Commons Sitting of 22 June 1819

EXCISE PROSECUTIONS.
Mr. D. W. Harveypresented a petition from captain Samuel Bryan, of the ship Margaret, who complained that he had been subjected to
1286
a vexatious prosecution by the solicitor of excise. By the 26th of the king, commonly called the Manifest act, the captains of British ships, clearing out from foreign ports for this country, were obliged to procure a manifest, that is a detailed statement of the contents of their cargo. Captain Bryan arrived in this country with his ship from Surinam, in August, 1814. According to the terms of the act, the captain was bound to transmit to the commissioners of customs a correct copy of this manifest, which was termed the Ship's Report. Captain Bryan did this, and in the report he stated, among the other articles of the cargo, 145 bags of coffee. It was the practice for the commissioners of the customs to send to those of the excise a copy of so much of the report as related to excisable articles, of which coffee was one. When the transcript of the report was sent to the excise, the commissioners sent their searchers to compare the cargo with the manifest; and, instead of 145, only 140 bags of coffee were found. In the act, there was a clause which stated, that if any package whatever was wanting of those contained in the report, a penalty of 200 l. was incurred by the captain, but with this proviso, that if the report did not agree with the manifest, or if it could be made out to the satisfaction of the commissioners of customs, that the manifest was incorrect by mistake, then the penalty should not be incurred. Captain Bryan being ignorant of the cause of this mistake, applied to his mate, who informed him, that when the ship sailed, the 145 bags of coffee had been emptied into 140 bags, to save stowage. He transmitted this statement to the commissioners of customs, praying them to rectify the mistake in the report. They, satisfied with his explanation, complied with his request, and transmitted it to the commissioners of excise, who also appeared satisfied with the explanation. After this, captain Bryan had a right to conclude, that the consequences of his mistake were at an end, and for two years he had no idea of any further proceedings;—yet, at that time, when, all the evidence which explained the mistake, might have ceased to exist, he received the first intimation from the solicitor of the excise, of a proceeding against him, not by letter, but by a process in the court of exchequer. This summary proceeding was a course which any solicitor

1287
in London would be ashamed to take without a previous letter, informing the individual of the nature of the claim, and no other excuse was to be pleaded but that the practice was general in that department. In cases of this nature, it was often replied to any complaints, that the individual complaining was a person of bad character, who lived by violating the revenue Jaws; but in this case, no such answer could be made. The petitioner as he had every reason to believe, was a man of unexceptionable character. The precipitate manner in which prosecutions of this nature were commenced, might be inferred from the fact, that in one year there were 761 prosecutions at the suit of the attorney-general in the court of exchequer. So that near 150,000 l. were paid for legal expenses, either by the public or by the unfortunate persons who were the objects of these prosecutions. Captain Bryan preferred a petition to the board of excise, accompanied by the affidavit of his mate, and his own, with which the customs had previously been satisfied, and praying for an interview. He received for answer only a verbal communication, in which his request was refused, on the ground that the commissioners were never wrong in any of the 761 prosecutions which they instituted. He then offered modified terms of compromise, to which they would not accede. It was easy to imagine why all these propositions were rejected. The commissioners referred to their solicitor to report on each case as it occurred, and by his report they were guided. It was not in the nature of man that the solicitor should report with impartiality, whether he should quash in the bud these 761 prosecutions, on which perhaps only 3 or 4l. costs had been incurred, while they might swell in the end to 160 l. The cause was brought before the exchequer, which, with all respect to those who administered the law, he must say, had assumed too much of the odious character of the star chamber and in which the solicitor of the excise assumed much of the power formerly exercised by the master of the crown office till the abuse of it was corrected by the statute of William and Mary. When the cause was brought before that court the judge said, that the commissioners of customs had no power to rectify the error, and he directed the jury to find a verdict for the crown. The petitioner stated that he was advised by his counsel
1288
that a bill of exceptions might be tendered, and he should have prosecuted it, but that he had not funds. He was better advised to apply to the lords of the treasury. He sent to that board the same statement verbatim, which he had sent to the commissioners of excise, precisely the same affidavits with not one new fact. The lords of the treasury having no solicitor behind them, came to that honourable conclusion, which was to be expected from them. They remitted the penalty; but they made a stipulation, that the individual should pay the costs of the action. He had the receipt in his hand of the solicitor of excise from the defendant, for the Crown costs in this prosecution, which in the judgment of the lords of the treasury should never have been instituted. They amounted to 160 l. 5s.; in addition to this, the defendant, who had not money to follow up his bill of exceptions, had his own solicitor's bill to pay, amounting to 89 l. 8s. 5d. From an examination of this individual case, and a knowledge of the fact, that 761 prosecutions were instituted in the course of the year, he must infer, that proceedings of this kind were instituted not so much for the protection of the revenue as for the sake of the costs, for the advantage of those at whose advice they were instituted. Neither was it to be supposed that the higher crown lawyers could view these prosecutions with altogether unprejudiced eyes., In every prosecution nearly 50 guineas were paid in fees to counsel for the Crown, though comparatively few were brought to trial, for after the last 6s. 8d. was stuck to the bill, the solicitors who before were so averse to compromise, were anxious to agree to it, that was, to have no more trouble in the business. The House should hear some of the items of the bill in the present case. After a charge for five fair copies of the brief, were these items:—the attorney-general, ten guineas; the solicitor-general, ten guineas; Mr. Dauncey, eight guineas; Mr. Clarke, eight guineas; Mr. Walton, four guineas; and finally, to keep up the splendor of a crown prosecution, 7l. 13 s. to the marshal and crier of the court. It was thus that the expenses of the Crown were swelled out, for the respectable solicitor for the defendant had carried the cause op for half the sum. This was on all defendants a severe, but on innocent defendants, a cruel and wicked impost. In the next session he should move for a

1289
committee to inquire into the mode of instituting and conducting these prosecutions.
Mr. Ellicesaid, that the system on which the customs and excise acted, of referring all causes to the solicitors who were interested in prosecutions, was bad. The country was obliged to the hon. gentleman for bringing the subject before the House.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, that the hon. gentleman had made a direct attack on the administration of justice. He had compared the Court of Exchequer to the Star Chamber. Now, surely, if the conduct of the learned judges in that court was criminal, the manly way of proceeding against them would be by impeachment. As to the case before the House, it was necessary to state that there was no revenue law more important than the 26th of the king. It went not to attack fraud when discovered, but to cut up the roots of fraud. When it was discovered that the petitioner's cargo did not correspond with his report, it was the duty of the excise to prosecute; and he had no doubt the delay had been occasioned by the circumstance of the petitioner having left the country, so that he could not be proceeded against. The irregularity in the report had been attributed to the coffee being brought in casks, and shifted into bags. If this was the fact, the board of excise observed that it would be mentioned in the log book, and called on him to produce it, but with this demand captain Bryan had not complied. The act gave the customs no authority to remit the penalty, except in the case of an accidental difference between the manifest and the cargo; but this had not been attempted to be made out. The Treasury consented to remit the penalty, in consideration of the circumstances of the case, and the expense the defendant had incurred. With respect to the number of prosecutions instituted within the last year, 760 were not to be deemed very numerous, considering the extent of the revenue to be collected, with the quantity of fraud and smuggling likely to be committed. Then, as to the number of counsel usually employed in exchequer prosecutions, it should be remembered, that the attorney and solicitor-general were sometimes unable to attend such prosecutions, and it was necessary to retain competent professional gentlemen to conduct them.
Mr. N. Calvertsaid, that when the character and construction of the excise laws were duly examined, when it was considered that the whole system was in consistent with the principle of our free constitution, the House was bound to inquire into any abuse in a system which was obviously so very liable to abuse. He was an advocate for inquiry, thinking that the statements of the hon. mover had by no means been answered by the learned gentleman.
Mr. Denmanmaintained that the hon. mover had not cast any reflections upon the character of the chief baron of the exchequer. For the character of the judge alluded to, he felt the most profound respect, but he must say, that according to his conviction, the opinion of that very learned judge in the case under consideration, was not conformable to law, and had the bill of exceptions been pressed, he had little doubt that the opinion would have been set aside by the superior tribunal of a full court. Into the merits of the revenue code he would not now enter; but he must say that there was something so overwhelming in the weight and influence which the Crown possessed through the revenue laws in the court of exchequer, that the administration of justice there, was quite different from that which prevailed in the other courts. The whole system of the laws of excise and customs, was, in fact, of an odious character; and seeing from a bill passed yesterday, that the just right of a British subject to leave the country if he pleased, was to be subjected to all the restrictions imposed upon fraudulent trading or smuggled goods, he was the more anxious for the revision and amendment of that system. Upon this subject, then, he hoped and trusted that a rigid inquiry would be instituted next session.
Ordered to lie on the table.

LAWS AGAINST COMBINATIONS OF WORKMEN.
Mr. Humerose to call the attention of the House to a petition of considerable importance. He believed much diversity of opinion existed, as to the facts stated in it; and many persons conceived that the present was not a proper period to entertain the subject but, the very reasons which led those persons to suppose the present an improper time to investigate the cause of complaint, were those which induced him to think that it ought now to be looked

1291
into. The petition was signed by a number of journeymen tradesmen, and mechanics of London and Westminster, who complained of the existing laws relative to combination, which prevented them from receiving the full remuneration for their labour. All laws, they observed, which interfered with the rate of wages, were hostile to the best interests of trade, and were the source of constant complaint and litigation. He conceived that those laws were mischievous. He would put it to the feelings of every gentleman present, whether it was just to give to the rich master the power of combining against the journeyman, and to punish the latter, if he attempted to procure what he conceived to be a fair remuneration for his labour? The common law of the land was sufficient to check, any improper conduct on the part of the labouring artisan; and he conceived a measure ought to be introduced for the purpose of altering or repealing the statutes that had been enacted on this subject.
The Petition was then brought up and read, setting forth, "That the petitioners are aggrieved by certain Laws against combinations of workmen, inasmuch as those laws have a tendency to deprive them of the fair use of their skill, and of a just remuneration for their labour; that those laws, instead of preventing combinations, have in fact deprived, the working man of every means, except those of combination, of making arrangements with his employer, and of every chance of raising his nominal wages, however inadequate they may be to purchase the quantities of necessaries he has been accustomed to receive for his labour; that those laws, by forcing working men into combinations, have destroyed all confidence between them and their employers, and have substituted in its stead universal distrust, jealousy, and oppression; that in proportion as combinations among classes of workmen have been more or less perfect, and more or less permanent, so has been the amount of the remuneration they have received for their labour, thus making the well-being of a very large portion of the people depend upon an absolute breach of the laws; that notwithstanding those workmen among whom the means of successful combination are most perfect, have received a larger compensation for their labour than those among whom those means have been less perfect, there has been for many years past a gradual dete-
1292
rioration in the condition of even those who have received the largest compensation; that, in the opinion of the petitioners, all laws which interfere with the wages of labour are injurious to the general prosperity of the country, of vast and continually increasing injury to the working man, of no advantage to his employer, but that they are a source of constant hatred, litigation, and oppression, among those whose real interest it is, that a mutual good understanding should at all times prevail; the petitioners therefore pray, That the House will cause inquiry to be made, and such relief to be given to them as may seem reasonable."
Mr. Ellicestated, that he had great pleasure in offering his entire concurrence in, and cordial assistance to the measure of which the hon. member had given notice for the repeal of the Combination acts, a subject to which it had been his intention to call the attention of the House. He had been obliged, in consequence of the distresses of his constituents, to appeal to the feelings of the House, in favour of a measure they had suggested for their own relief, and which had been opposed, on the general principle, that it would interfere with free labour; and his only answer to that opposition was, that, although he admitted that any regulation, of the price of labour was contrary to principles which all acknowledged, it had been rendered necessary by the repeated violation of those principles, which had produced the distressing effects from which the manufacturing classes were now suffering. He had the greatest pleasure, therefore, in offering his cordial support to a measure which would be the first step towards re-establishing the principle of free labour; and he would cordially and zealously join the hon. gentleman in his endeavours to remove a grievance, of which the operative manufacturer had so much reason to complain, from its partial and oppressive influence.
Mr. Williamsfelt indebted to his hon. friend for bringing this subject before the House. It had been the policy of master-manufacturers and tradesmen, for some time back, to reduce the price of labour, and he was convinced that these combinations were injurious to the best interests of the community.
Lord Ebringtonentirely concurred in the sentiments expressed by the hon. members who had preceded him; and hoped that some measure to remedy the

1293
evil complained of by the petitioners would be adoped.
The petition was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

PENRYN BRIBERY BILL.
On the motion for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. Holfordthought that corruption had not been proved in a sufficient degree to warrant the measure, and moved as an amendment that the bill be read a third time on that day six months.
Sir C. Burrelltook a review of the evidence, for the purpose of proving that bribery had been practised in the borough of Penryn, sufficient to justify the pending measure. With respect to the proposition of disfranchising the borough altogether, and of granting the right of election to other places, it was contrary to the principle on which parliament had generally acted.
Mr. Abercrombydeclared himself the zealous friend of this measure; but he feared, from the advanced state of the session, that if the bill were sent to the Lords, it would be thrown out. He should therefore suggest, that the bill should be suffered to fall, and that a resolution should be submitted to the House, declaring the intention of the House to resume this measure at an early period of the next session. The bill was a temperate and gradual mode of reforming whatever was evil in the constitution of the House, and must contribute to remove many objections which the more violent advocates for reform were in the habit of throwing out against it.
Mr. Denisonthought it extremely unjust, that a borough such as Penryn, where the electors were ready to sell themselves for 24 l. should have the same influence in the House as any county in England, and more than such places as Birmingham, Leeds, and Manchester.
Mr. Martin Mr. Martin, of Galway, said, that if the bribery-oath had been forced upon every elector of Penryn, there would scarcely have been any corruption to be complained of. He would therefore vote for the amendment.
Lord Ebringtonthought it would prove of great advantage, if the elective franchise were taken from this borough, and given either to one of the large manufacturing towns that were not represented, or to the great county of York. If the evidence before the House did not justify this bill, he could not imagine any case in which the House ought to interfere.
Mr. G. Lambadverted to the evidence, to show that there existed a general spirit of bribery. If the House did not pass this bill, he should indeed be much surprised.
Mr. Williamsspoke in favour of the bill. It had been affirmed that the bribery proved against Penryn could be substantiated against every other borough in the kingdom; but this he denied, and defied any man to prove a single similar circumstance against the borough he represented.
Mr. C. Harveywas decidedly opposed to such a sweeping measure as this, when by the evidence it appeared, that only a few individuals had been guilty of corruption.
Mr. Wynnrecommended that the amendment should be withdrawn, and the bill itself postponed, and that some resolutions should be moved expressive of the opinion of the House.
Sir C. Burrellexpressed his willingness to adopt the course proposed.
The House divided on the question, "That the bill be now read a third time," Ayes, 44; Noes, 22. The bill was read a third time. Mr. Wynn then proposed the following resolution: "That it appears to this House, from the advanced state of the session, that it is not expedient to proceed further in this bill during the present session of parliament." After a short discussion Mr. Wynn withdrew his resolution, and the bill was read the third time, and passed.