Sitting of 26 February 1821

SCOTCH COURT OF ADMIRALTY—COMPENSATION TO CLERKS.
The Lord Advocate moved the order of the day for the further consideration of the report on the compensation to the clerks of the Admiralty court of Scotland.—On the motion that the resolution be read a second time,
Mr. Creeveysaid, he should move as an amendment, that it be read a second time this day six months. The resolution stated, "that it is expedient that compensation be made to the clerks of the Admiralty courts of Scotland for any loss they may sustain by any regulations that may be made in the said court." Such a proposition as this was what he conceived the House would never agree to. There were bills before the House by which fees in other courts were taken away and salaries given; but they differed materially from the abstract declaration of the present resolution—that compensation should be given if they happened to lose their fees. The only foundation for this measure was, the fourth report of the parliamentary commission of 1814. The only thing that was said in that report was this, that the chief clerk of the Admiralty judge of Scotland had emoluments amounting to 1,200 l. a-year, and that for thirty years he had done no work; that he had a clerk depute, who did the business, and who received, by emoluments of one kind and another, 400 l. a-year. The commissioners recommended that when a new chief clerk was appointed, a condition should be added, that he should do all the duty, and that he should have 600 l. a-year, and no clerk depute; and certain funds were pointed out, from which the 600 l. might be paid. What the present resolution had to do with that recommendation lie could not see; unless it was supposed that Scotland had taken the alarm at the abolition of one sinecure office.
The Lord-Advocateobserved, that in other courts of Scotland a practice had obtained of receiving great fees for suitors; for instance, it was common for a suitor to pay 200 l. for what was called an extract of the proceedings. By an act of parliament, that practice was abolished; but, by the same act, compensation was granted to the officers of the courts whose perquisites were pro-
940
portionably reduced. It was upon the same principle, that the present compensation was proposed; for, as the practice still prevailed of taking out what was called an extract in the Admiralty court, it was deemed material, to assimilate the practice of that court to that of the other courts in Scotland. This assimilation would reduce the fees in that court to a very inconsiderable sum. But, by that reduction, the clerk of the court who held a patent office under the Crown, would sustain a diminution in his receipts of 6 or 700 l. Upon what principle of equity, then, could this gentleman have so much perquisite taken from bin without compensation, especially as this privation of fees was to take place, not in consequence of any fault of his own, but in order to establish an arrangement for the public good? If the House should agree to the resolution, a bill would be founded upon it, and when that bill was brought forward, gentlemen might fully enter into the discussion of the proposal of compensation.
Mr. Creeveysaid, that from what had fallen from the learned lord, he would not persist in his motion, although he felt that no compensation ought to be granted in this case,
The resolution was agreed to.

CORN AVERAGES.
The House having resolved itself into a committee to which the Corn Averages acts were referred,
Mr. Robinsonsaid, that he thought he should best discharge his duty by confining himself to the immediate point to which the resolution with which he proposed to conclude would refer, without entering at all into the more important question as to our agricultural distress. With respect to the averages, as taken heretofore, it was known that a great deal of intricacy and confusion prevailed upon the subject of the laws relating to those averages. The laws alluded to were the acts of the 31st, 33d, 44th, and 45th of his late majesty. As to the latter, they had for some time been repealed in practical operation. Then with regard to the acts of 1791 and 1793, it was rather difficult, upon reference to the act of 1791, to ascertain what the state of the law really was. If the committee should agree to the resolution which he had to submit, it was his intention to propose a bill for embodying all the useful provisions of the existing law upon this subject. The

941
laws, at present, were extremely voluminous as well as confused, and it was his intention, in the bill which he proposed, to reduce the bulk, as well as to simplify the meaning of those laws. His bill would not, indeed, amount to more than one-third the extent of those laws. That bill would, however, comprehend hot only omissions but additions; the latter were founded principally upon the recommendation of the committee of last session, before which evidence had appeared to show the evils belonging to the present system. By that system, the average was taken in each of the twelve maritime districts, and from these, collectively, the general average was fixed. But, to form the average of each district, the average was previously taken in each town of that district—that is, the total of the corn sold in each town, as well as the total of the price paid for such corn, and the One divided by the other, constituted the average, and the same division as to the corn and the price in the aggregate of those towns, constituted the average of the district. Such also was the system by which, in dividing the total of the corn by the total of the prices in the twelve districts, the average of the kingdom was fixed. Thus the general average depended upon the average of each of the towns comprehended in each district, and hence it was clear, that the price of corn, in a particular town of any district, might have a very undue influence upon the general average. This influence was found, in some instances, to Operate very unjustly, where speculators had gone to particular towns to purchase corn on such terms as to produce a fictitious price. Such instances had, indeed, occurred, not unfrequently. Hence, it was perfectly evident, that the object Of the law as to averages was defeated; that object being to ascertain the general bona fide price Of this article. He proposed, therefore, to abolish the plan of taking the averages from the twelve maritime districts, and to substitute that of taking them from maritime counties and towns, to fix the general average from the aggregate of the corn sold in the whole, divided by the total of the price paid for it. The object of this arrangement was, to defeat such speculations as had been entered into within the last year for the purpose of unduly influencing the settlement of the average. Another alteration Which he meant to propose, and Which would
942
form an addition to the existing law, although it would produce no influence upon the averages was, to include the counties of Kent, Essex, and Sussex, among those from which the averages were to be taken. Hitherto the average prices were received from those counties, but not inserted among the general averages from the maritime districts, the average Of London alone being deemed sufficient for these counties. But Why these counties were omitted he could not comprehend, particularly as they Were so largely engaged in the Corn Trade The next addition which he had to propose referred to the power vested in the king and council for the appointment of those towns from which the averages were to be taken. By the existing law the king in council was empowered to transfer the taking of averages from one town to another, upon the representation of the magistrates at quarter-sessions. But he rather thought that the power of the king in council should be enlarged, and that his majesty should be authorised to omit one town without inserting another, as well as to insert any town which, with the advice of his Council, it might be deemed expedient to select, from increase of trade and population. Now as to the Omission; it Was proposed to omit altogether the taking of averages in the midland counties, and in Scotland; for those averages were not deemed material, as the averages in the maritime counties would form a natural criterion of the prices in those districts, the return of averages from which, heretofore, had never had any influence in fixing the general average. Besides, by this omission, a certain saving of expense would accrue to the public, through the abolition of the office of inspectors in such places But while some inspectors were to be removed, a somewhat better provision should be made for those inspectors who were to be retained; for heretofore an inspector was allowed only 13 l. a year. The advance of salary which he proposed, he meant to be paid from the public purse, and not from the county funds. He did not mean that in any instance it should exceed 30 l. a year. The committee were aware that at present every dealer in corn was bound to give information Within one month subsequently to the time at which he might begin to act Considerable inconvenience and much loss had been sustained by the circum-

943
stance of the dealer's not being bound to give such information till after the lapse of that period. Last year it happened that dealers in corn, or persons calling themselves dealers, went abroad from market to market, purchasing corn in large quantities, sometimes with money, and sometimes without any intention of payment; but always for the purpose of producing a fictitious price in the returns. There was then no way of finding these persons out. He therefore proposed to give that discretion, for the future, to the inspector, as should authorize him to require that the party making these returns should previously to so making them, have signed a declaration of the kind he had already alluded to. By the bill which he proposed to introduce, it was intended that the inspectors of corn returns should in future be in the appointment of the Board of Trade, and not in the Treasury, as heretofore. They would in future be incorporated as a distinct branch of the Board of Trade. It was also intended, that the Isle of Man should be included in the returns. By the former laws upon this subject, returns were received from that place, and he saw no reason why they should not at present; for it was very possible that large quantities of foreign corn might be imported into that island, and from thence into England. Another part of the bill would be the including Ireland in the returns. It was known that large quantities of corn were imported from that country, some of it of the best quality. By the spirit of the late acts, Ireland ought to have been included; but by a technical misconstruction of the word "British," at the Custom-house, Ireland had not been included in the returns. He would conclude with moving, "That it is expedient that the several acts, passed in the 31st, 33d, 44th, and 45th years of his late majesty's reign, for regulating the importation and exportation of corn, grain, meal, and flour, into and from Great Britain, be repealed, and other provisions made in lieu thereof, for the United Kingdom."
Mr. Calcraftsaid, he had looked upon the averages as settled by the late acts. The bill ought to be viewed with jealousy; and he would therefore watch it in every stage.
Mr. Baringcould not but express his regret that the right hon. gentleman had brought forward the subject at this particular period. It was calculated to cre-
944
ate considerable anxiety, as well among the agricultural classes as the consumers. Policy as well as justice should have prevented the agitation of this subject; seeing that the system of taking averages was understood to have been settled upon the discussion of the last Corn bill. He was the more surprised at the proposition, as it was an opinion pretty generally settled, that the import of foreign corn had nothing whatever to do with the distress of the country or that of its agriculture. The proposed bill, was calculated not only to create uneasiness among the consumers, but to inspire the growers with false hopes.
Mr. Irvingsaid, that if the public looked for any relief from the measure they would certainly be disappointed.
Mr. H. Sumnersaid, that the measure would, in his opinion, protect those who were now subjected to fraud.
Mr. F. Lewisdisapproved of joining the average amount of Irish corn to that of this country, because the Irish corn was of an inferior quality to the English.
Mr. Curwensaid, that the House was not aware of the injury which the country suffered by the frauds which had been practised in the mode of taking averages. He was sure that, within a very limited period, the country had lost at least a million by the frauds which had been committed. Large quantities of corn were imported from Denmark into the Isle of man, and from thence shipped off to England. The greatest injury resulted to the English farmer from the introduction of foreign grain.
Mr. Ricardoconceived that the effect of the measure would be to raise the importation price. An hon. member had spoken of the injury which an accumulation of foreign corn accasioned in the English market. That might be so; but the only remedy for this evil was, for this country to lower the prices of corn nearly to the standard of the prices of the continent. The only way to keep out foreign corn, was by putting high duties upon the importation of it. Now, suppose a year of scarcity had arrived, and that a high duty had been placed on the importation of foreign corn, would any minister at such a time of distress, attempt to enforce that duty—and shut out relief from a starving people? Impossible; and, therefore, the ports would be left open and free, and the immense importation which the hon. gentleman looked upon

945
as so great a misfortune, would take place. Much had been said as to a remedy for the distress of the agriculturist: he was of opinion, that the only remedy for that distress was the total repeal of the corn laws and, sooner or latter, a measure of that sort would be adopted.
Mr. Lockhartcould not see that any alteration in the mode of taking the averages would at all relieve the agricultural distress. The high state of the taxation, at a time when the value of the land was so depreciated, was the great cause of the evil. That evil was, no doubt, greatly increased by the measure which a right hon. member (Mr. Peel) had introduced into that House. If the system which that measure sought to establish was not departed from, the consequence must be absolute ruin and convulsion.
The resolution was agreed to, and a bill ordered to be brought in.

CAPITAL CRIMES DEFENCE BILL.
Mr. Martin, of Galway, said, that the motion he had to make was a proposition so self-evident, that he had equal difficulty in finding arguments in its favour and against it: it was so reasonable that merely to mention it was sufficient to procure it the strongest support. It was "for leave to bring in a bill to permit persons charged with capital crimes, to make their defence by counsel." The reverse was, in his view, so utterly inconsistent with the benignity of our criminal code; it was so completely unjust to refuse to a prisoner the advantage enjoyed by the Crown, that he would not attempt to argue it. Mr. Justice Blackstone had called it one of the anomalies of the English law, for which he was unable to account. He should move for leave to bring in the bill.
Mr. Lockhartsaid, that there were many solid objections to the measure, and dwelt particularly on the delays that might result in the administration of justice from a change of the existing system. At present, the court was counsel for the prisoner, and he was not aware that within the last century any disadvantage had resulted from the exclusion of prisoners accused of capital crimes from the use of counsel.
Mr. Martinmaintained that the court did not act as counsel for prisoners, but remained neutral. He referred to the case of Bellingham, where the court had refused to allow delay for the arrival of witnesses to prove insanity.
Mr. Nolancontended, that the case of Bellingham was directly against the hon. gentleman. Counsel had there, as in all similar instances, been allowed to make and support the application for delay. He hoped the House would make no alteration in the most humane system of jurisprudence that ever existed in any country of the world. The subject of the motion had engaged the attention of the bar. It was unquestionably one that might give rise to a diversity of opinion. But the result of the opinions which he had been able to collect, was, that the purposes of justice were best attained under the present system. There was seldom or never a case in which the judge did not act as counsel for the prisoner.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

LAW OF TREASON—IRELAND.
Lord Holland, pursuant to notice, presented a bill for extending to Ireland certain provisions of an act of William 3rd, relative to trials for Treason. His lordship observed, that great part of the provisions of the act alluded to, which were undoubtedly wise and humane, had already been extended to Ireland. There remained, however, two provisions which had not been so extended; namely, one requiring an act of treason to be proved by two credible witnesses, and the other enacting, that a prosecution for treason must take place within three years after the commission of the act of treason. The latter provision rested entirely upon this act; it never having been before a part of the law of England. With regard to the former enactment, the history of it was more complicated; by an act of Edward 6th it was declared that every act of treason must be proved by two I competent witnesses; but by an act of Philip and Mary all the acts respecting treason were repealed, and it was enacted that that offence should be tried according to the common law. The question then arose, whether, under the common law, it was necessary for an act of treason to be proved by two witnesses, and I it subsequently appeared, that all the judges, with the exception of lord Coke, were of opinion, that two witnesses were not required. This question, however, I was set at rest in 1695, so far as regarded England, by the act alluded to of William 3rd; and it having been decided by; the judges of Ireland, that the common law did not require two witnesses to prove an act of treason, he was anxious to assimilate the law upon this subject in Ireland to the law of England.
The Earl of Limerickreturned his warmest thanks to the noble lord for bringing forward his measure. It was most desirable that Ireland should be placed on the same footing with England in every respect. Nothing would tend so much to conciliate the people of Ireland as the conviction that the same law and the same rule applied to both countries.
The bill was read a first time.