Commons Sitting of 8 July 1823

NEW SOUTH WALES.
Sir J. Mackintoshrose to present a Petition from the body of the emancipated colonists of New South Wales, complaining of certain disabilities to which they had been subjected by the courts of law in that territory, and from which, they had hoped to be relieved by the bill before the House, for

1457
the better regulation of the colony. The petition, he stated, had been sent over some time ago, with another to be presented in another place, but had not been heretofore presented, because the agents for the colony, who were in constant communication with Government, expected, and had strong grounds for expecting, that ministers would have supported a measure in the House, which would be in itself a gracious answer to the prayer of the petition; and would prevent the necessity of further application. That not having been done, he was under the necessity of making one more appeal, not to the liberality, not to the equity, not to the humanity of the House, but to its bare and strict justice, in behalf of a body of men who had been unjustly deprived of their rights, who were afterwards taught to believe that those rights would have been restored, but who were to the last hour most cruelly and miserably disappointed. The petition stated that the emancipated colonists were in number 7,556, having 5,859 children. It also stated, that they were the persons by whose labour and industry the colony had been cleared and cultivated, and raised to its present state of prosperity. The petitioners set forth, that they possessed 29,000 acres of cultivated land, 212,000 in pasture, 1,200 houses in towns, 42,988 head of cattle, 174,000 sheep, 2,415 horses, 15 colonial vessels of different burthens, 150,000 l. employed in trade and agriculture, making in all a capital about a million sterling. They stated, likewise, that in consequence of instructions issued by his Majesty, in pursuance of an act of parliament, they had been manumitted, and allowed the rights of freemen, until by a determination of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, they were, in consequence of lâches, for which they were not answerable, deprived of the privileges to which they had been admitted. The omissions were chargeable on the public departments of the state, in not inserting or registering the pardons in the manner specified by the act, and in not issuing a general pardon, as ought to have been done, whereby one condition of the act of parliament was not performed, and the petitioners were, in consequence, decided to be in the situation of attainted felons. They could hot sue or be sued in a court of justice; they could not give evidence or enjoy any other of the legal rights
1458
which belonged to freemen in civil society. They, therefore, prayed the House to take into consideration the decision pronounced upon their case by the court of Civil Judicature in the colony, and to afford such relief as to them might seem meet. The hon. and learned member observed, that he considered this as not only a strong, but an irresistible appeal to the justice of the House, and he still entertained hopes that the House would not allow the clauses in the bill to be omitted, which were intended to afford immediate relief to the petitioners, and which had been inserted by ministers themselves. He objected to the delay of the consideration of the bill to next Session, and he still more strongly objected to the pretext for that delay: which was, the necessity of an investigation into the propriety of the pardons.
Ordered to lie on the table.

DISTILLERIES BILL.
Mr. W. Smith,understanding that it was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to add, upon the third reading of this bill, a clause relative to the Scotch distillers, begged to inform him that he had a petition against that clause from the English distillers, who prayed to be heard at the bar by their counsel.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he was aware of the regulations and the clause to which the hon. member alluded. The object of the present hill was solely to establish the uniformity of practice in Ireland and Scotland, with respect to the regulations and collection of the duty. It would have been desirable to assimilate, as much as possible, that practice to the English; but although the committee had made some suggestions on the subject, the report had not been received, until it was too late to adopt them. By the present law, a Scotch distiller wishing to avail himself of the advantage of the English market, was obliged to give twelve months' notice; during the whole of which period his still must be idle. Now, he could not admit the justice of this law with respect to the Scotch distiller; but as it was clear that the interest of the English distillers would be materially affected by the clause which he had intended to propose, he did not see how the House could refuse to hear them by counsel if they wished. He saw, however, that this would delay the bill so long, that it might endanger its passing in the present session, and rather than

1459
encounter that risk he would withdraw the clause.
Lord A. Hamilton,although he was bound to admire the right hon. gentleman's candour, could not approve of his determination to withdraw the clause.
Mr. R. Douglassupported the introduction of the clause.
Tne Chancellor of the Exchequer,in withdrawing the clause referred to, pledged himself that, next session, he would submit tot he House a measure to regulate the intercourse in spirits between the three kingdoms, upon a more equitable and intelligible principle than that now existing.
Mr. Hutchinson,in delivering his sentiments the bill before the house, took the opportunity of alluding to a petition when had been presented on the part of the Irish brewers, in which they stated, that it had always been the anxious desire of the Irish parliament to encourage the consumption of malt liquor; and entered into a detail, to prove the propriety of encouraging that manufacture, and the injurious consequences of any measure tending to check it. Now, if the right hon. gentleman persisted in the present bill, it was but fair to give the Irish brewers some protection. The bill, as it respected Ireland, introduced two very important alterations; one was, the reduction of the duty; the other, the permission to work small stills. In his opinion, the reduction of the duty was a measure of a very doubtful character; and, as to the permission to make use of small stills, it was, with reference to Ireland, a perfectly revolutionary measure. Heretofore, the principle acted on was, to encourage large stills, and the consequent employment of extensive capital. Now, however, it was proposed to put small stills in competition with the large ones; and the probability would be, that, in proportion as the small stills were brought into action, those of a larger description would be injured, and persons who had vested their fortunes in property of that description would suffer severly. The right hon. gentleman had given nonce, that he would, in the ensuing summery give his most serious attention to the whole of the distillery system, for the purpose of simplifying it; and an hon. member had declared, that the British distillers were anxious for an investigation of the subject. He knew not what was intended to be done; the whole
1460
system as disclosed in the bill now before the House, was completely new, and would compel the Irish distiller to learn his trade all over again. It would be better, at that late period of the session, to let the bill lie over, and during the recess to consider maturely the distillery regulations, and the whole question of commercial intercourse between England, Ireland, and Scotland. For so long this question of intercourse between the three countries remained undecided, the Irish distiller could not possibly know on what footing he stood, and what preparations he ought to make to go into the British market. The act of Union had been grossly violated with respect to the intercourse of spirits between the two countries. By a clause in that act, the Irish distiller had a right to send his spirits, as manufactured in Ireland, to this country. But this was prevented by a new regulation. No sooner was the Irish spirit sent over, than it was discovered to be a most dangerous spirit, either too strong or too weak. Therefore, it was provided, that the spirit should go through the hands of a rectifier, and it ultimately resembled any thing rather than what it was when it left the Irish coast.
Colonel Trenchsaid, the measure now under consideration was not founded on the principle of balancing the interests of Scotland against those of Ireland. For the first time, the whole question had been put on a proper and fair footing by the right hon. gentleman. He was convinced that, if the licensing of small stills was pushed still further, the result would be most beneficial. The army would not be demoralized, as they now were, in consequence of their being continually employed in what was called, "still-hunting."
The bill was then read the third time;
Mr. Herriesstated, that there were several clauses about to be brought which would be added as riders to the bill.
Mr. S. Risethought the whole proceeding of the gentlemen opposite was open to much objection. The measure now before the House would lead to collision of interests. It was a bill of detail; and yet there were not three members of that House who had had ah opportunity of knowing whether it was just or unjust. After excuses from gentlemen opposite, for the lateness of the period at which it was brought forward, and complaints from those who were interested in it, on the

1461
same account, they were now asked to decide, in a moment, on the mass of clauses that were now about to be proposed. This, to say the least of it was a very clumsy mode, of legislating. He deprecated the custom which, had so long prevailed, of having a separate system, with respect to the spirit trade, for England, Ireland, and Scotland. It established adverse interests; and the consequence was, that those who were near the head-quarters of authority—he meant the English distillers—obtained advantages over the distillers who resided in other parts of the empire. He hoped that one system would be adopted for the whole country.
Mr. Wallacesaid, the opposition which the hon. member threatened to the new clauses was but an indifferent reward for the anxiety which government had manifested to meet the wishes of all parties. The question had been discussed with those who were most affected by the bill, and there was not a clause which was not founded on the suggestion of the parties themselves. To the landed gentlemen of Ireland and of Scotland, government looked for the success of this measure: and if they afforded it support, he believed the bill would accomplish all the objects which those who framed it promised to themselves.
Several clauses proposed by Mr. Herries and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, were then assented to. After which, the bill was passed.

COLLECTIONS AND MANAGEMENT OF THE LAND TAX.
Mr. Humesaid, that in what he was about to state, upon introducing some resolutions relative to the collection of the Land-tax, it was not his intention to occupy much of their time; but having devoted much labour and attention to the consideration of the manner in which this, tax had been long collected, he could not allow the session to pass without taking the opportunity of calling the attention of government to its serious importance. Ever since he had been induced to call on parliament to institute an inquiry into the extensive subject of the receiveres-general and their offices, he had felt convinced that the mode in which the land-tax was raised in this country imposed a considerable expense on the public, and a needless loss upon some classes of the community. From what passed on the occasion, to which he had just adverted, he did indulge a hope that the Chancellor
1462
of the Exchequer would ere now have adopted some means to prevent the abuses existing in this department of the public service. It had been proved in evidence before the lords of the Treasury that the Tax-office, instead of having any control over the collection of the land-tax, did, in fact, possess none whatever; that it knew not what was the specific amount so collected, excepting through information derived from the Exchequer. The consequence of this defective arrangement was, that much larger amounts were raised upon the people, on this tax, than the act under which it was so raised required. No sufficient check, it was pretty clear, therefore, had been provided, to protect the public from error or imposition. In order to satisfy his own mind about the business he had moved for a, variety of returns, some of which only had been made. The others were either incomplete, or had not yet been prepared. Such, however, as had been laid upon the table, showed that in all London, Middlesex, and Westminster, there were only eight districts in which the collections of the land-tax had been made to square, or balance with the quota which was required to be levied from such districts, under the act. The act of parliament in question, (38 George 3rd, c. 60) was very specific in its enactments and directions; and therein the collectors were strictly enjoined to pay over every shilling they raised in virtue thereof, to the receives general of their respective counties or districts; and they were further forbidden, under heavy penalties, to retain in their hands any part of the revenue so raised. Now, the House was doubtless aware, that this revenue was collected by gentleman resident within the district where they were to act, and who were to be remunerated for all services by a certain fixed poundage. All other expenses incidental to the collection were provided, for in specific terms by the statute. For the office of collector of the land-tax, great interest was made; and as much bustle and activity prevailed, generally, when an election took, place, as if, it, was a question of representing a borough or a county in parliament. Whether the gentlemen so elected had given themselves all the necessary trouble in the discharge of their duties, and had paid to it all the requisite attention, he did not know; but certain It was, that in very few instances had they, discharged their duties in a

1463
manner consistent with the injunctions of the act of parliament. In the few instances wherein they had executed their offices properly, they had raised larger quotas than those which were fixed and ascertained by the act. Under that act, it must be quite manifest to hon. gentlemen, that the general quota to be raised having been limited and fixed in 1798 by the government, ought always to be the same. As the amount, then, had not hitherto been, and could not, under the statute, hereafter be changed, so the sum to be paid over to the receiver-general ought always to be the same. It was well known, however, that sometimes a large deficiency was experienced upon such sum; and then it, of course, became necessary to add a small proportion to the next assessment in order to cover such loss on the assessment of the preceding year. Now, there was no reason why the grievance of this addition should ever exist at all, if the commissioners of the land-tax did their duty, or if the Tax-office exercised their authority. He mentioned the Tax-office, supposing that board to be good for any thing—but, on the contrary, he was satisfied in his own mind that it was good for nothing. There was not a more useless board in the whole country, except for the purposes of litigious and vexatious proceedings. He contended, that it was the duty of the commissioners, whenever a larger revenue was raised in one year than was due under the quota assigned, to carry the excess to the credit, or in diminution of, the assessment for the next year. In some districts this had actually been done but the general result of the returns in question was, to show, that the collectors had proceeded contrary to the provisions of the act of parliament, and that for the parties aggrieved there was little or no redress. In any other case, almost any man might become a public prosecutor; but in this, which was a case of manifest public and private injury, he could not become a prosecutor, unless he could demonstrate his own immediate personal interest. Until last year it was absolutely hot known that the abuses of which he spoke had any existence. Of their existence, however, no better proof could be adduced than was furnished by one of the returns, attached to which was a note to this effect—"The nett surplus of assessment in any one parish is always Stained in the collector's hands, to be applied in aid of deficiencies in any subse-
1464
quent assessment in such parish." On looking further into the return, however, he could not find that such appropriation ever took place. The fact was, as he believed, that it really did not take place; for in another column of the return, the House was actually presented with an account of the way in which this very surplus had been disbursed for expenses and allowances. These disbursements were wholly contrary to the principle of the note itself. Now, every one of these disbursements, moreover, with the exception of expenses for the room in which the commissioners were to meet, was provided for by name in the act of parliament—it was to be paid out of the poundage or rate allowed to the collectors. If that provision was insufficient, there ought to be a new act. He begged leave to cite another instance of the great laxity with which those returns were made. It would be remembered, that he had moved for two returns from the Kensington district. In the first of these, there was a surplus credited, as for the year 1818, of 753 l. and another, for the year 1819, of 737 l. This was the return in the paper of last year; but in the second paper, the commissioners had returned the surpluses for the same years—the first of them at 976 l.; the second at 1,036 l.—
The hon. gentleman then complained, that balances of 500 l., 600 l., and 700 l., were retained—in some instances, for years together—in the hands of the collectors, in absolute contravention of the act. All this was so hostile to the spirit of this statute, that government; ought to take some measures for the future protection of the public. If the commissioners themselves were to inquire minutely into the collection of the tax, they could not help discovering very great laxity and abuse. At present, individuals had no means of knowing whether the legal quota was exceeded or not in the collection. It was somewhat curious, that though he (Mr. H.) had moved for returns since the year 1800, down to the present time, the order had in very few instances been complied with. To one case it was stated, that the last collector died a few years ago, and his books were not now to be found. But, did not this statement show the necessity of better regulating the whole affair? Though the public were secured, in so far as the act had limited the sum to be raised, it was not enough for any chancellor, of the Ex-

1465
chequer to say, "it is sufficient that that sum has been collected;" for this was to leave individuals, however wrongfully assessed, without remedy or protection. The commissioners of the tax were appointed by the lords of the Treasury. He did think, that for their Conduct and actions, they ought in this, as in other respects, to be responsible to the Treasury. Where an excess had been raised, it seemed that the greater part of it had been paid for "allowances and expenses;" but all these were provided for already, out of the poundage of the collectors. From what had been stated, it must be quite clear to the House, that the lords of the Treasury, having taken no steps in the business, with all these facts before them, it was time for parliament to interfere, and put an end to such a system of things. The return given in, instead of being for 20 years, were mostly for 5, 8, or 10; and it this was a deficiency owing to the loss of books and papers, sufficient ground was alleged to show, that as commissioners and collectors, in the course of things, might thus be enabled to play into each other's hands with impunity, some place and arrangement ought to be assigned for the better managing, keeping, and recording such books, accounts, and papers. As far as he could collect, it might be shown, that in 20 years, there had been an excess raised upon the districts of London, Middlesex, and Westminster, amounting in the aggregate to no less than 162,000 l. He really wished the House to examine so important a matter as this was, where surpluses of such amount had been in no sufficient way accounted for. He was aware, indeed, that for the last 20 years the public accounts had been very imperfectly kept; but surely here was a subject that loudly demanded investigation. The hon. gentleman then entered into a statement of the substance of his resolutions, observing, that the aggregate deficiency in the course of 20 years, as on the sum accounted for compared with the sum raised, was so large, that he hardly could venture to name it; it appeared to be between 700,000 l. and 800,000 l. After some further observations on the returns laid on the table, the hon. gentleman expressed his hope, that although it was now too late in the session to enter on an inquiry of such magnitude, hon. members would be disposed to go into it at a very early period of the next
1466
session. He then proceeded to call the attention of the House to the great expense of the establishments connected with this tax, and the comparatively small amount of tax redeemed for several years. The expense of redemption and exoneration had been the enormous sum of 388,945 l., of which 59,032 l. was paid to commissioners for the redemption and exoneration of church and corporation lands. But what he chiefly complained of was, that of this sum not less than 89,604 l. was paid to the clerks of commissioners of districts, as allowance for poundage on land-tax redeemed. Now, this large allowance was, he maintained, quite contrary to the intention of the legislature, on the first establishment of this plan. He could not see why this allowance should be given at all. He would mention one case, to show the manner in which some of those clerks of commissioners of districts attended to their duty. There was a gentleman who was clerk to the commissioners of the Kensington division, and likewise to another division, and though he received the poundage of both, he did the duty of neither; and when the board removed him, he complained of having been ill-used; for that he had been 30 years in the situation without having a Complaint made against him, though he had not made out the returns in that time; thus admitting that for all that time he had not known that it was a part of his duty to make such returns. He believed, however, that this practice had not since been remedied. He next called the attention of the House to the expenses of exoneration. The object of the act on this subject was, to exempt certain small church livings, under 100 l. yearly value, from land-tax. To show the unnecessary expense that was incurred within a short time under this head, he would mention, that in the year 1820, the amount exonerated, under the direction of the commissioners for exonerating church and corporation lands, was 3l. 17 s. 4d., and in 1821, it was only 2l. 7s.; and the expenses of their office during these two years (including 600 l. per annum to each of the two acting commissioners, of whom lord Glenbervie was one, and 400 l. per annum to a secretary) amounted to no less than 4,662 l. 19 s. 2d. Now, he would ask, ought such an expense to be allowed to continue? If it was necessary to exempt small livings, why not have the

1467
holders of such give notice within a given time, after which the land-tax on them might be abolished, and the expense of the commission saved? This was a subject fully deserving the consideration of ministers, and certainly, if something was not done between this and the next session, to remove this unnecessary expenditure, he should feel it his duty to call the, attention of the House more particularly to it. The hon. member then recapitulated the leading points of his argument, and concluded by oberving, that much of the public money had been already thrown away, by the mode adopted: with respect to this tax, that might have been spared, but that still a very considerable saving might be made to the country, if government would adopt measures for purchasing the remaining land-tax. He then moved the following resolutions:

"1. That, by various returns presented to this House, during the last and present session of parliament, it appears, that the land-tax of England and Wales, made perpetual by the act of 38 Geo. 3rd, c. 60, was fixed at 1,989,673 l.: that that amount was received and accounted for in each of the two years 1797 and 1798; and that, in the year ending the 5th of January, 1822, the amount of land-tax received and accounted for was only 1,234,168 l., showing a diminution of 755,505 l. in the annual receipt.

2. "That from the period of passing the act of 38 Geo. 3rd, c. 60, to the 5th of January, 1822, the sum of 692,613 l. of-land-tax in England and Wales has been redeemed; and under the act of 46 Geo. 3rd, c. 133, and other acts, small livings and charitable institutions have been exonerated from the land-tax, to the amount of 8,801 A, making together the sum of 701,414 l. redeemed and exonerated in the 23 years.

3. "That these returns show an actual reduction between the amount received in. the years 1821 and 1798, in the annual amount of land-tax, of 755,505 l., whilst the sums redeemed and exonerated, amount only to 701,414 l., making a difference and deficiency of annual land-tax of 54,091 l. to be accounted for for.

4. "That out of the 701,414 l. of the land-tax redeemed and exonerated in the 23 years ending the 5th of January, 1822, 660,907 l. thereof had been so redeemed and exonerated prior to the 5th of January, 1813, leaving the amount unre-
1468
deemed, and receivable in the year 1813, to be 1,328,766 l.; and as the amount, of only 40,507 l. was redeemed and exonerated in the nine years, from the 5th of January, 1813, to the 5th of January, 1,822, there remained of the land-tax unredeemed, due, and receivable in England and Wales, in the said nine years, the aggregate sum of 11,708,277 l.: whilst, it appears by the returns before this House, as well as by the annual finance accounts that during that period, 10,980,589 l. only has been accounted for, showing a defalcation of no less a sum in the aggregate of the nine years, than 728,688 l., or an average of 80,965 l. per annum; as is more particularly exemplified in the following statement, viz.—

Years ending.

Amount redcemed in each year.

Amount exonerated in each year.

Total redcemed and exfonerated.

Leaving the amount un redcemed and receivable in each year.

Amount which has been accounted for. (vide no. 240)

£.

£.

£.

£.

£.

Dec.1813

6,793

146

6,944

1,321,822

1,272,257

1814

9,459

1,124

10,583

1,311,239

1,261,020

1815

4,835

122

4,957

1,306,282

1,166,164

1816

3,452

ֵ

3,452

1,302,830

1,203,510

1817

3,014

221

3,235

1,299,595

1,210,217

1818

3,900

379

4,279

1,295,116

1,240,535

1819

2,633

167

2,800

1,292,516

1,229,536

1820

2,008

ֵ

2,098

1,290,418

1,163,383

1821

2,155

4

2,159

1,288,259

1,234,168

Total

33,334

2,163

40,507

11,708,277

10,580,589

Amount accounted for

10,980,589

£80,955 per ann. average.

Difference of defalcation

728,688

5. "That, in addition to the defalcation exhibited in the preceding resolutions, it appears, that the expenses incurred under the before-mentioned acts, for the redemption and exoneration of the land-tax, have amounted to the enormous sum of 388,945 l. in the proportion of 59,032 l. by the commissioners for the redemption and exoneration of church and corporation lands; of 240,399 l. by the Tax-office; and of 89,604 l. paid to the clerks of the commissioners of districts, as allowance for poundage on land-tax redeemed.
6. "That, in addition to the expenses; incurred, as stated in the preceding resolution, there further appears, at page 204 of, the finance accounts, for the year ending the 5th of January, 1811, the following item: viz. 'To the commissioners, for the redemption of land-tax, &c. by ecclesiastical and corporate bodies,' a charge of 12,000 l.; which does not appear

1469
to be entered in any of the returns made to parliament which purport to contain an account of all the expenses incurred under the said acts.
7. "That, by a return made to parliament this session, it appears that there has been paid into the receipt of the Exchequer by the receivers-general of land-tax, on account of interest on instalment considerations, and other payments deferred, since the passing of the act of the 38th of Geo. 3rd. c. 60, to the 5th of January, 1823, the sum of 211,547 l.; whilst only 75,968 l. appear to have been accounted for in the finance accounts annually laid before parliament.
8. "That whilst in the nine years from the 5th of January, 1813, to the 5th of January, 1822, the total amount of tax redeemed and exonerated has been only 40,507 l. the expenses in the same period have amounted to no less a sum than 82,487 l. exclusive of 38,949 l. paid to clerks of districts for poundage on land- tax, after it had been redeemed.
9. "That although the amount exonerated under the direction of the com missioners for the redemption and exoneration of church and corporation lands in the year 1820, was only 3l. 17 s. 4d. and in 1821, only 2l. 7s. and the expenses of their office during those two years, (including 600 l. per annum each to two acting commissioners, and 400 l. per annum to a secretary) amounted to no less a sum than 4,662 l. 19 s. 2d., yet it does not appear that his majesty's ministers have taken any measures to free the public from so great and unnecessary a charge."
On the first resolution being put,
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that having been favoured with a sight of the resolutions, he did not expect that their discussion could have called for such observations as those in which the hon. member had indulged, with respect to the disbursements made by the commissioners of land-tax out of the public money. If there were any such as he had mentioned, no doubt it was wrong; but the hon. member must be aware that those commissioners were appointed by act of parliament, and were hot under the control of the Treasury. It could not, therefore, be expected that government could be prepared to answer upon those points, Leaving them, them, he would come to the resolutions; and he trusted, that in a few words he should show that they ought
1470
not to be adopted by the House. In the first resolution the hon. member stated, "that the land-tax of England and Wales, made perpetual by the act 38th Geo. 3rd. was fixed at 1,989,673 l. Now it was true that by the act passed in 1797, this sum was named; but that act was called, the annual Land-tax act. In the year 1798 another act was passed, which made the land-tax perpetual. This act assumed as its basis the sum of 1,989,673 l. but a clause was introduced which left out the tax on pensions and offices, which were not made perpetual. The sum thus left but was 127,000 l. The net of 60th Geo. 3rd was the same as the act of 1797, minus the 127,000 l. which was not perpetual, but regulated by an annual act. The amount of this sum varied in different years, and it was reduced from 151,000 l. at which it stood in 1808, to 39,000 l. which was its amount in 1820. Here the hon. gentleman had, in the outset, made a most erroneous calculation, and the whole of his deductions founded upon it were consequently erroneous. With respect to the expense, the right hon. gentleman contended that the sum of 398,945 l. the expense of collection and management, was by no means money thrown away; for the country had already gained 1,500,000 l. by the operation of the act. He would admit, however, that some of the expenses were worthy of the consideration of government, in order to see how far they could be reduced. He would admit, that the amount of exoneration within the last two years was small; but the House would recollect, that the commissioners had a very extensive and delicate correspondence to maintain, and that great discretion was vested in them. At the same time, he would have no objection to inquire how far it might be necessary to continue the establishment permanently. But the hon. member would bear in mind, that all those commissioners exercised their functions under the authority of an act of parliament, and that it was not in the power of the Treasury to displace them without the introduction of a legislative measure. The Treasury, however, had shown no disposition to fill up the vacancies which had occurred. In conclusion, he said, he should feel it his duty to inquire into the facts, how much better the duty might be performed, and with what diminution of expense to the public; but beyond that inquiry, he would not pledge himself at present.
Mr. Maberly,after suggesting to his hon. friend to withdraw the resolutions as they were founded on an erroneous assumption, observed, that if those commissioners were not under the control of the Treasury, it was high time that they should be, or that the House should take the subject into its own hands. He was of opinion, that the best way would be to leave the subject to his majesty's ministers, who were the fittest to examine into it; but, if something was not done in it early in the next session, he hoped his hon. friend would bring it again before the notice of the House.
Mr. Humesaid, that as his object had been for the present answered, by calling the attention of ministers to the subject, he would, with the leave of the House, withdraw his resolutions.
The resolutions were accordingly with drawn.

CONDUCT OF CHIEF BARON O'GRADY.
Mr. Brogdenreported the resolutions of the Committee of the whole House on the conduct of the Chief Baron of the Irish Exchequer. The said Resolutions are as fallows:

1. "That, in consequence of an address from the House of Commons, his late majesty was graciously pleased to issue a commission under the great seal for examining the salaries, duties, and emoluments of the several officers, clerks, and ministers of justice, within that part of the United Kingdom called Ireland; and that the commissioners so appointed have laid before parliament eleven several reports, founded on the examination of the parties, as well as on evidence taken on oath, the ninth and eleventh of which reports relate to the judicial fees of the court of Exchequer in Ireland; that, on the faith of the reports of the commissioners so appointed the legislature has acted, regulating some offices, abolishing others, and introducing a new system of proceeding in the courts of King's-bench, Common Pleas, and the common-law side of the Exchequer."

2. "That the office of lord chief baron of Ireland is an office of the highest dignity and importance, on the impartial and uncorrupt execution whereof the honour of the Crown and welfare of the realm greatly depend."

3. "That the right hon. Standish O'Grady was appointed lord chief baron of his majesty's court of Exchequer in Ireland in the month of October 1805,
1472
and became entitled by such appointment to a salary of 3,500 l. per annum, and to the lawful fees incidental to his office."

4. "That it is stated in the aforesaid ninth report, that by art alteration of practice introduced by the present lord chief baron, fees are now received for his lordship's use on bills of costs on the law side of the Exchequer, in cases where the bills of costs are not and never were made out; that a select committee having considered the statement of the commissioners, and the evidence taken on oath before them as aforesaid, together with the reply of the lord chief baron, and having reported thereon to the House, and the said report, together with the reply of the lord chief baron, having been referred by his majesty's government to the said commissioners, the said commissioners, after a further examination of the lord chief baron and of other witnesses on oath, have again reported, that by the alteration of practice introduced by the present chief baron, fees have been received for him on bills of costs in cases where no bills of costs existed; and that it is further stated in the report from the select committee on the eleventh report of the commissioners of inquiry, that the direction of the chief baron, as slated by Mr. Pollock, to whom it was personally given, that the fee of 2s. 2d. should be charged and received for him upon all bills of any sort that were taxed in the Office, and had it been so confined in its operation, it does not appear to your committee, from any evidence before them, that it would have been incorrect, except so far as relates to the increase already noticed under the head of currency; but under this regulation in practice the fee is now stated to have been received by the officers of the court on behalf of the chief baron in certain cases, and by the chief baron himself in others, upon all writs except renewals of executions in case, including the writs specified in the eleventh report of the commissioners, upon which no bills of costs could ever have arisen."

5. "That it is stated in the aforesaid ninth report, that, in pursuance of an order made by the present lord chief baron, fees have been received as for his lordship's signature to a description of writs, on which, previously to the year 1805, no fees have been charged; that, notwithstanding such charge, these writs still remain without signature, except in

1473
a very few instances, when intended to be executed; that a select committee, having considered the statement of the said commissioners, and the evidence taken on oath before the said commissioners, together with the reply of the lord chief baron, reported to this House, 'That it was not alleged that the extension of this application of a fee was warranted by practice at any former period.'"

6. "That it is stated in the aforesaid ninth report, that, pursuant to an order made by the present lord chief baron, certain fees, which had, previously to such order, been accustomed to be received for the said lord chief baron in Irish currency, has been subsequently charged in British currency, whereby the amount of such fees has been augmented 8¼ per centum."

7. "That it is stated in the aforesaid ninth report that an ancient fee is payable to the said lord chief baron on perusing and signing every decree, and a like ancient fee, of the same amount, for every exemplification of a decree (not under the four seals), but that no other fee is payable to the lord chief baron, in respect of any decree, or any copy thereof."

8. "That it is stated in the aforesaid ninth report, that, pursuant to an order made by the present lord chief baron, the ancient fees so payable on perusing and signing a decree, has been collected on the previous proceeding of setting down the cause for hearing, notwithstanding which, a like fee was again demanded and paid to the lord chief baron on making up the decrees, although one only of such decrees appears to have been exemplified; that a select committee having considered the statement of the said commissioners, the evidence taken on oath before the said commissioners, and the reply of the lord chief baron, and having reported to this House, and these several reports having been referred by his majesty's government to the said commissioners, they have, after further examination of the lord chief baron, and of other witnesses on oath, reported to this House, that the distinction between exemplifications and copies had been understood and maintained in the court of Exchequer, and that previously to the appointment of the present lord chief baron the fee upon signing a decree had been the only fee accruing to the lord chief baron upon the passing of a decree."

9. "That the said reports of the commissioners of inquiry, so founded upon evidence taken on oath, and upon the
1474
examination of the chief baron of Ireland himself, having been, together with the two letters from the chief baron in reply to those reports, referred to a select committee during the present session of parliament, a report has been presented, adverting to the alteration of fees from Irish to British currency, to the fees on writs, the fees on decrees, and the fees on taxation of costs."

On the motion for agreeing to the first resolution,
The Solicitor Generalexpressed his conviction that no corrupt motive could be attributed to the learned judge. If the resolutions, however, were agreed to, and placed on their Journals, they would imply, a censure on him, unless followed up with some such resolution as the one which he had prepared, without concert with any body, and which he would now move: viz. "That it does not appear to this House that there are sufficient grounds to ascribe the alteration stated to have been, made by the chief baron of the Exchequer in Ireland, in the fees of his court, to any improper motive on the part of that judge."
Mr. Canningwould not express any opinion on the resolution proposed by his hon. and learned friend. He would rather wish the hon. member for Limerick would propose a resolution.
Mr. S. Ricedeclared that he should have been willing to have followed up the resolutions of fact, by a resolution expressive of the opinion of the House; but from that course he had been deterred by what he understood to be the opinion of a great number of gentlemen.
Mr. Humesaid, that the motion of the hon. and learned gentleman certainly was not consonant to the understanding which had been come to on the subject.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, he was completely taken by surprise by the hon. and learned gentleman coming down at that hour, and moving a resolution, which was in fact decisive of the whole question.
Mr. Scarlettsaid, he was strongly inclined to concur in the substance of his hon. and learned friend's resolution. He certainly did not believe that the conduct: of the learned judge in question was imputable to corrupt motives. He suggested, however, that it might be expedient to word a resolution to the following effect:—"that it appears by the fifth report of the commissioners, that for the last 100 years a discretionary power has been

1475
exercised by the courts of justice in Ireland, and by some of the individual judges, to increase the fees of the courts, from which, in some instances, the judges themselves derived advantage. That by a recent act of parliament all fees of that nature have been abolished. And that under the circumstances of the case the House does not think it expedient to adopt any further proceeding with respect to chief baron O'Grady.
Mr. Dalywas of opinion, that the hon. member for Limerick could not justly complain of being taken by surprise.
Mr. W. Courtenaynever understood-that the delay in passing a resolution of opinion, grounded on resolutions of fact, was to be the delay of a session. It might, however, be expedient to adjourn the discussion.
Mr. S. Ricesaid, it had been distinctly understood, that the object of confining his resolutions to mere matters of fact, was to give the chief baron fair parliamentary notice of what was going on, that he might be prepared to explain, and defend his conduct. Now, however, it was suddenly proposed to agree to an exculpatory resolution.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that the question on which he was called upon to decide was not, whether the chief baron was guilty or innocent, but whether he should be put on his trial or not. He was for not putting him on his trial.
Colonel Barrywished the hon. and learned member for Peterborough would adopt the precise words of the report of the commissioners.
Mr. Scarlettconsented to do so, and observed, that the early part of his resolution would then be to the following effect, "That it is stated in the fifth report of the commissioners, that it is not their province to discuss 'how far, or within, what limits, the judges of the superior courts of law, are authorized to establish new or increased fees for their own services;' 'but that it will be, seen, from the table subjoined (to their report), that a discretion of this nature has, in fact, been exercised to a considerable extent at some period or periods within the last one hundred years; and that, during the time of the present chief justice of the Common Pleas, such an exercise of judicial authority appears to have occurred in three instances.
Captain O'Gradysaid, he should be perfectly satisfied with the resolu-
1476
tion, if there were added to it the following sentence from the ninth report of the commissioners: "If the amount of the increase of the judicial fees in the court of Exchequer be greater than in. the other two courts, the more extensive jurisdiction of that court ought to be recollected."
The nine resolutions of the committee were agreed to, and the debate on the resolution proposed by Mr. Scarlett was adjourned till to-morrow.