HC Deb 31 March 1819 vol 39 cc1269-73
Mr. Alderman Waithman

observed, that in submitting his motion he wished to make one or two observations respecting the petition which on a former night he had presented, from William Weaver. He considered it his duty on all occasions to endeavour to ascertain the merits of every petition which he presented. In the present case, he had made inquiries into the statements of the petitioner, and the result was favourable. Since that he had learned that he had been engaged in smuggling transactions. But he did not think that, even if these charges were true, they constituted a reason for the persecution he had undergone. He had seen the landlord of the petitioner, and from him he had learned, that even alter the goods first seized in execution were purchased by him, they were again seized as belonging to Weaver. He was, in consequence of his present imprisonment, wholly unable to meet his honest engagements with his creditors; and had actually laid his petition before the insolvency court, in order to be relieved. His main object in the present motion was to get at the whole of the system—to show, that while the party sued in the Exchequer was ruined, the resources of the country were misapplied in defraying the expenditure. He had therefore to move "That there be laid before the House an account of the expenses incurred, and the amount of penalties recovered, under the prosecution of William Weaver, by the Solicitor of the Excise."

Mr. Lushington

said, there was one thing which the worthy alderman had yet to learn, namely, that a member of parliament should not allow his credulity to be practised on by the tales of unprincipled persons. There never was a case founded on more deceptions grounds than the present: instead of being a case of hardship, it was a case of fraud committed by a notorious offender. The present motion was founded on the petition of Weaver, in which he said that he had been prosecuted for selling a quantity of Spanish juice, and that that was his first offence. Of the truth of this allegation the House would judge, when he informed them, that this man had formerly been twice convicted by the board of excise, once for smuggling tobacco, and once for smuggling tea; that he had been three times convicted of smuggling by the Thames police, and twice by the Shadwell police; and that in the course of the last month, and since his petition was presented, smuggled tobacco had been found in his house. While under the execution issued by the court, he had in a clandestine manner, made off with part of his property; and when the remainder was sold, he had contrived to buy it back himself. He thought that, during the whole transaction, the officers of excise had done nothing but their duty. With regard to the solicitor of excise, who had now held that office for five years, he certainly did not know any man, who, for integrity of character, and a conscientious discharge of duty, was more deserving of praise. The worthy alderman had only moved for an account of the expenses incurred in this prosecution; but he conceived that the account of these would not give an adequate idea of the transaction, and therefore he should move that there be also furnished copies of the several petitions' presented by William Weaver to the lords of the Treasury, and of the proceedings upon these petitions.

The Attorney General

said, he should not have troubled the House on the present occasion, if the worthy alderman had not stated, that the object of his motion was, to open the eyes of the House to the system of the excise laws. The petitioner said that he had never before violated the laws of excise, as they ought to be administered. What might be the petitioner's ideas of the manner in which those laws should be administered he did not know; but he was sure that a man who had been convicted six times of smuggling, and in whose house smuggled goods had been repeatedly found, was a person who ought to be prosecuted as an example to others. This man had presented a petition to the court, and as his (the attorney general's) recommendation had considerable weight, as was natural from his official situation, he had made inquiries into the particulars of the case; but when he found that the man was an habitual smuggler, or at least an illicit trader, he did not think it proper to recommend him to the lenity of the court. There was another fact of some importance: this man was a grocer in that quarter where goods were most frequently smuggled ashore, and had been convicted five times of receiving smuggled tobacco and other articles from Lascars and various descriptions of low character. Was this, then, a man entitled to indulgence? The learned gentleman then detailed the circumstances of the prosecution, in order to refute the charge of oppression. The many convictions of this man had not cured his family; for a few days before the presenting of the petition, there had been a seizure of tobacco in his House.

Mr. D. W. Harvey

was quite sure that the worthy alderman had been himself imposed upon, although he had done all in his power to ascertain the truth. Such petitions prejudiced the general principles and prejudiced those who were really aggrieved. This man might fairly have paid 1,000l. instead of 200l. which were taken as a compromise. The several counts had been formally drawn out, charging him to the amount of 44,000l. The commissioners of excise, in this case, as in all other cases, had only reviewed the petition, but told not what sum would be taken in compromise. He had formerly stated and would now repeat, that the solicitor knew in the infancy, as well as in the development of a case, what sum would be taken. He was the responsible party, and could give a negative or affirmative to a proposition for compromise, and hence arose expenses that were most injurious and grievous to the country. The solicitor came into court with two columns: the one containing the full charge, the other the mitigated sum that would be taken; and he acceded to any sum that was proposed, if it amounted to the latter sum.

The Attorney General

denied, with great warmth, that the solicitor came into Court with two lists, and took what compromise he pleased. That gentleman, in receiving a compromise, never took into consideration the expenses of the prosecution, or what charges the crown might be put to; but he did consider the capacity of the party to pay, and if he could pay a reasonable sum without Inconvenience, he would put something to it in order to create inconvenience. The object of the excise laws was to occasion inconvenience, and so to deter from offences against them. If he had known this man's offences, he would not have agreed to any compromise.

Mr. Alderman Waithman

said, he had brought forward his motion, in the first place, in order to relieve the wretched man. Whatever might have been the number and character of his former offences, they had no right to punish him but for this offence. Another object with him was, to expose the system itself. By correcting the system, an enormous expense might be saved to the country. The excessive severity of the excise laws, like the excessive severity of the criminal laws, counteracted its object.

§
Sir Isaac Coffin

was sorry that so much of the time of the House had been occupied by so unworthy a case as that of a man five times convicted.

The motion was agreed to.