Commons Sitting of 10 April 1827

COUNTY FIRE OFFICE—REVENUE INQUIRY.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, that in consequence of the notice which he had last night given, he rose to present a petition, signed by one thousand seven hundred persons of most respectable character, some of whom were directors of, and others subscribers to, the County Fire Office: and to the contents of that petition he begged the most serious attention. The case which the petitioners made out was grounded upon a report, got up under the great name and character of the right hon. member (Mr. Wallace) opposite, and others of the commissioners who acted with him. The House was of course aware that some time ago a commission had been formed to inquire into the mode of collecting the revenue of Ireland. The powers of that commission were in a little time extended to Scotland, and ultimately to England also. Several reports were made by that commission; and at length, the fourteenth report, with a voluminous appendix, was presented to the House. He would now state shortly, the grievances under which the County Fire Office laboured, and of which they had such just reason to complain. The County Fire Office was a large and flourishing establishment, which had
350
long enjoyed the public confidence, and had issued, as he was informed, upwards of one million of policies. There were to be found amongst its directors and subscribers, some of the greatest and most respectable names in the city of Westminster. In the year 1825, the directors of the County Fire Office received an intimation, that certain parliamentary commissioners of inquiry, who had authority to that effect, were anxious to examine the books of that establishment; they also expressed a wish to see and examine some of the Company's clerks. The directors were told to send their books to the commissioners for examination; and in consequence, the books, to the amount of four coach-loads, were sent. It was quite natural that upon the rumour of such an inquiry being on foot, public attention should be drawn to it, and rumours circulated of various descriptions. The consequence was, that rumours did get afloat, and even went so far as to have exchequer processes publicly mentioned in the newspapers. These rumours had the effect of withdrawing several insurances from the County Fire Office, and tended to affect its stability. The directors and subscribers were, of course, anxious to inquire into the cause of these vague and groundless rumours, with a view to their immediate and most positive contradiction; and Mr. Barber Beaumont, the managing-director, wrote two or three letters to the commissioners on the subject. Those letters were written in a tone not, perhaps, so measured as after reflection would approve of; but they were written in a tone which his peculiar situation in the County Fire Office naturally called forth. He called upon the directors to examine him forthwith, and he thought his answers favourable not only to his own honour, but to the character and interests of the County Fire Office also. But the directors, not satisfied with this, and wishing for further inquiry, particularly with reference to the Exchequer processes which had been talked of, recommended that a legal investigation should take place, and were disappointed when they found it was not proceeded in. At length, out came the report of the right hon. gentleman, accompanied by the present bulky mass of evidence. And here he must observe, that the petitioners with great justice complained, first, that the report had not been presented with the evidence within one month after the meet-

351
ng of the House, as was required by the provisions of the act—instead of this, however, it was not presented until the 26th of May, 1826, and the consequence was, that the House was shortly after dissolved; so that these gentlemen had no means of defending themselves, or of seeking redress by application to parliament. This regulation for the early introduction of the reports and evidence after the meeting of parliament, was made with good reason, because it was found necessary to throw the most effectual protection round persons whose characters might be affected by representations coming from so high and so irresponsible a quarter. When the report came out, the directors at once perceived the grounds of this inquiry. They found that they were charged with certain great crimes upon evidence, which they had good reason to believe had been received from persons who were little short of perjured informers. Feeling the most anxious desire at once to justify themselves, and bring those guilty persons (as they supposed them) to justice, the directors applied to the right hon. gentleman at the head of the commission (Mr. Wallace), and his colleagues, for the names of the witnesses, without which it was impossible they could proceed at law. It was necessary they should do this; for the House must know, that in an indictment for perjury, such as was here contemplated, the Report was no evidence; it was necessary to have the notes of the short-hand-writer, the acknowledgment of some of the commissioners, and the form of the oath itself. He held in his hand the answer which the commissioners were pleased to give upon that occasion. It was in substance this—"that they did not think it right, as it was not their duty, to give the requisite information." Now, if it was not their duty to furnish such information as would enable persons wrongfully accused to protect themselves, by punishing their false accusers—how was it that those commissioners held the power of punishing, when they pleased, persons giving false testimony the other way? Surely, it was never intended that there should be a law for the commissioners alone. The meaning and intent of the law must be, to deal out equal justice and equal protection to all. He meant not to impugn the conduct of the right hon. gentleman or his colleagues; but he must say, that in his opinion, when they gave such an answer to a highly
352
respectable body of persons, anxious to relieve themselves from a charge of fraud, they acted very unadvisedly; and the more so, when the petitioners declared themselves possessed of the means by which the charge of perjury could be established. He would ask the House, whether the petitioners had not at least a primâ facie case in their favour, when he stated that the witnesses called to establish the charges against them, the informers, were actually discharged servants of the County Fire Office? One of the witnesses, when examined, actually refused to give his name. Was this, he would ask, the kind of evidence upon which to found an accusation against a highly respectable commercial body? And had that body not reason to complain, when the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues refused them the means of establishing their character? He would also ask this other question, with respect to another branch of complaint of the petitioners. Why was it that the parliamentary commissioners entered into this inquiry, instead of the commissioners of stamps? It was well known that the Stamp-office was, by the 23rd Geo. 3, chap. 48, entitled to inquire into the accounts of the County Fire Office, and it gave to this act the power to protect the public against fraud. The answers given to this question, and which he considered of a most unsatisfactory nature, were ascribed in the Report to Mr. Godfrey Sykes, the solicitor to the Stamp-office. Mr. Sykes was not present at this discussion; but the re was no fear of his wanting defenders upon the present occasion, who would account for the part he had taken in this transaction. Mr. Sykes, he must describe as a most respectable gentleman, and he believed that this proceeding had originated in some matters which that gentleman had imperfectly got hold of. The grounds alleged by Mr. Sykes as those which induced the parliamentary commissioners to interfere, were—first, a fear that the managing director (Mr. B. Beaumont) would throw impediments in the way of the Stamp-office inquiry, and secondly, an impression that the Stamp-office, if they did undertake it, had no power to inspect the accounts. Now, he denied both these statements; and as to the authority of examining the accounts, it was strictly given to the Stamp-office, by the act of parliament. He would be bold to say, that this was the first time a parliamentary commission ventured to

353
inquire into the affairs of a large and respectable commercial establishment; and if this sort of inquiry was allowed to proceed without a good cause existing, the commercial interests of the country would be rendered altogether insecure. He was aware of the technical formality under which the interference of the commissioners was justified, namely, that those who had a right to inquire into the Stamp-office had also a right to inquire into the County Fire Office, which was placed under the control of that office. This, with the unsupported assertion of the solicitor, was the only justification for such an unusual interference in the affairs of a large mercantile concern. Even the mode of taking the evidence was not a little singular. A clerk of Mr. Sykes, the solicitor, was about to examine a witness; the witness refused to give his name; but the clerk, notwithstanding, continued to take the evidence without having even the name of the former! Under these circumstances, what were the charges which the commissioners thought proper to bring against these respectable petitioners? That whenever any of their country agents failed, Mr. Barber Beaumont made out lists for the whole amount, and charged it to the Stamp-office, by which a difference was made in the company's favour of 2,000 l. a year beyond what was due to them. He would ask, was that charge true? He boldly and fearlessly answered, that it was not true, and in making that assertion, he felt that he was borne out by the evidence. The petitioners denied its truth in the most direct and positive terms, and referred to the evidence contained in pages 671 and 672, for the truth of their assertion. On looking over the evidence, he felt the injustice done to them; and the House would see that he was justified in making this assertion, when he stated, that after twenty-nine cases of close investigation into the affairs of defaulters in Edinburgh, there had at length been discovered one single error, and that—to what amount did the House think? To the amount of 24 s. which was owing by a man who died before he had settled his account. Taking, therefore, the average of Edinburgh as the standard, a defalcation of only 24 s. instead of 2,000 l. per annum, would be discovered. That, therefore, was the amount of error, or, as Mr. Sykes had chosen to call it, of fraud. But, surely, if even in the concerns of so great an office as the County Fire
354
Office, a few agents were discovered to have been guilty of misconduct, that was not a reason why the whole establishment should be charged with fraud? In the account of errors and defaults of all kinds, taken from the middle of the year 1807 up to July, 1825, and among no less than sixty-four agencies, the errors amounted only to 6,517 l. 5s. 11 d., and the defaults of these numerous agents did not exceed 798 l. 2s. That evidence was taken on the account of Charles Stevens, and distinctly disproved the charges which had been brought, and gave a flat denial to the statement of fraud. He put it to the House, whether in an office, whose agents were to be found in the county of Inverness, and at the Land's End, it was possible that there should not be errors? He might even admit that some of the agents might be guilty of fraud. But that admission did not justify the general attack which had been made upon the establishment at large. One person certainly had been guilty of a fraud; he meant a person named Lye; but that person was, strange to say, one of the informers of the right hon. gentleman opposite; and since the discovery of his fraud, there had been a conspiracy between him and two other persons to injure, and defame the conductors of this office. Now, the petitioners most distinctly denied the existence of any fraud; and they said, that if the Office could be fairly and truly charged with having kept back a single sixpence in the returns of duty made by them to the Stamp-office, they would give up their case.—The next charge against them was, that they had over-rated the number of policies effected at their Office. Now, the truth was, that the number of ordered policies requiring stamps was given in every quarter to the Stamp-office; and if all these policies were not ultimately directed to be made out by the County Fire Office, the directors claimed a return of the duty which had been charged upon such policies as were not required. But why did the commissioners complain of this? Had it been any injury to the revenue? He was prepared to answer in the negative. Nay, more, he could shew that in reality the revenue had been, to a certain extent, positively benefitted by it. The Office were in the habit of paying 40,000 l. or 50,000 l. per annum in stamps upon the policies effected there; and out of that sum they were generally 10,000 s. in advance.

355
Supposing even, that they were obliged at last, by the policies not being finally made up, to claim a return of the 10,000 l.; even then it was clear, that the revenue was benefitted to the extent of the interest of the money so advanced, from the time of its being advanced until it was reclaimed. It really was curious to observe the invidious manner in which the commissioners had represented this transaction. They had first complained of it, as if it was an injury to the revenue; but he trusted he had said enough to shew that it was not. Next, they spoke of it as having been used with a view to give to the County Fire Office the appearance of doing more than their real business. Now, that was not the intention, nor was it even the effect; for the public statement only contained the amount of the nett proceeds of duty actually payable to the Stamp-office.—Besides the principal charges to which he had already alluded, there were also subsidiary charges, which not only went to impugn the general direction of the office, but the management of a particular individual director. One of these subsidiary charges was, that Mr. Barber Beaumont, the managing director, had been guilty of throwing impediments in the way of the examinations which it had been found necessary to make of the books of the office. Now, that charge he denied at that moment as he had denied it before; and it was to be observed, that the evidence of their own witness, Mr. Deans, went to support the denial; for that witness stated, that when he went to examine the accounts, Mr. Beaumont directed that every assistance should be given him, and that the clerk should afford Mr. Deans every information he wanted; and in that respect he was confirmed by another witness, Mr. Johnson. The only observation Mr. Beaumont made was, to ask for what reason these persons were sent to examine the books of the office. A further contradiction of this charge was to be found in the two letters, addressed by Mr. Barber Beaumont to the commissioners, in which that gentleman courted every inquiry into his conduct. That charge, however, was not enough for Mr. Sykes, who went on to say, that since the inquiry had been in progress new books had been made, with a view, as it was insinuated, of defeating the inquiry. Did the right hon. gentleman mean to affirm that the charge was true?—[Mr. Wallace here answered across the table, that his informer told him so.]—
356
Mr. Hobhouse continued: Yes, it was true, the right hon. gentleman's informer might tell him so, but did he himself mean to maintain that part of the charge, or did he even give any credit to it? Surely he could not, founded as it was upon hearsay evidence, which he did not hesitate to characterise as infamous. The conduct of the commissioners, in this respect, seemed to him to be justly liable to complaint. They first of all received evidence of this nature, and then not only admitted it upon their notes, and introduced it into their report, but abstained from expressing their own opinion of it, and did not even condescend to acknowledge the equivocal nature of the evidence. None of the charges were, as they ought to have been, positive and distinct. On the contrary every thing rested on surmises. Mr. Sykes "rather suspected" there was some fraud; he "thought" there had been some tampering with the people at Edinburgh; and lastly, it "rather struck him," that Mr. Barber Beaumont, knowing the particular numbers of the policies, had availed himself of that knowledge, for the purpose of throwing impediments in the way of the examination which it had been proposed to commence. Now, it really was too bad, by making these surmises, by expressing these suspicions, and hinting these doubts, thus to cast imputations of so heavy a nature upon any individual, or upon any establishment. It was too much that their reputation should be thus whispered away by two persons, one of whom did not avow his name, and the other only expressed his vague suspicions that all was not correct. Yet, in this manner was the character of Mr. Barber Beaumont, and that of the County Fire Office to be ruined, although that great commercial concern was one of as much respectability as any in London. If the indefinite charges thus made were to be taken as true, the directors of the County Fire Office were worse than the unjust steward, who, when the servant said that he owed his lord forty pounds, answered—"take thy bill and write four score," for they had written 4,000 l. where nothing like that sum existed, and it was charged that they had done so, merely with the view of swelling the balance of the account. It was charged too, that in no one instance had Mr. Beaumont shown any exact sum; and an extract was annexed, with the view, as it was said, of proving that assertion. However, when that extract was shewn,

357
the assertion was disproved: for, instead of there being a large sum in his favour, it appeared, that from the year 1819 to the year 1825, there was a balance of 61 l, against him. The extract therefore proved, that he had not unfairly dealt with the accounts, in order to make himself entitled to a large balance. It was stated too, that the commissioners asked the question whether Mr. Beaumont's continuance in his office did not depend on the success with which he conducted the concern, and that he answered that question in the affirmative: therefore, said the commissioners, he had been led to throw dust into the eyes of those who were connected with the concern as insurers, since they were the persons on whom he depended for a continuance in his office. Now, he would appeal to any one, even to the right hon. gentleman opposite, whether such an insinuation ought to have been made? He recollected, that that right hon. gentleman had, a short time since, said, in a most manly and honourable manner, that it was his wish that this inquiry should be followed up, because there had been an attack made on his character. Surely, if the right hon. gentleman felt such an anxiety, it must be felt in as great, if not in a greater, degree, by Mr. Barber Beaumont; for, while attacks of the most serious description had been made upon his character, no attack had been made upon that of the right hon. gentleman opposite, except the accusation of having allowed charges to stand which ought never to have been permitted to remain a moment after the evidence had been received.—One of the charges brought against the directors of this office was that of having colluded with Mr, Sedgwick, lately the chairman of the Board of Stamps. Now, to that charge there was a contradiction on the evidence of the strongest possible kind. That contradiction was one which it was impossible to meet or to falsify—it was the contradiction of time. He held in his hand a pamphlet, published by Mr. Sedgwick, containing letters which disproved that charge; and by reference to the time at which the supposed acts of collusion were alleged to have been committed, shewed that the charge was utterly unfounded. If the whole of the matters contained in that pamphlet were true, then he had no hesitation in declaring it as his opinion, that Mr. Sedgwick was a man who had been hardly dealt with.
358
Whether the commissioners had any thing else to allege against that gentleman, he was not able to say; but he certainly did think that there was nothing in the evidence to affect Mr. Sedgwick. The numbers of the policies that were said to have been communicated to Mr. Beaumont by Mr. Sedgwick, were numbers of policies that were made in the year 1811; at which time Mr. Sedgwick had nothing to do with the matter. But he had to complain of the manner in which the statement of the defaults was made. A gross sum of 756 l. 19 s. 2d. was stated as the result of the amount of Return-duty, claimed within three quarters. Now, in the manner that statement was made, any one would imagine that these three quarters were three successive quarters in one year; but, upon examination, he discovered that they were quarters selected from three different years; one of which was 1815, another 1821, and a third, 1822. What was the excuse which the commissioners made for the conduct they had pursued? Why merely this: they said they must receive the evidence when it was offered, and that they were bound to listen to it as it regarded the matter into which they were directed to inquire. Of that he did not so much complain; but he did complain, that when they found the gross charge of the directors making a sum of 2,000 l. per annum disproved; and when, in like manner, they found there was no evidence to support the charge of abstracting the old books and making new ones, or of attempting to prevent the investigation which had been ordered; when they found, too, that the charge of collusion between the directors of the County Fire-office, and the chairman of the Board of Stamps, was contradicted in the most decided and satisfactory manner—he said he did complain that, when they found all these things, they did not do what he conceived it to have been their bounden duty to have done; namely, either to have pronounced a direct acquittal, or to have put the accused individuals directly on their trial before the country, in order to give them an opportunity of proving whether they were innocent or not. They had, however, done no such thing; but, by way of satisfaction for not doing it, they had afforded these individuals the comfort of knowing that they were to be proceeded against, and for that purpose had actually issued Exchequer process against them.

359
Certainly, nothing could be more agreeable to any body than to be the subject of an Exchequer process at any time, but especially under the circumstances in which these individuals stood. From the month of June, 1825, to this period in 1827, these imputations had been suffered to lie upon these persons—imputations which were enough to crush any establishment in Europe. After they had demanded an investigation, but in vain—after they had suffered so long from every obloquy—they were now to be gratified with an Exchequer process. The right hon. gentleman opposite had objected to any examination into the inquiry at this moment, because he had said it would prejudice the inquiry that was now about to commence in a court of law. But, surely, the report which that right hon. gentleman had made had already produced that effect; but, the right hon. gentleman had not been content with that; for he had instituted this Exchequer process, just at the very time that this examination was to take place. He would ask that right hon. gentleman whether the Exchequer process would not prejudice the accused individuals? Whether it would not, in some measure, have the effect of fixing on them the charges which had already been attempted to be made, with regard to the conduct of the Office relative to the abstraction of the old books, and the making of new, and the other charges, which he thought the evidence under the inquiry went to disprove? He had no doubt that the right hon. gentleman might succeed in establishing a charge of malversation against some of the numerous agents of this great office; but such a proof would not affect the character of the management of the office, unless it could be proved that the directors had pursued a deliberate system of fraud, with a view to deprive the revenue of property that ought justly to have been applied to the increase of the public resources. Commissioners, and gentlemen in the situation of the right hon. gentleman, were not likely to make apologies for what they had done, however improperly they might have acted, and the petitioners did not require from them any apology; but why did not the commissioners say at once (as he thought the evidence called on them to do), that the charges which had been made were not true, and could not be supported by proof? True it might be that the report was not made by the right
360
hon. gentleman; but it had been made by others, and was sanctioned by him, and might so far, therefore, be considered his. Parliamentary commissioners were vested with immense powers; and when they came to exercise those powers, they ought to watch most carefully lest any abuse of them should be committed. The petitioners prayed that the House would make an inquiry into the manner in which the commissioners had dealt with them, and would afford them some remedy for the injury they had suffered; and would also take into consideration what means could be adopted to prevent the recurrence of such things on any similar occasion.
The petition, of which the following is a copy, was then received:—
"The humble Petition of the undersigned Directors and Members of the County Fire Office,
"Sheweth;—That the County Fire Office has been conducted nearly twenty years, with benefit to your Petitioners, and to the public; nearly one hundred thousand persons having sought and found protection for their property therein.
"That the Directors have disbursed upwards of a million sterling in payments to sufferers by fire, and to Government, and for dividends and expenses; and the integrity of their conduct had never been called in question until the month of May, 1825, when Mr. Godfrey Sykes, Solicitor to the Stamp Office, commenced, and the Commissioners of Inquiry into the Collection and Management of the Revenue arising in Ireland, &c. continued, a series of proceedings defamatory to the character, and injurious to the property, of your Petitioners.
"That, during seventeen months, the Directors had been exposed to reports which they knew to be totally false and unfounded, but which they were unable to refute, in consequence of their inability to procure a definite knowledge of the accusation against them, and of the name of their accuser; but the publication of the Fourteenth Report of the said Commissioners, with the Appendix, which took place in last October, at length disclosed to them the false evidence which had defamed them. They accordingly ordered a prosecution for perjury to be instituted against an informer, John Hubbard, and had a bill of indictment prepared for that purpose, to be presented at the Middlesex Quarter

361
Sessions, in last October aforesaid; but, for this purpose, it became necessary to know the names of the Commissioners who were present when his evidence was taken, and the form of oath which they had administered to him; wherefore application was made to three of the Commissioners, the Right Hon. Thomas Wallace, Mr. Berens, and Mr. Lushington, for information on those technical points. This information they have refused to give, and, by so doing, have arrested the course of justice against the false witness, and deprived your Petitioners of their undoubted right of judicial justification.
"That the Act of Parliament which constitutes the said Commission, provides that, if any witness before the Commissioners shall swear falsely, he shall be liable to the penalties of perjury, a provision apparentlzy intended as much to protect the public against false witnesses, as to further the objects of the said Commission; but this protection is defeated when the Commissioners (no other persons being present at the examinations than themselves, their short-hand writer, and the witness) refuse to disclose the facts necessary to support a prosecution against such witness, if he swear falsely.
"That your Petitioners, have, in consequence, advised with eminent Counsel upon the legal means of enforcing the disclosure of such necessary information from the said Commissioners, and they find that no such legal means exist.
"That your Petitioners, therefore, humbly make known to your honourable House, the wrongs which they have suffered by the acts of the said Commissioners, and for which there are no means of legal redress provided; first, in the said Commissioners having unjustly defamed your Petitioners; and secondly, in their refusing to disclose the technical facts necessary to further the ends of justice against a false witness, their informer.
"That, by the Act of 22 Geo. 3., c. 48, the duty accounts of the fire offices are placed under the immediate control of the Board of Commissioners of Stamps; and a majority of them are empowered to direct an examination to be made of the Fire Office duty accounts, whenever they find occasion, Your Petitioners submit, that, had this legal course of investigation been adopted, the books of the County Fire Office would have demonstrated the information lodged against the said Office
362
to have been totally false and groundless. But Mr. Godfrey Sykes, as Solicitor of Stamps, chose to disregard this legal course, and, instead thereof, to make inquiries among persons who had been insured by the County Fire Office, unknown to the said Board of Stamps, or to the County Fire Office; and, in this having failed, he had the temerity falsely to attribute his failure to impediments thrown in his way by the Managing Director of the County Fire Office; and, in disregard of his superior, the Chairman of the Board of Stamps, who admonished him on the harsh and unjust course he was pursuing, took measures to subject the County Fire Office accounts to the jurisdiction of the Commissioners of Inquiry aforesaid, upon the false and improbable information of a person who absolutely refused to give his name; and, by so doing, has caused that mass of imputations to be collected, printed, and published, which could only obtain currency with impunity by such means.
"That the sum and substance of these imputations are contained in Mr. Sykes's evidence, 'that whenever country collectors failed, Mr. Barber Beaumont ordered lists to be made out, and claims to be made for returns of duty to the amount to which the Agent had failed'—'that this has been regularly done in the County Fire Office, and has been well known, to the amount of about 2,000 l. a year, constantly.'
"That this statement is received by the aforesaid Commissioners as evidence, and printed and published, to your Petitioners great dishonour and injury, upon the hearsay of Mr. Sykes, who says he was told it by Mr. Mawe, his clerk, who is in partnership with Mr. Bignold, of the Norwich Union Fire Office, who says he had it from Mr. Hallam, late of the Stamp Office, and a Director of the Beacon Fire Office, who, it appears, was told it by Mr. Spike, the Solicitor of the Beacon Fire Office, who heard it from a person who refused to give his name, then employed by the Beacon Fire Office, but who had been a clerk in the County Fire Office. To the above statement Mr. Sykes adds, that 'since this (his inquiry) began, they (the County Fire Office) are now making out new books in the Office—complete new sets of books.'
"That, in support of the anonymous hearsays thus brought forward, your Petitioners submit, that Mr. Sykes offers ho proof whatever, nor does he name his

363
informer; yet he had every means of proving his case, had it been true. Four coach loads of the books and papers were despatched from the County Fire Office to the Commissioners of Inquiry, by their command, and kept by them under examination nearly a week; the discharged and confederating clerks were his witnesses; the clerks remaining in the County Fire Office were long and rigorously examined by the Chairman; but the only real facts established were these:—First, That after an eager investigation of twenty-nine cases of claims for returns of duty, in a defaulter's account at Edinburgh, selected by the informer as the most easily proved, an error was found in a solitary payment of 24 s., which, it appears, the agent had failed to account for, he having died (although four receipts are printed with the evidence, only one of which has to do with the case); and 2ndly, That after an examination (by two persons appointed by the Commissioners) of all the claims for returns of duty in defaulters accounts, the examiners report the gross amount to be 756 l. 19 s. 2d.; thus conclusively disproving the accusation by their own witnesses, for if the whole of the returns claimed were erroneous instead of being generally well-founded, as they are, the errors could not exceed the full amount of the claims, which average 41 l. a year; but if the proportion of probable errors to the whole amount be considered, and the result of the investigation at Edinburgh be taken as a guide, the average will be 28 s. a year instead of '2,000 l. a year, constantly,' for the errors, or, in the language of Mr. Sykes, the frauds.'
"That your Petitioners here remark, that no Fire Office whatever in extensive business can possibly avoid errors among defaulters whose final accounts are not rendered, as is generally the case when they die or abscond; and your Petitioners submit, that it is illegal and unjust to brand a respectable body with the imputation of fraud upon the discovery of a single error of 24 s., or even of many such errors, in an account of upwards of a million of policies, and renewals of policies, seeing that they are unavoidable, from the nature of the business; they further submit, that, before the imputation of fraud can be justly or legally alleged, the motive and intention are to be regarded, and although it is not very reasonable to believe that gentlemen of station and character,
364
managing a principal and opulent insurance company, would employ their clerks to commit frauds on the revenue for the gain of even 2,000 l. a year, divisible among many thousand persons, yet, when the evidence proves that the annual amount to be so divided is only a few shillings or pounds, your Petitioners submit that the charge of fraud becomes irrational, as well as illegal and unjust.
"That the injustice and absurdity of such imputations must appear still more strongly when it is seen, that the County Fire-office has regularly paid for the duty on renewals at the end of the quarters in which they were issued from the Office, instead of waiting till the agents sent accounts of having received them, which is the present practice with most offices. By this mode of payment of duty (which the County Fire-office had been advised to adopt as the most correct and safe mode), the County Fire-office, for ninny years, paid about 10,000 l. more in advance than other offices, the interest upon which has given an advantage to the Crown in the value of interest equal to about 500 l. a year. Making their payments to the Stamp-office on this favourable principle to the revenue, it was unreasonable to suppose that the directors would commit frauds to gain a few shillings or pounds a year from the Stamp-office.
"That your honourable House will, however, observe, that this prompt mode of payment is made the subject of a fresh imputation on the County Fire-office; the Report observes, it would be difficult to account for such deviation from the general practice, if it had not the effect of giving to the office the appearance of doing more business than it really did;' but this imputation also is opposed to the evidence and to the fact, for no such motives were entertained, nor was any such effect produced, seeing that the nett payment of duty, after deducting the returns, is alone quoted. It also involves the contradiction, that your petitioners paid much more duty than they need have done, to improve appearances, and paid a little less than they ought to have done, at their peril, although it must have lessened those appearances.
"That Mr. Sykes's deposition, that he applied to the Commissioners of Inquiry 'in consequence of Mr. Barber Beaumont having refused the inspection of his books, and finding there was no authority to inspect them,' your Petitioners submit is a

365
gross misrepresentation. The evidence of Messrs. Johnson and Dean, and the letters of Mr. Barber Beaumont, prove that, so far from having refused any inspection of the books, he, at all times, evinced the utmost eagerness for a full investigation. Mr. Sykes's next averment of there being 'no authority to inspect them,' is equally unfounded, as the Board of Stamps are especially and effectually empowered to make such inspection by the Act of 22nd George 3rd already noticed.
"That to this legal supervision your Petitioners cheerfully submit, as in duty bound; but your Petitioners humbly conceive, that it never was the intention of the Legislature that 'The Commissioners of Inquiry into the Collection and Management of the Revenue in Ireland, &c.' should take upon themselves to examine into, and determine on, the affairs and on the character of an English Insurance Company, in the manner in which the said Commissioners have done with respect to the County Fire-office. Your Petitioners derive no profit nor emolument from the Agent's collection of duty; the poundage goes wholly to the Agent. The trouble and responsibility of preparing, collecting, and arranging such Agent's accounts and remittances, and of making good their deficiencies, compose a great portion of the labour and expense of managing the business of Fire Insurance. This task is forced on them much against their inclination. Your Petitioners, therefore, humbly conceive that they ought not to be deprived of the protection of the laws, and to have their interests and honour prostrated before Commissioners, who examine in secresy, and who publish unfounded statements, said to be collected from an informer, who refuses even to give his name.
"That your Petitioners will make no observations on the elaborate means which have been used to create an impression that a collusion existed between the Managing Director of the County Fire-office and the late Chairman of the Board of Stamps, as they think a perusal of the evidence must convince your Honourable House of the fallacy of that attempt, and also of the improper spirit with which it has been pursued; but they cannot refrain from calling the particular attention of your Honourable House to the declaration in the Report, that it was the intention of Mr. Sykes to institute a prosecution
366
against the County Fire-office for pretended frauds, if he could have obtained evidence to sustain such prosecution, and to the disposition avowed by the Commissioners to encourage such prosecution; and to compare such avowals of purpose with the means used by the said Commissioners to create such evidence, by putting leading questions, and by receiving, as evidence unfounded hearsays and alleged suspicions; a course of proceeding inconsistent with every principle of justice and of judicial examination.
"That your Petitioners, therefore, humbly pray your Honourable House to take the injuries which they have suffered into your most serious consideration, and to guard your petitioners and others from a recurrence of similar acts of injustice and oppression, by limiting the discretionary powers of the Commissioners to the objects contemplated by the Legislature, and by rendering powers so liable to abuse amenable to the laws; or by such other means as, in the superior wisdom of your Honourable House, shall seem fit and proper; and also, that your Honourable House will give such directions as may render the legal provision against perjury in the Act of Parliament constituting the said Commission, available. And your Petitioners will ever pray," &c.
Colonel Sibthorpesaid, that, if the charges contained in the Report were true, let them be proved; but, if false, he must declare that there never was anything more unfair or illiberal than to publish them, without affording the accused party the means of contradicting them, and justifying their own conduct. Such a course was, indeed, in his opinion, the last that ought to be pursued; and, unwilling as he might be to use such a term, it seemed to him little better than assassination.
Mr. Wallacebegan by observing that, after what had fallen from the hon. member opposite, and the gallant colonel, who had just addressed the House, he should be wanting in his duty to the House, to the commissioners, and to himself, if he did not offer a few observations, in defence of the conduct which the commissioners had pursued. With respect to the presenting of the petition itself, he had no reason to complain. Every subject of this country, who might suppose himself to be aggrieved by any act of persons invested with authority, had undoubtedly a right to make his appeal to the House. The

367
petitioners supposed themselves to have been aggrieved, and they had exercised that right, and had made their appeal to the House. It was not of that which he complained; but he objected to the manner in which the petition stated their appeal, and to the grounds which had been taken up by the hon. member in presenting it. Before, however, he went into a detail of those grounds, he wished to say a few words on a point more immediately regarding the Report itself. The first objection was as to the time at which the Report was made. Now, he wished merely to say, that, by the act under which the commissioners were appointed, it was allowed them a certain time to make their Report to the Treasury; and they were not bound to lay that Report before parliament, until one month after it had been completed. Another point on which the hon. member had arraigned the commissioners was, that they had allowed statements which he considered totally unfounded, to stand in the evidence. He (Mr. Wallace) could only say, that the evidence had been produced, and the statements had been made to the commissioners, which they could not, in the discharge of their duty, refuse either to hear or to print. The charges of the hon. gentleman resolved themselves chiefly into two points: 1. The evasion of the act of parliament. 2. The obstruction offered to the course of public justice. It had been stated to the commissioners, that fraud to a considerable amount, and for a number of years, had been effected upon the revenue; and on this account, they had taken the line of examination which had been the subject of complaint. In the speeches at the meeting, when the petition was agreed to, and in the letters to which the hon. member had alluded, an attempt had been made to consider the acts of the commission as the acts of only a single individual; but that attempt could never have produced any effect upon those who knew the manner in which the commission had been formed. It was impossible to find any men whose understandings were less likely to be deluded, or who could be less easily prevailed upon to do any act contrary to the strict line of their duty. It was no small satisfaction to him to know, that every statement in the Report had met with the unanimous concurrence of the commissioners; and on no topic unanimity been more cordial than
368
what related to the County Insurance-office. He made this assertion in justice to the commissioners, and not with any view of withdrawing himself from any degree of responsibility connected with the Report. It was perfectly true, that an application for the minutes of the commissioners, to form the foundation of a prosecution against one of the witnesses, had been refused. It was not a demand for anything merely technical, but the letter required the communication of all the minutes, and threatened, that if they were refused, the commissioners would be personally compelled to give evidence on the subject; in fact subpœnas had been served upon them. The second application had, indeed, been for something preliminary; but without the minutes it could be of no use, and the demand was substantially for the whole of the evidence, and the reason for refusal, which applied to the whole, would apply equally to a part. With the motives for the application, whether for supporting the character of the office, or for visiting with vengeance the unfortunate individual who had been the means of making the undesirable disclosure, they had nothing to do. All that the commissioners had to consider was, the situation in which they were placed, and the duties of that situation. Having gone through the task imposed upon them by the act of parliament, they did not feel that the minutes belonged to them; and they could not, therefore, apply them to any purpose, without the previous consent of the House. Minutes taken for a particular purpose, were the property of the party for whom they were taken. In prosecutions in the Exchequer, the minutes belonged to the Crown, and applications for them had been sometimes complied with, and sometimes refused. The same might be said of evidence taken before either House of Parliament, and no communication could be made without previous permission. In one instance, Mr. Bragge Bathurst had expressly moved a declaratory resolution upon the subject. The evidence taken before a parliamentary commission ought not to be accessible to every individual who thought fit to apply for it; but, in this case, the commissioners. did not think it right to take upon themselves to decide; they had resorted to the best and highest authorities on the subject—the law officers of the Crown—and they. gave it as their opinion, that the commis-

369
sioners were neither bound nor warranted in making any disclosures of minutes, excepting in the manner prescribed by the statute. No imputation could, therefore, rest upon the commissioners, that they had thus endeavoured to protect a witness against the consequences of his perjury. If they were bound to comply, every person who gave information, or became a witness, might be threatened and exposed to all the vexation of a prosecution, and, under colour of law, be subject to the most grievous injustice. Parliament might appoint as many commissioners as it pleased to inquire into public defects or abuses, but no man would venture to afford them any intelligence, or to appear as a witness before them, under such circumstances; and the boasted inquisitorial power of parliament would become a mere form of speech, without any corresponding meaning. The moment such a principle was established, as that commissioners might even be compelled to disclose matters communicated to them, their appointment for any useful result would be absolutely nugatory. The next head of complaint was, the abuse of the discretionary powers intrusted by the act to the commissioners in the institution and prosecution of the inquiry into the conduct of individuals. He knew that a good deal of indignation had been excited upon this subject, and the managing director of the County Fire Office had expressed himself very strongly against the manner in which the clerks of the office had been required to attend and to give evidence under all disadvantages, surrounded by commissioners to interrogate, and short-hand writers to take down all that was extracted from the witnesses, who had no adviser present to give them assistance. Stripped of the nonsensical bombast in which it had been clothed by the managing director, the simple fact was merely this: that a person had been sent to the office to ascertain the particular points from the books of the company, and not only did not the managing director object to this course, but he had stated that it was a highly proper measure, and liable to no suspicion. When the matter was brought before the commissioners, they had undoubtedly exercised a power which belonged to every committee of the House of Commons—that of sending for persons, papers, and records. When they thought a witness was attempting to conceal facts and pre-
370
varicate, they decided that the clause in the act applicable to prevarication should be read. The commission was constituted for the express purpose of making a full and accurate investigation into the manner in which the public revenue was collected. The officers employed in the collection, of course, came within the purview of the act of parliament, and, regarding them and their conduct, the commissioners were bound especially to inquire. In the first instance, the commission related only to the revenue of Ireland, and its powers were subsequently extended to England and Scotland; and it was not to be forgotten, that the inquiry related in the department of stamps only, in the three kingdoms, to seven millions of money. In Scotland and England, it had been found necessary to re-construct the whole system, in consequence of the many objections to it. With regard to the stamps on insurances, the duty was collected by the offices themselves, as they issued the policies, and they were required to deliver in a quarterly account, in a specified form, of new policies and renewed policies: it was not an account of the policies issued, but of the money received by the different offices in the quarter. Certain deductions were allowed to be afterwards made upon policies surrendered, and upon such as had terminated prior to a certain date: on these the offices were entitled to claim a return of a proportion of the duty paid. Such were the directions of the act; but one office, that to which the hon. member had particularly called the attention of the House, had chosen to construe the act in a way different from the interpretation elsewhere put upon it. It chose to debit itself with all the policies and renewals actually made, or expected to be taken out, during the quarter, and then they demanded returns, not only upon receipts returned, but upon letters of agents, stating that they had lost receipts, and therefore could not return them, and upon all the policies and renewals that had been issued, and of which they had no account; at the head office in London, notwithstanding it was possible, as Mr. Barber Beaumont himself admitted, that the money might have been received upon them in the country. As the act contemplated and allowed no such returns, of course the account furnished by the office was not at all according to the form prescribed by law; but the affi-

371
davit, which was also rendered necessary by the statute, was in the form required; so that it could not apply to the account. It was obvious how much fraud might have been concealed under such an irregular course of proceeding; as the only mode of preventing it in other cases depended upon an examination of the account, and of the affidavit at the Stamp Office. The affidavit it appeared, in the case of the County Fire Office, had sometimes been made by Mr. Beaumont himself, and sometimes by the chief clerk; and of late years Mr. Beaumont professed not to know a single item upon the subject, although, in the first instance, he had paid more attention to this part of the duty of the office. It appeared, on the examination of Mr. Beaumont, that the demands of the Fire Office were delivered in at the Stamp Office—that no examination was made of them, nor was it known in any quarter that a single receipt stated to have been returned, had been returned in fact. The agents also in the country, might have received large sums on account of the office, of which nothing was said; because at that time no information on the subject had reached London. It would be observed, that this course gave the County Fire Office an appearance of doing a great deal of business. Mr. Sedgwick was a director of that establishment, and he admitted that the returns made to the Stamp Office gave an appearance of a great deal more business than was actually transacted. The publication of the amount of duty thus operated favourably for the County Fire Office. As the hon. member had observed, it acted as a sort of puff; and for this puff it might be worth while to make some sacrifice. But he (Mr. Wallace) conscientiously believed, that the objectionable course to which he had alluded, had been the origin of some of the most unfounded claims upon the public. If there had been any advances at all, they must have been extremely small, and certainly nothing like to the extent of ten thousand pounds. The information communicated to the commissioners was such as they were bound to act upon. It was true that anonymous communications were not evidence, but the commissioners felt themselves bound to act upon such information, considered merely as hints to direct them in their inquiries. So far only the commissioners had proceeded upon such information, and so far they held it to
372
be their duty to pay attention to such hints. Mr. Sykes appeared to him to have acted not only properly, but with peculiar caution. That gentleman had received information from his clerk, and from Mr. Hallam, a clerk in the office, and that information was accompanied by papers confirmatory of its accuracy; and Mr. Sykes was bound to attend to it, and could not have done otherwise without a neglect of duty. This information was not anonymous—it was given by an honourable person, who stated all the circumstances of the fraud, supporting his statement by the production of policies and other papers bearing on the point. Mr. Sykes, instead of applying to the Stamp Office, or any other tribunal which could not investigate the matter fully, carried the information directly to the Board of Commissioners, who had the power to sift the affair thoroughly. The board having considered the subject, directed Mr. Sykes to proceed in the proper manner, and nine cases were sent for investigation to Scotland. Out of these nine cases, two had been incontestibly proved. Was not that a very suspicious circumstance? It could not be reasonably denied that it was a good ground for the strongest suspicions as to the improper nature of these transactions. Could the commissioners then, with any regard to their duty, hesitate, for a moment, to proceed to a thorough investigation of these matters? Ought they to have hesitated, even if the frauds had been discovered merely by an accident? They could not, consistently with a due attention to the purposes for which the board had been constituted, have hesitated a moment; and he defied the hon. gentleman to point out any other mode by which they could have done their duty. It had been said or insinuated, that Mr. Sykes ought, in the first place, to have applied to the Insurance Office for an explanation. This, no doubt, would have been a very proper course to have adopted, if Mr. Sykes had been confident that a sincere and candid explanation would have been given at the office. But Mr. Sykes did not think that he could get this fair and candid explanation at the Insurance Office; and it was but natural, at least, that he should have had his suspicions on that head. Neither would it have answered the purpose to have applied to the Commissioners of Stamps; because they had not the power to sift the matter

373
to the bottom. Two accounts were given into the Stamp Office, and the Stamp Commissioners would only examine one by the other. But both these accounts, prepared in the same manner, and perhaps by the same hands, might be fraudulent, and yet the Commissioners of Stamps had no power to follow up the inquiry further. It might, therefore, be well imagined, that an inquiry by the Stamp Commissioners could have been attended by no satisfactory result. Under these circumstances, the only proper mode of proceeding was, to bring the matter before a commission armed with the powers of a committee of the House of Commons, which could thoroughly investigate the matter; and to this tribunal Mr. Sykes had most properly applied. Indeed, it would have been a gross neglect of duty, on the part of Mr. Sykes, if he had not laid the whole of the transactions before that commission. The matter did not rest entirely on anonymous communications; for it appeared, from the Waste-book of the company, that claims had been most improperly made on government, in respect of policies actually existing; and these claims had been admitted at the Stamp Office, where the fraud could not easily be detected. It was clear, then, that claims had been made, and deductions allowed, without proper authority, or cause. It might be said, that all this arose from mistake; but there was the strongest reason to believe that it was the result of contrivance. True it was, that in the management of so large a concern, mistakes might occasionally be made; and where there was no reasonable ground for suspicion, charity would induce one to ascribe such mistakes to mere error. But, when persons came with information, that frauds had been committed, pointing out at the same time the way in which the frauds had been committed, with all the circumstances connected with them, and when, upon inquiry, it turned out that the transactions had been conducted exactly in the manner stated by the informer, it was too much to carry charity so far, as to suppose that all this was a mistake. In his opinion, it had been completely proved, that there was fraud in these transactions—whether committed by the clerks or by higher authorities in the office, he did not presume to say; but he was fully satisfied that a fraud had been committed.—Another explanation had been attempted, which was
374
this—that the whole was a contrivance of clerks to injure the office. The commissioners, always anxious to procure the fullest possible information, and to give room for every proper explanation, had permitted Mr. Beaumont to appear before them, that they might receive from him such information and explanation as he might choose to give. On that occasion, Mr. Beaumont had accused one of the clerks of the County Fire Company of having acted from malignant motives against the office; and he had produced certain letters for the purpose of corroborating that statement. But, from the contents of these letters, it appeared to be doubtful whether it was meant that Mr. Lye had himself invented the information which he had communicated, or had stated, only that which he himself knew to be true. But one thing was remarkable—that this clerk had gone through all these complicated operations of accounts of money claimed and received, and other matters, and yet had made no use of all this for his own peculiar benefit or advantage; and the whole scheme had been unravelled, merely by the incidental inquiries of a commission which was not then in existence. This, then, was the complicated act of revenge resorted to by this clerk—an act by which he had put so many hundred pounds in the way of the company. But besides this, most important entries with reference to the matter in question had been made in the company's books by a clerk of the name of Shepherd. They had got complete proof of the handwriting of that man, and the same objection did not apply to him as had been urged against the other clerk. [A member here observed that the clerk had been dismissed on a charge of forgery]. He had not been dismissed on a charge of forgery, but had retired; or had been dismissed, on account of a charge of bigamy preferred against him. There was no objection to him on the ground of forgery. No ground for a vindictive feeling on the part of this man had been alleged, and, therefore, on this part of the case, the evidence was very strong. The entries made after the retirement of Shepherd were also very material; and it had been stated by Mr. Beaumont, that his instructions to the successor of Shepherd were, that he should follow the order of his predecessor; but it appeared quite impossible that the successor should have

375
done what he had actually done, upon such a general instruction. The clerk must have had more detailed instructions. Any one who would only carefully consider what the clerk had to do, and what he had done, could not but be convinced, that the clerk must have been unable to proceed upon such a general instruction. He must have had more detailed instructions; and, indeed, it appeared strange, that the clerk, acting under the directions of Mr. Beaumont, should have been left to select the particular numbers himself. He did not mean to say positively who was to blame in this affair, but it was evident that blame did attach to the office somewhere, and for this the office was responsible.—He believed he had now touched on most of the points to which the hon. member had alluded. With respect to the remarks of the hon. member, as to the question about Mr. Beaumont's object being to throw dust in the eyes of those upon whom his appointment depended, he would offer some explanation. A clerk of the office, when under examination, had stated, that Mr. Beaumont had had recourse to an expedient to make the accounts square, to show the directors that he had conducted the business with as little loss as possible, and that Mr. Beaumont's continuance in the management of the concern depended on the success with which he appeared to conduct it; whereupon some of the commissioners very naturally observed, "Therefore the great object is to throw dust in the eyes of the persons on whom the appointment depends." To which the witness answered in the affirmative.—Under the circumstances, he saw no reason to blame the commissioners for having made the observation which he had mentioned. Upon the whole, it must be obvious, that it was the bounden duty of the commissioners to institute the inquiries in the case of the County Fire Office. The hon. member had said, that the whole question was only about a matter of a few shillings; but it was clear from the items, that there was fraud to a considerable amount, and that a large sum had been lost to the public. By whom that fraud had been committed, he did not say. But the entries of Shepherd, and of another clerk, afforded convincing proof of fraud; or at least of the fact, that illegal, improper, and unfounded claims had been made by the office against the government. He did not mean to say
376
that money was the object of those by whom these improper proceedings had been adopted. He did not believe, for instance, that it was the object of Mr. Barber Beaumont to put one farthing in his pocket, by any scheme of this kind. But he could very well conceive, that the object of the individual might be, to show that he conducted the business well. This might have been the motive; and the point might be esteemed of great importance, by a person who might have no design to procure for himself, by this means, any immediate pecuniary advantage. It ought further to be observed, that the hon. member appeared to think that the items to which he had referred constituted the whole of the unfounded claims made against the government by the office; whereas, in point of fact, they only formed one head of them. There were claims also to the amount of 2,176 l., of which 1,656 l. were for two claims at different times. Now, a double claim could not be made, without, on the very face of it, exciting the strongest suspicion. The right hon. gentleman was proceeding with some other statements, when
Mr. Hume roseto order. The complaint of the petitioners was, that their conduct had been misrepresented; that the report of the commissioners was not consistent with the evidence annexed to their report. To disprove that allegation, the right hon. gentleman was making a statement to show what had taken place at a subsequent period. He submitted, that this additional evidence should be laid on the table; in order that those members who differed from him should be prepared with an adequate knowledge of the question. It was surely irregular in the right hon. gentleman to bring forward statements not in the possession of the rest of the House, in order to rebut the charges against him.
The Speakersaid, that he did not understand how the statements of the right hon. gentleman could affect the point of order, provided they were relative to the subject of debate. How far that course might be fair, in point of argument, it was not for him to decide; but there could, he thought, be no doubt as to the point of order.
Sir R. Wilsonappealed to the liberality of the right hon. gentleman, who, he was sure, would not persevere in the course ho was following.
Mr. Wallaceresumed. One of the views taken by the hon. gentleman was, that the statements of the commissioners must be unfounded, because the frauds produced such a trifling sum. It was to that point that he was replying when he was interrupted. There could be no doubt that all the policies not used ought to have been cancelled within the year; and, when it was found that this rule was not acted. upon, a presumption necessarily arose of great irregularity—not to say fraud. He was pointing out that the amount of the claims actually made showed the unlimited extent to which the practice might have been carried, if it had not been checked. The hon. gentleman had talked, in lofty terms, of this high and honourable Insurance Office; and, for what he knew, it might deserve all the panegyrics bestowed upon it; but, if it was ten times greater and higher than the hon. gentleman represented it to be, still he was not aware of any sanctity which rendered it inaccessible to the inquiries of parliament; nor, in case of the appearance of malversation, was it entitled to escape from just censure. With regard to the other subject to which the hon. gentleman had alluded, he hardly knew how to speak of it with the respect due to the House. In that case, not only himself, but the whole body of commissioners, as well as the entire board of the Treasury, and, indeed, all the members of government, were charged with entering into a conspiracy to protect some inferior officers of the revenue in Scotland. On the very statement of it, this was a charge much too absurd for serious refutation. Neither would he then go into a reply to the Letters which Mr. Sedgwick had published. All he would say was this—that, supposing their contents true in every respect, they would not remove one particle of the charges, either against him or the late Board of Stamps. They would not controvert one of the facts proved in evidence before the commission against that board, as to the dissentions always prevailing amongst them, their contemptuous violation of the orders of the Treasury, and their defiance of the acts of parliament, by which their conduct should have been regulated. Nor would they remove from Mr. Sedgwick. individually the charge of being the proprietor of a newspaper, while he held an office imposing upon him the particular duty of ex-
378
ecuting laws which it became his private interest to relax and evade. Nor could any statement of Mr. Sedgwick's exonerate him from the charge of permitting another man to come before him, in his capacity as chairman of the Board of Stamps, and swear that he was proprietor of that newspaper, which he well knew was his own property, though he had colourably, for his own purposes, divested himself of it in point of legal form.—He was now speaking entirely of facts, proved in the evidence appended to the report. None of Mr. Sedgwick's attacks on the commission could remove the charge of collusion with the County Fire Office. That collusion was suspected from the beginning. Mr. Sykes stated, that he would not make the communication, because he knew that Mr. Sedgwick was connected with the manager of that office. Mr. Sykes stood mainly and directly on the doubt he felt, that the information would be communicated. After a certain time, Mr. Sedgwick desired that some of the numbers should be given to him, relative to which the inquiry had been prosecuted. Two of them were accordingly supplied; and soon afterwards one of the clerks saw a paper, in the hand-writing of Mr. Barber Beaumont, which he believed to be the very same he had delivered to Mr. Sedgwick.—If the case rested there, he would not press it; for he admitted that a man might be easily deceived. But, what happened afterwards? In the course of the same day, Mr. Sedgwick sent for that clerk, and told him that one of the numbers was a mistake. On that point the commissioners had examined Mr. Barber Beaumont; who stated, that, if such an error had occurred, it could be discovered in only one of three ways. The first was, by the books at the Stamp Office, which were in so bad a state, especially the earlier ones, that they were never examined; and, according to the evidence of one clerk, it would have required a week to search them effectually. The next mode of detection, Mr. Beaumont said, was by communicating with the company's agents in Scotland; but that was evidently impossible, in the course of a few hours. The only remaining method was by communicating with the County Fire Office; and sure he was, that, if any member of that House was called upon as a juryman, to give a verdict on that evidence, he would feel himself irresistibly

379
compelled to come to the same conclusion as the commissioners. This was the first time it had been necessary for him to defend or explain any part of their conduct; though they had been long and diligently employed in the public service, and, he hoped, not unprofitably. They had carried into effect many important improvements, and they had suggested many others, which were under consideration. In performing their duty, they had, of course, frequently touched the interests and feelings of many public officers; but especially now that their labours were drawing fast to a close—for the act would expire in a few months—it was a great satisfaction to him, that their motives had never been impugned, except in the two cases to which the hon. gentleman had that evening called the attention of the House; and he trusted, he had given such an explanation, as to both those cases, that the commissioners would stand before the country with unblemished reputation.
Sir R. Wilsonsaid, that the right hon. gentleman had introduced into his defence matters which were not contained in the report, and which therefore were not in the possession of the other members of the House. The commissioners, he contended, had been too careless in admitting evidence. One of the witnesses on whom they principally relied, had been dismissed from the County Fire Office, and taken into custody for bigamy, and had since fled on a charge of forgery. No engine of oppression could be more dangerous than commissions of inquiry, if they negligently or incautiously admitted evidence of this stamp, and afterwards circulated allegations founded upon it, which, under the sanction of their authority, assumed an important character. He had learned last night, for the first time, that it had been determined to institute an Exchequer prosecution against the County Fire Office. Still, the directors complained, and justly, that no opportunity had been given them to vindicate themselves from the attacks of the commission. They had asked in vain for the names of the parties who had given the false evidence against them; and they contended, with reason, that the commissioners, by refusing those names, gave countenance and protection to their calumniators.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, there had been an account current between government and the County Fire Office, and the
380
directors would have an ample opportunity of trying the question of fraud on every policy, and on every ten-pence with which they would be charged by government. It would be his duty to support the information he had filed in the Exchequer; and therefore he should reserve for that court whatever information he possessed, that might affect individuals. He would not say that A, or B, or C, had been guilty of the fraud; but he would say broadly and distinctly, that fraud had been committed.
Mr. Curwenadverted to the hardship of keeping these charges suspended over the heads of the County Fire Office for two years, without either putting its accusers to the proof, or giving them an opportunity of vindicating themselves. From all that he had seen and heard, he thought the commissioners ought to have been more cautious in coming to any conclusion upon such suspicious evidence. He had authority for stating, that the County Fire Office courted inquiry; but he doubted whether, in the court of Exchequer, they could do themselves justice.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought it but justice to his right hon. friend and the other commissioners, to state his opinion that they had discharged, in a most impartial and unexceptionable manner, a duty of a most arduous nature. They were bound to inquire into the case, and to lay before the House, and ultimately before the public, the result of that inquiry; which certainly did tend to implicate the persons, who presented this petition. Unless they had concealed from the Treasury, and from the public, the information which had been laid before them, they could not but have made the report which tended to implicate those individuals. Enough evidence had undoubtedly been laid before them to justify the opinion, that in the account current between the officers of the County Fire Office and the government, there was a debt due to the government. It was necessary to put that question in a fair course of trial, and he should be extremely glad, and so he was sure would his right hon. friend be, if the Fire Office should be able to remove the imputation which had been cast upon it. He hoped the object of the gentleman who presented this petition would be considered to have been fairly attained; and he presumed the hon. gentleman opposite would not feel himself called upon to take any further proceedings.
Mr. Humemaintained, that the complaint of the County Fire Office did not regard any matters of account between it and the government. What its members complained of was, that they had been charged with having systematically committed frauds upon the government. He must say that the commissioners had, in the course of their inquiry with regard to the County Fire Office, and more especially as it respected Mr. Sedgwick, been led away by some extraordinary influence, the nature of which he was at a loss to account for. Mr. Barber Beaumont had offered to prove that a conspiracy existed among the discharged clerks, upon whose evidence the commissioners had acted; but the commissioners did not think proper to enter into an examination of the alleged conspiracy. Now, he contended, that it was their duty to ascertain whether such a conspiracy existed. The agents of the County Fire Office were charged with having for eighteen years defrauded the public of 2,000 l. a year. Now, when three most honourable and impartial accountants had been appointed to examine their accounts, what was the result of their investigations? They found that the whole average amount of the sums claimed from the Stamp Office for fourteen years of that period, was only 16 l. a year, and for the rest of the period in question, only 28 l. So much for the charge of the office having defrauded the public of 2,000 l. a year! And he had not the least doubt, that the new accusatory matter introduced that night by the right hon. gentleman was as unfounded as this charge. The commissioners had accused Mr. Sedgwick of having connived at the returns made by the County officers, for a series of years; when it turned out that Mr. Sedgwick knew nothing of these returns until within the last two or three years. He had formerly known Mr. Sedgwick, though he had not seen him for some years; but he believed him to be an honourable and an ill-used man; and, looking to the manner in which he had been removed from his office, after the exertions he had made to support the public revenue, he could not help thinking that he had been sacrificed to some party pique. This was the opinion which he had formed after an impartial examination of the correspondence which had been published on this subject.
Colonel Daviesdefended the conduct
382
of the commissioners, and said he considered the removal of Mr. Sedgwick perfectly justifiable. He thought it too much, when gentlemen opposite had discharged their duty faithfully, that the only return they met with from the opposition side of the House should be indiscriminate censure.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, he thought it was not at all necessary for the House to consider the details of this question at the present moment. The petition was signed by one thousand seven hundred persons; and he trusted the time would shortly arrive when the House would institute an inquiry into the distinct charges made by the respectable individuals who signed it; but he thought the main question for the House to consider was, whether public commissioners, acting upon secret testimony and secret information, were justified in calumniating the character of a body of respectable individuals. Such conduct was contrary to the principles of Magna Charta; and though he was aware that it was the fashion for modern philosophers to laugh at the wisdom of our ancestors, he confessed, for his part, that he thought the few lines in Magna Charta which denounced such invasions of the constitutional rights of the subject worth all the real or pretended discoveries of those modern philosophers. The greatest injury that could be inflicted upon an Englishman was to deprive him of his vested inheritance of the laws of England; for lord Coke had truly said, that an Englishman had a vested right not only in his goods and lands, but in the laws, and in the preservation of his character and reputation. The petitioners had been deprived of the rights to which they were entitled by the laws and constitution of the country. A stain had been cast upon their character; they had been morally assassinated; and they wanted to know who were the assassins who had stabbed them in the dark. They wished those assassins to be brought before a tribunal, where their misconduct might be made as clear as the noon-day sun. The House, he trusted, would never consent to screen those calumniators from justice, and to deprive honourable men, whose characters had been aspersed, of all constitutional means of redress.
The Solicitor-Generalwished to bring back the House to the question immediately before them; for he could not help

383
thinking that much extraneous matter had been introduced. The only point for the consideration of the House was, whether these commissioners had or had not exceeded the fair and rational bounds prescribed to the exercise of their duty, by bringing against the County Fire Office charges utterly false and unfounded, and which admitted of an easy and instant confutation. The learned gentleman then entered into a short history of the transactions, and contended that, from the appearance which the affair presented, as well as from the reluctance manifested by the office to give information, there was quite sufficient in the evidence, to justify the views taken by the commissioners in their report. That report, he admitted, contained a great deal of bran amongst the flour; but, as men were called upon to pronounce upon what appeared before them in evidence, he did not think there was any man in the House who could have avoided coming to the same conclusion. He did not mean to say that opinion was right, or that a great commercial company like the County Fire Office could have thought it worth its while to have recourse to such paltry artifices for gains so small and contemptible. What he contended for was, that the commissioners, from the case presented to them, were bound to come to the conclusion expressed in their Report. Under these circumstances, and as the whole affair was in a course of investigation before a legal tribunal, he thought the wiser and better course would be to leave the parties to abide the event of that investigation.
Mr. Hobhouseobserved, that after the discussion which the case had already undergone, and after the very able address of his honourable colleague, he did not intend to trouble the House at any length in reply. Happy would it have been for the petitioners, if their case had been submitted to the examination of the learned gentleman who spoke last. The wise and temperate tone in which he had expressed himself showed that their case would have been safe in his hands; and that, if a little of his spirit had been infused into the report, the petitioners would not then have been before the House, either complaining of injury or praying for redress. The plain and simple fact, however, was, that the petitioners found themselves charged with a series of frauds and peculations, from which they had no means of
384
defending themselves. They contended, that the Exchequer would not nor could not produce the effect which they desired, and prayed the interference of the House. He had one observation to make with reference to what had fallen from an hon. colonel, upon the subject of the opposition side always opposing every proposition which came from the other side, merely because it was ministerial. Now, he begged to assure the hon. colonel, that that assertion was directly at variance with the course which had for some time been pursued. The sin of that part of the House for some time had been much more upon the side of praise than of blame. He believed, indeed, they had been, if any thing, much too hasty in bestowing their approbation upon the gentlemen opposite. But he must say, in the words of the Eton Grammar, that he was now "weary of such wedlock;" and determined to do so no more, without seeing well-established ground for praise. The hon. gentleman concluded by contending, that it was evident, even from the remark of the Solicitor-general, with respect to the bran amongst the flour, that much of the report might have been spared, and that it had gone a great deal too far in speaking of the case of the petitioners.
Ordered to lie on the table.

ARREST FOR DEBT UPON MESNE PROCESS.
Mr. Hume,in bringing under the notice of the House the subject of Arrest for Debt upon Mesne Process, observed, that, although he wished, by the bill which he was about to introduce, and which introduction he understood would not be opposed, to abolish altogether the right of arrest upon such process, yet he was willing to submit to whatever modifications or alterations the House might think fit to propose. The practice of arrest for debt was of modern origin. He believed, that in Magna Charta, there would be found a prohibition against such a vexatious remedy. The first particular notice of it which appeared on the Statute-book was to be found in the 11th and 12th of William and Mary, when it was enacted, that no process of that kind was to extend to Wales for a less sum than 20 l.; an act which he believed still continued to be the law of the land. If it was his object to extend the benefit of that statute to England, the House might probably be induced to think that the sum of 20 l. at that period,

385
might be well called equal to 50 or 60 l. at the present day; but his object was to prevent altogether the remedy of arrest for debt upon Mesne Process. By the 12th of Geo. 1st, arrests had been limited to a sum above 10 l., and afterwards extended by three separate acts to a sum under 15 l. These acts expired in 1823; and he was happy to hear the Solicitor-general's notice for their renewal. They had done great good; and their renewal would prevent the evils which had been accumulating to a great extent, since the expiration of the law. By the returns on the table, he saw that there were no less than eight hundred persons in confinement for sums under 20 l. The prisons, indeed, had been crowded with unfortunate debtors since the expiration of the act. His object was, to assimilate the practice of this country to that of Scotland, where the law of arresting upon mesne process was unknown, and where the whole number of imprisonments for debt, during the last year, amounted only to two hundred and eighteen. He was acquainted with an eminent solicitor in Edinburgh, who assured him, that, during an extensive practice of twenty-two years, he never had the necessity imposed upon him of arresting any individual for debt. If the house, on a late occasion, had consented to give him the committee he required, he would have undertaken to prove, that the most extensive misery was produced by the laws of arrest, and to have shown most clearly the practical advantages which would result from altering it, by assimilating the practice of this country to some others, where no such evils were felt. The first object he would propose in his bill, in the place of arrest for debt, would be to give a power of attaching the property of the debtor, and keeping it in custody until the demand was satisfied: or, in other words, to extend to every part of the kingdom, that well-known process of attachment which was so beneficially exercised in the city of London. The same practice existed in Scotland. When a creditor attaches the debtor's property, the debtor receives notice to answer; and if he fails to do so within a certain period, judgment is given, and a power over the person and property follows, until a payment takes place to the full extent of the debtor's means, and he is then relieved from his confinement, and sent forth in a condition to benefit his creditor and the country,
386
much more than if he was detained in confinement according to the practice of England.—The next point embraced by his bill related to the law upon bonds, promissory notes, and bills of exchange. By the law at present, the money due upon such a security cannot be recovered but by an action at law, and four or five months may elapse even then before the judgment is given in the creditor's favour. If the action is defended, the expense is never less than 40 or 50 l. If undefended, it amounts to 10 or 15 l.; the whole of which will be saved by the bill. In Scotland every bond or note contains in its wording a clause, which may be called equal to a warrant of attorney; and the moment that the acceptor fails in taking it up, notice is given of an intention to enter up judgment as upon any other warrant; so that the whole expense of the intermediate process is saved, and judgment may be at once entered up. Another important point to notice was, that in Scotland no arrest, or sale of goods could take place, without regular notice. In England, the sheriff was able to put an execution in force at once, and plunge a whole family in ruin in the space of twenty-four hours; while in Scotland, no sale or process of that description could take place without fifteen days notice. The advantage of such a protection in procuring a fair price for the property of the debtor, was too obvious to require comment. Another advantage to credit enjoyed in Scotland, was the wise precaution with which bills were discounted. Credit there was not given to any person, except he at least had a good appearance of being trustworthy. So carefully was this rule observed in Scotland by those who discounted bills, that he believed there was not more than 15s. lost on every thousand pounds discounted. To shew the extent of the evil of imprisonment by mesne process, he would state, that of one thousand eight hundred and twenty-one persons confined in the gaols of the metropolis, one thousand one hundred were imprisoned by mesne process; that was, without its being ascertained that they owed any debt at all. The law in this respect differed widely in Scotland and in England; and greatly to the disadvantage of England. In London, a man might retain his property, and defy his creditor, by going into the rules of the King's-bench. If he succeeded in abo-

387
lishing mesne process, there were other parts of the law respecting debtor and creditor in which he contemplated further reformation and improvement. The hon. member concluded by moving, for leave to bring in a bill, "for the better prevention of frivolous and vexatious arrests for debt upon mesne process; and for recovery of debts accruing on deeds, bonds, bills of exchange, and promissory notes."
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that the object of the motion of the hon. gentleman was, as he understood it, to substitute attachment, for arrest upon mesne process. That principle was certainly new in this country; and he begged leave to remind the hon. member, that in England there were many debtors whose property was not tangible by attachment, and that in most cases the attachment of property would be a task of considerable difficulty. He understood the hon. gentleman to wish that there should be introduced into bonds, promissory notes, and other securities of that description, an obligation upon the parties executing them, to submit to a verdict in case of non-payment within a stipulated period. If the object of the hon. member, by introducing. such an obligation, were to diminish the number of persons confined for debt, he thought that clause, instead of effecting the object, would accelerate the imprisonment of the debtor; whilst it would deprive him of the opportunity of shewing in a court of law that he was not liable to pay the money for which he had primâ facie, rendered himself liable. But, instead of opposing the introduction of the bill, he should content himself by saving, that when it should be introduced he would give it his most serious consideration.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.