs?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that at all events the motion was premature, as the report was not printed, and the house could not know what was proposed in it. If nothing should appear in that report but that we should pay our debts, the paper would not be necessary with a view to that question. This, therefore, was not the time for the house to decide whether the committee had done wrong or not in withholding that paper for the present.
Lord Folkestoneunderstood, that the president of the board of controul intended to propose in the first place, no more than the payment of what were called our debts. In that case the production of the paper would not be so necessary. But yet the Report proposed, that a large sum over and above those debts should be granted to the company. At all events, it was proper, that the house should have every information on the subject as soon as possible; and as there could be no real objection to the production of this paper, he should vote for its being laid immediately on the table.
Sir J. Anstruthersaid, that the house did not know whether the paper related to the report or not. If any member, after

807
the report was examined, should think that the committee had reported short on any subject of which it treated, then would be the time for the motion for additional documents. He admitted that the paper in question must be produced when the committee reported on the matters to which it related; but there was no occasion to lay it, till then, before the house.
Mr. Tierneyobserved, that every facility had been afforded to his hon. friend to procure all the evidence with respect to the home affairs of the company; and if no more evidence was produced, it was his hon. friend's fault. It was rather unfair, therefore, to hold up the committee to the public as desirous to conceal the situation of the company. He disclaimed any such intention. The Report related to the home affairs; and if he had been in the committee at the time, he certainly would have voted with the majority for withholding that paper for the present, as having no relation to the matters contained in the report. If what had been decided by the committee as debt was alone to be proposed upon that report, there could be no use for the document; but, if any assistance was intended to be voted in the first instance, then, however hard on the company it might be, he would assent to the production of the paper. He did not wish to gloss over the affairs of the company; neither did he wish to prejudice the public against them. They were entitled to justice. They had exposed their affairs very fairly; and all the members of that committee were most anxious to find out and state the exact and fair truth on this subject.
Mr. Ponsonbyadmitted, that the best way of proceeding would be, in the first instance to clear all our debts to the company if any were due, and then to examine into the general state of their affairs. If it was, therefore, to be understood that nothing further was to be proposed by the hon. president of the board of controul in the committee of ways and means, except a liquidation of the debt, he thought his hon. friend might suffer himself to be prevailed upon to withdraw his motion for the present.
Mr. Creeveyobserved, that he would never retract what he might at any time have said respecting the committee, but still maintained that it was improperly constituted. He would watch over their proceedings, however, in whatever manner he thought proper. The report consisted of
808
two parts; the one of debt, the other of loan. With regard to the latter point, the paper he moved for was very essential; and it was the more necessary to have it at present, since the answer of the hon. president to the question, whether he meant to propose only a liquidation of the debt, or a loan together with that, had been evasive. There was something, however, in what the chancellor of the exchequer had said as to the report not being as yet known to the house; and on that account he would withdraw his motion, meaning to repeat it if any loan was to be proposed in the interval between the first and second report.
Mr. R. Dundassaid, that he only meant in the first instance to propose a liquidation of the debt.
Mr. R. Thorntonreprobated the language held by Mr. Creevey, that the East India Company were bankrupts; and contended that while the committee was composed of men perfectly competent to examine into the state of the company's affairs, the conduct of the hon. gent. this evening, was such as to detract much from the weight of any observations which he might in future make upon the report when it was made.—The motion was accordingly withdrawn.

BANK OF IRELAND BILL.
The order of the day being read for the house resolving itself into a committee on the Bank of Ireland bill,
Lord H. Pettyrose to move an instruction to the committee to enable Roman-Catholics to become directors of the Bank of Ireland. In bringing this proposition forward, he felt that he should have to encounter very great difficulty, not from the complexity of the subject, but from the task of' obviating an objection, if any objection could possibly exist, against adopting a measure of conciliation to the Roman-Catholics of Ireland. The charter of the Bank of Ireland was granted in 1782, and the Roman-Catholics were then excluded from the direction, agreeably to the spirit of the penal laws. In the act of 1793, the bar to their admission was intended to be removed; but this intention was frustrated by the omission of a single word in the act. He had heard it argued, that it would be prudent to allow this obscurity to remain; but he asserted that now, when the house was legislating upon the subject, by allowing the doubt to remain which at first was merely accidental, the catholics were placed in a worse situa-

809
tion than they were in before. As to the propriety of the measure itself, the noble lord contended that the boon would be furnishing to the catholics an additional motive of attachment to the government of the country. The only possible objection that he could conceive to it was, that it was not considered as material by the catholics themselves. This he did not believe to be the case; but whether it was the case or not, it was most important, considering the present sensibility (the morbid sensibility he might term it) of the catholics of Ireland, that the house should lose no opportunity of manifesting some feelings of kindness and benevolence towards them, especially after its recent refusal to enter into a detailed examination of the merits of their Petition. The noble lord concluded with moving an instruction to the committee, to introduce a provision into the bill, to enable Roman-catholics to be chosen governors, or directors thereof, provided they have taken the oaths of the 13th, 14th and 33d of George the 3rd.
Mr. Fosterwas as friendly to every proper measure of conciliation to the Roman-Catholics as the noble lord, but he asserted that there was no reason for introducing such a change into the constitution of the Bank of Ireland, which change never had been made in the charter of the bank of England, particularly when the present state of Ireland was considered, and when it was recollected that the change was unsolicited by the Roman-catholics themselves. [Hear, hear, from the opposition.] Gentlemen might cry 'hear' but he stated that in two meetings of the proprietary which had lately taken place, no mention whatever had been made of the subject. He should therefore oppose the resolution, as tending to introduce a needless innovation into the charter.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerargued, that according to every fair construction of the act of 1793, there was no reason to think that that act of the Irish parliament meant to leave Roman Catholics eligible to the government and direction of the Bank of Ireland; and as to the time at which the proposition was made, viz. after having refused to accede to the prayer of their Petition, it appeared rather surprising that it should be urged, that we ought to indemnify the Roman Catholics for refusing to them what they were desirous of having, by granting that which they did not ask, and upon which they sat no value at all.
Mr. Grattansaid, that this was one of those things which it seemed but little to grant, but the refusal of which was felt as a severe mortification. It had been said that the Roman catholics did not desire the boon; he admitted, that they had not petitioned for this privilege specifically; but if they had not, it was because it was so small that they conceived it was impossible it could be refused. He believed that it was not the intention of the Irish parliament to exclude Catholics from the direction of the Bank; and this opinion he supported by referring to the Act of 1793.
The house then divided, and the numbers were, for the motion 83; Against it 96. Majority against the motion 13.