Sitting of 22 June 1821

CONDUCT OF CHIEF BARON O'GRADY.
Mr. Spring Rice Mr. Spring Rice moved, that the House should resolve itself into a committee on the Ninth Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into Courts of Justice in Ireland; and the House having accordingly resolved itself into the said committee, the hon. member said, it was with extreme diffidence he came forward to bring before the committee a subject like that to which he now felt it his duty to call their attention, involving charges against an individual holding a high judicial situation in Ireland. He was aware, not only of the extreme importance of the subject, but of the peculiar difficulties which surrounded it; difficulties not to be undervalued by any member, but which, in his particular case, were augmented by a want of parliamentary experience and of legal information. He could only pretend to treat the subject as it might be discussed by a country gentleman uninitiated in the mysteries of the law; and if he did not think the merits of the case rested upon full and distinct grounds, independent of any legal subtleties, it would be great presumption in him

1261
to attempt to state it. There was also a difficulty connected with the subject to which he would advert for a moment,—he meant the nature of the charges which related to the illegal exaction of fees: charges against an individual for fees illegally taken, necessarily subdivided themselves into a number of minute cases, which apparently deprived the charges of that importance which ought to belong to a parliamentary subject. It was hardly possible but that all notions of dignity should fly before the mention of six and eight-pence—still, it ought to be recollected, that much of the emoluments of the judges of the land was derived from fees; and where an improper exaction appeared to have taken place, parliament ought, undoubtedly, to investigate the circumstance. He trusted that no gentleman would undervalue the importance of the present discussion, on account of the minuteness of the fees themselves, since, in the aggregate, they might amount to a very large sum; for even the golden globes of Dr. Price might be measured by fractions. The committee would also know how to distinguish between principle and detail; and he trusted that the apparent smallness of the one would not cause the real value of the other to be neglected. He was aware that, standing forward in the character of a public accuser, he was liable to great unpopularity and suspicion. Those disadvantages he was willing to meet, if, as a public accuser, they could attach to him, who did not ground his charges on the ex parte statement of any individual, who might have been swayed by passion or interest, but on the report of a high and grave tribunal, consisting of persons appointed by the ministers of the Crown, in compliance with a decision of the House, of Commons. He considered, therefore, that he stood on different ground from an ordinary accuser of public men. He was ready to admit that if jealousy and suspicion ought to be entertained towards any public accuser, such feelings ought most particularly to increase when the charge was made against one of the judges of the land; for if there was any one person who more than another was entitled to the presumption of innocence in his favour, it was a person filling a judicial office. In the case of an Irish judge all such jealousy and suspicion may allowably be augmented, and the judgment ought to be more strictly guarded. When an English judge is accused in par-
1262
liament, it may be said that he is attacked in his own camp, at his own head quarters; the learned gentlemen opposite would consider themselves his natural defenders, and would zealously undertake his cause; but an Irish judge, when accused here, stood in a far different situation. He is disengaged from those connections which protected the other, and is before a tribunal where he might be but little known, and therefore it became members to rouse all their sympathies in his defence. Experience had shown, in the case of judge Fox how improper it was to attack judges on light or frivolous grounds. In that instance, an attack of this kind was continued for two long years; and at the expiration of that time the charge was given up, without affording the individual a sufficient opportunity to clear himself from the imputation that had been cast upon him. If such were his principles, and such they truly were, the House must feel that he would not attempt to inculpate the character of a learned judge, by preferring vague and undefined charges. Nothing but a strong necessity and a sense of duty induced him to bring the subject forward, a sense of duty which he felt to be so imperative, that he should net offer any further excuse for obeying it.
He thought it hardly necessary to state, that with the private character of the chief baron O'Grady he had nothing to do. No doubt his private character was a very good one; the charges of the commissioners related to his public conduct. This distinction was laid down by the chief baron himself, in that part of his letter where he stated that "the character of a judge was not exclusively his own, but that it equally belonged to the king and to the people." His judicial conduct therefore became public property, and as such was properly a subject for parliamentary observation. But in the moral history of human nature, it was a melancholy consideration, that reputation, however exalted, and talents, however splendid, were not always pledges for purity of public conduct. The present case would, he apprehended, form a melancholy proof of the truth of this position; and if he were called upon to furnish a still more memorable example from the history of the past, he need only allude to the case of lord Bacon, a judge of the highest fame, a scholar of the most profound acquirement, a philosopher who had enlarged the bounds of science more

1263
than any individual who had lived before, or who has succeeded him. Yet this great man, who was acknowledged to be the wisest and brightest, was also recognized as the meanest of mankind. The charge against lord Bacon and under which he sunk, leaving behind him a most melancholy example of human frailty, was corruption. It was proved that as chancellor he had taken bribes which had influenced his judicial decisions. In the present case, no such charge was involved. It was doubtful, indeed, whether, in modern times, such a crime could be committed by a judge. In the progress of society the current of offences run into new channels, though perhaps the important consequences which flowed from them were not much altered. It was, perhaps, impossible that cases of such flagrant delinquency could be made out against a judge at the present day any more than a charge of corruption against a member of parliament for taking bribes for his vote in the lobby of the House. The state of civilization necessarily altered the external character of public offences, but the actual sum of those offences might nevertheless remain the same. Though no judge did, or indeed could accept bribes, yet evils of a nature almost as fatal might exist and increase, and the committee would see, by looking into the Report of the commissioners, that a system of extortion, by means of illegal fees, prevailed in the court of which he spoke, that must have seriously impeded the due administration of justice, even though it interfered with it by a different operation from that of a direct bribe. Before, however, he went into the Report, it would be necessary, for the clearer understanding of the subject, to take a short view of the establishment of courts of justice in Ireland. For a considerable time after the Irish people were first honoured by the notice of Henry 2nd, the laws of England, though introduced among them, seemed to be considered rather as a privilege for the few than as a benefit for the many. The English of the Pale, and the Irish were kept apart, and the latter were left in a state of slavery and oppression. Even the murder of an Irishman was scarcely considered an offence; and among the most ancient records the following, among many similar pleas, is to be found, "And the defendant comes in and confesseth, that he did slay the aforesaid John, but he denieth that thereby any felony could be committed; purus erat
1264
Hibernicus: he was a mere Irishman, and therefore his murder was not a felony. It was not till the reign of Elizabeth and James (with the exception of the government of Poynings in the reign of Henry 7th), that any real improvements took place in the Irish courts of justice, and when those reforms began, the genius of one of the individuals at whose suggestion they were undertaken, anticipated the very evils which have since occurred; the evils which form the ground-work of the present charges. In a letter still extant, written by lord Bacon to lord Burleigh, the following observation is applied to the courts of justice in Ireland: "It is not possible that the people of Ireland shall find any sweetness in justice, if it be formal and fetched from far, because it will require running up and down for process, and give occasion for polling and for exactions of fees, and many other delays and dangers." Such dangers have existed from those days to the present. Though sir John Davies had introduced many salutary reforms, yet lord Strafford, one of the ablest men who ever conducted the affairs of Ireland, found it necessary, in the reign of Charles 1st, to issue a commission to inquire into the fees then taken in the courts of justice. No return seems to have been made by these commissioners; but their labours could not have been very effectual; for in the 25th year of Charles 2nd a new commission was issued for a similar purpose, the recital of which was so curious and important, that lie must beg leave to read it to the committee. It was as follows: "His majesty has been informed that many complaints are made in his kingdom of Ireland against the exaction of officers there; he is sensible that the demand either of unreasonable or of undue fees is not only an increase of charge to his subjects, but is a dishonour to his justice; he therefore directs the issuing of a commission of inquiry, in order to regulate the fees which should thenceforth be reasonable, and to set down courses to avoid illegal exactions in future." Unfortunately, the return made by these commissioners is supposed to have been burnt in the fire which took place in the council office in 1711. In 1715 the same subject of fees was brought into discussion in the Irish House of Lords; a committee was then appointed, which reported to the House on the 16th July 1716, "that obliging all persons to bring in lists of their fees by a day certain, was the only way

1265
to prevent them from insisting on unreasonable and illegal fees to the oppression of his majesty's subjects." To carry this recommendation of the committee into effect, an act passed in the 4th George 1st, reciting, that 'whereas divers persons under pretence of demanding their ancient and accustomed fees, have insisted upon unreasonable and illegal fees to the oppression of his majesty's subjects." The statute proceeds to enact, that returns of all fees taken or demanded should be made to parliament, and a list of the fees so returned, was ordered to be printed in the year 1734, by the authority of the House of Lords. An address was subsequently moved, praying that a public inquiry H should be made, to reform the fees taken of the subject contrary to right, and to establish such as were legal." Hence it would appear, that the fees contained in the list of 1734 were considered to require revision and reform. When reference was made in the 9th Report to this list, he begged the committee to recollect, that it was conclusive evidence of the ancient usage, though by no means evidence of the legal right, and that every excess beyond that list was liable to the justest supicion. The House of Commons took up the same subject of inquiry in 1716, 1717, 1723, 1725, 1731, 1766, 1771 and 1772, but these proceedings were not very important.
He had stated these circumstances, not to give a colour to his case, for that would be uncandid and disingenuous; but for the purpose of explaining the character of the list of 1734, to the committee, and for the purpose of impressing on the minds of members the principle, that claims to fees by usage, should, in Ireland, be judged with peculiar strictness. He would now proceed to the immediate merits of the question; in 1814, the commission, whose ninth Report was then on the table, was first established. It was the right hon. baronet, member for Water-ford, who moved for that commission; he was strongly opposed by the right hon. gentleman opposite, and the object was with difficulty obtained, as the motion was carried only by a majority of one. For the benefits of that commission the country was, therefore, indebted to the right hon. baronet, and there was no part of the useful public life of that gentleman, pre-eminently useful as that public life had been, which he considered more worthy of admiration than the simple unostenta-
1266
tious triumph over the power of the Treasury Benches, by which he became the instrument of reform in all our courts of justice. This was a triumph which had produced more beneficial results to the Country than many to which party spirit gave more apparent glory. Yet, if he had been rightly informed, the opposition to his right hon. friend's motion rested upon grounds applicable to England and to Scotland, rather than upon any denial of the necessity of inquiry and reform in the Irish courts. When the motion was carried, and when the appointment of the commissioners had been extorted from the government, it was but justice to ministers to admit that they acted with perfect fairness, and that they had done all in their power to carry the wishes of parliament into the fullest effect. They appointed men of the highest character on the commission, and of the best qualifications; and no one could read the report, without being convinced that no commission had ever given greater proof of zeal, industry, and what was above all inflexible integrity. The documents now on the table of the House were every way worthy of the intention of the planner of the measure, and of the character of the excellent individuals to whom its execution had been entrusted.
He should now proceed to the consideration of the 9th Report itself, and of the charges it contained against the chief baron; and in doing so, in order to avoid any possible mistake or exaggeration, he would refer to that document itself page by page. He requested that no rule of order might prevent hon. members from setting him right if he overstated the argument in any particular. The chief baron of Ireland, Mr. O'Grady, was appointed in the year 1805, at a salary of 3,500 l., and with the lawful fees incidental to his office. The fees he had received are stated in the Report to have amounted to 3,138 l. 12 s. 6d., giving the learned lord a gross annual income of 6,638 l. 12 s. 6d. The commissioners had made this calculation on an average of three years, ending in 1814. It would be important to notice the classification of fees, in the 11th page of the Report, by which it appeared, that the total number of fees claimed by the,; barons was 96. Of this number 13 were taken at the same rate as in the book of returns of 1734, 38 at increased rates, 2 at diminished rates; 24 had ceased; 19 were without precedent in the list of 1734.

1267
Thus there were five classes, out of which those were to be thrown which were taken at the same rate as in 1734; and it ought to be observed, that while two only had diminished, 38 had increased; with respect to the 24 which had ceased, many of them were for services no longer performed, and therefore could not be charged, and others for practices almost disused, and little likely to occur. As to the fees which had increased, they were of considerable amount, and most of them upon services of frequent occurrence. He did not mean to go through the whole of the Report, but should only touch upon those salient points which were most clearly distinguishable, and which would be sufficient to support the Resolutions he intended to submit to the Committee. He therefore meant to confine himself to two classes of offences; the one the violation of the positive law of the land; the other, such undue augmentation of fees, as had had the effect of creating fees upon duties which could never have been performed, and double fees for one act; the effect of the whole system being to augment considerably, and by illegitimate means, the official income of the chief baron. He would now proceed by what he thought the plainest mode, which was, to read severally the Resolutions which he intended to move, as each would come in his statement, and thus to show how they were grounded on particular passages of the Report. The first item of increase was that of the fees on the swearing into the office of sheriff. The statute of 12 Geo. 1st, cap. 4, for regulating the office of sheriff, after providing that certain fees in the schedule annexed might be taken by different officers, provided that a fee of 15 s. 10 d. should be paid to the chief baron and his clerk for taking the recognizance, and a fee of 2s. 6d. to the chief remembrancer for entering the recognizance; and also provided that the officers, clerk, & c. should not demand or receive any greater fees whatsoever, touching any matter relating to the patent or swearing in of the sheriff, and annexed a penalty to be recovered against the person offending: notwithstanding which, the fees now demanded by the court of Exchequer on the swearing in of every sheriff of a county amounted to 6l. 10 s. 11 d. [Hear, hear!], which exceeded the legal fees, namely, 18 s. 4d. by 5l. 12 s. 7d. of which the chief baron received 2l. 11 s. 11 d. his clerk or registrar, 2l. 16 s. 3d. and
1268
the chief remembrancer, 1l. 2s. 9d. He intended, therefore, to propose a Resolution relative to this item, to the effect, that notwithstanding the provisions in the act of Geo. 1st, cap. 4, the fees now demanded in the Exchequer for swearing in the sheriff of a county, exceeding by 5l. 12 s. 7d. the total amount to which they were limited by the statute, namely, 18 s. 4d. He must, however, in candour state, that if the fee was illegal, as he had no doubt it was, yet it was the fee taken by the predecessor of the present chief baron [Hear, hear!]. But this could not be any argument at all, unless the fee was one of usage or doubtful, in either of which cases the conduct of the predecessor might be an excuse; but where the fee was expressly limited by statute, then the usage of the predecessor could not justify the present chief baron, as he was bound to take notice of the act, and to abide by its provisions only [Hear, hear!] And, indeed, the learned lord himself did by his letter upon the table seem to recognise that principle, for he did not rest his defence upon the conduct of his predecessor, but said, the sub-sheriff was not contemplated by the statute aforementioned. Now, it appeared to him (Mr. R.) very extraordinary, if the legislators by whom the act of the 12th Geo. 1st was drawn up, had been so improvident as to allow the sheriff to be plundered in the name of his deputy, while they pretended to protect him in his own character; but the fact and the law were against the chief baron, as the statute expressly mentioned the sub-sheriff [Hear, hear!]:—besides, that was a remedial statute, relieving the subject by fixing the fee at 15 s. 10 d. and there was no just ground why it should be expanded to the sum at present claimed. Another way in which the chief baron attempted to account for the charge was, on the ground of the documents being prepared by the clerk, who was his brother, but this pretext could not be borne out by the act of parliament, it had no foundation whatever, as the statute gave specific fees where it was the intention of the legislature that payment should be received for the preparation of documents. The chief baron also stated, that an ancient Chancery fee of 1l. had been transferred by arrangement between the Courts to the Exchequer. But a claim of such a fee could not have been legal, as the arrangement between the courts, must still have been made subject to the 12 Geo.

1269
1st, which prohibited any increase of fees upon any matter or thing relating to the shrievalty. On the subject of the increase of chamber practice, as that seemed in some degree discretionary with the judge, and optional to the suitor, it was not his intention to enlarge upon it farther than to state, that it had increased very greatly under the auspices of the present chief baron, and had added proportionally to his profits. But he must be allowed to make one observation which applied to a particular part of this subject, and which rested on distinct grounds. By the 23 & 24 Geo. 3, c. 22, the chief baron is authorized to make orders for drawing money out of bank when the Court is not sitting; but under the authority of the present chief baron these orders are now heard in chamber at times when the Court is sitting, and thus this breach of chamber practice is augmented, contrary to the intention, if not to the words of an act of parliament.
His next Resolution related to fees on the signature of writs. The commissioners stated, that for the supposed signature of a description of writs, never accustomed to be signed by the late chief baron, lord Avonmore, a fee is now charged, unwarranted by the list of 1734. They farther state that these writs though charged for as being signed, are not in fact authenticated by the chief baron's signature, and thus a fee is charged for an ideal duty. The learned judge's defence is, that he conceives the chancellor of the exchequer is bound by his oath not to seal any writs but such as are authenticated by the chief baron's signature. It is surely kind in the judge thus to step in to protect the chancellor of the exchequer from all the consequences of official perjury! But if his feelings for the conscience of the chancellor of the exchequer were so tremblingly alive, he might have protected that right hon. gentleman by the signature of the writ without the exaction of a fee. There appears no necessary connexion between the fee of the judge and the conscience of the chancellor. But having assumed the office of conscience-keeper to the right hon. gentleman, the chief baron slumbers at his post, for though he receives the fee, he does not sign the writ, thus doing what he ought not, and neglecting that which he states ought to be performed.
The next charge to which he would draw the attention of the House was, that of decrees in the Exchequer. By the list
1270
of 1734, it had been fixed that the fees on account of decrees, should be 6s. 8d. for perusing and signing a decree, and 6s. 8d. for an exemplification of a decree; but since 1808 the chief baron had directed that the first fee should be paid on setting down the cause for hearing, and thus he had transferred the fee from a later stage of the proceedings to an earlier one: and not satisfied with this, had made a double charge, by demanding the fee of 6s. 8d. if the cause came to the perusing and signing of the decree. Now the Report fairly stated, that the transfer of a fee from a later to an earlier stage of the proceedings was in principle objectionable, because in many instances the proceedings might never reach that stage in which the fee would be properly payable; and it appeared that in three years there had been 132 causes, in which fees had been paid for perusing and signing the decrees, although such decrees never had any existence [Hear!]. He would endeavour to illustrate this subject in a way that might render it more intelligible to the House. Supposing a fee were chargeable on the third reading of every bill in that House, what would be thought of the conduct of the clerk who should change the stage in which that fee was imposed, and charge it before the bill went into a committee? As many bills, although they went through committees, did not reach a third reading, would not such a proceeding be deemed extremely indefensible? The answer of the chief baron to this point was rather epigrammatic in its reasoning. The chief baron said, that the commissioners, in coming to the conclusion, that a copy of a decree was not an exemplification, were right, but that when they came to the conclusion, that an exemplification was not a copy, they were wrong. Now, what he (Mr. Rice) contended was, that an exemplification was a different thing from a copy of a decree; it was different in a legal sense, for its weight in evidence was totally different: it was different to the eye, for it had a seal; it was different as it regarded the revenue, for the stamp on an exemplification was 15 s., while that on a copy was only 2s. It was utterly indefensible, therefore, to apply to the copy, which was frequently taken out, the fee that was applicable by law only to the exemplification, which was seldom completed.
The third of the criminatory Resolutions which he had undertaken to submit

1271
to the House, was founded oh a passage in the 14th page of the Report of the commissioners. It was to the following effect:—"That it appeared from the Report of the said commissioners, that the chief baron had caused certain fees, which it was the usage of the officers of the court to pay him in Irish currency, to be paid to him in British currency, thereby augmenting the amount of these fees eight and a half per cent." The justification of the chief baron on this point was extraordinary; first he said, that it had been the usage of the officers of the court to charge the various fees to the suitors in British currency. Now, if any hon. members found that their stewards made an unfair charge on their tenants, it would be a good reason for their interference in favour of the tenants, but it would be no reason for such an interference as that of the chief baron, the object of which was to augment his own emolument. Another part of the chief baron's justification was, that the chancellor of the exchequer received the fees of his offices in British currency, and accounted for them in Irish currency; and that the difference constituted the profits of the office. If that right hon. gentleman were present, and would say that he felt himself authorized to write over to his agent to remit the amount of that difference to his private banker, he (Mr. Rice) would give up his case. He was sure the right hon. gentleman was too much a man of honour to do any such thing. But the chief baron's defence is, in the present instance, not only insufficient, but it is incorrect. By a return most providentially obtained from the chief remembrancer's office, it appears that a change in his department took place in the year 1808, at which time the chief baron directed his fees to be received in English currency. What then becomes of the chief baron's defence? It is as inaccurate in fact, as it is inconclusive in law and in common sense.
The next Resolution which he should propose, was founded on a passage in the 15th page of the Report, and would be as follows:—"That it appears by the Report, that in the time of the present chief baron's predecessor, it was not the usage to charge a fee as for the chief baron at the law side, on any bill of costs, except such as accompanied executions on final judgment; but that under the claim and direction of the present chief baron, a fee was charged for his lordship on all taxa-
1272
tions of costs, with the exception of costs of non pros, where no executions issue."— This the chief baron denied. All that he (Mr. Rice) would say, was, that every one of his Resolutions was founded on the report of the commissioners; and that therefore the subject was entitled to such an inquiry as to show which party was to be believed. His next resolution would relate to the increase of fees on affidavits and answers to interrogatories, as described in page 13 of the Report. It would run thus: "That it appears by the Report of the commissioners, that upon the suggestion of the chief baron, an additional fee was charged on affidavits and answers, which was claimed in right of the lord chief baron's register (or clerk), and the chief crier of the court; but which was paid over to the lord chief baron under an arrangement as to the appropriation, which appears from his lordship's return to have been agreed upon with his brother, Mr. Carew O'Grady, who holds those offices Under his lordship's nomination." The chief baron denied that this was a new fee, and declared it was an ancient fee reestablished. Here the chief baron and the commissioners were at issue; and it was for a third party to pronounce between them. If, however, any inference were to be drawn from the evidence on the subject, that inference would be unfavourable to the chief baron. He begged to remind the committee that these fees were received by the usher, on account of the crier, and paid over to the chief baron. Now, it so happened, that no one of these chose to make a return of these particular fees. The usher did not do so because they were received for the crier. The crier did not do so, because they were paid to the chief baron. The chief baron did not do so because they were appropriated to the use of his indigent relations. This circumstance could not but appear a suspicious one. As to the produce of the fee being appropriated to the chief baron's brother, that was, to all intents and purposes (however honourable it was to provide for a friend or relation), a payment to himself. The chief baron's distinction between payments to his family, and payments to his immediate family, was one of that subtle and met a-physical nature, that be (Mr. Rice) could not pretend to understand it.
He had now got through the Resolutions respecting the increase of fees in doing which he had selected only the most

1273
prominent features of the Report. If any doubt could remain on the subject, he considered the observations made by the chief baron himself as affording a very strong corroboration of the statements of the commissioners. The suggestion of an unfounded or of an evasive reason must be always considered good evidence of a want of any legitimate defence. On the subject of the increase of the fees, the chief baron stated, that by the operation of the Act of the 43rd, of George 3rd, his emoluments had been greatly diminished, and his situation, with relation to the other judges, materially deteriorated. Now it appeared that the annual emoluments of the chief justice of the court of King's Bench (a man whom lie could not mention without paying that homage to his upright and excellent character which it was the delight, as it was the duty of every one who knew the character of chief justice Downes to express) were5,223 l.; the annual emoluments of the chief justice of the Common pleas, 5,631 l. and the annual emoluments of the chief baron of the Exchequer (deteriorated as chief baron O'Grady had stated them to be), 6,672 l., giving to the chief baron an income of 1,449 l. above the chief justice of the King's-Bench, and of 1,041 l. above the chief justice of the Common Pleas. Again, in justification of the increase of chamber practice, the chief baron stated that he did not believe any material difference to exist between the expense of such proceedings in the Exchequer and in the court of Chancery, whilst, in fact, the expence in the former court was above one-third greater than in the former. In another part of his letter he will be found to seek a justification in the usages of the court of King's Bench, whilst the practice sought to be justified takes place in the Exchequer at all times, and exceeds by a considerable sum the costs incurred in the King's Bench.
He was apprehensive that he was trespassing on the time of the committee, but there were two or three other points on which he wished to touch. All the former reports of the commissioners had been referred to the courts to which they related. The report on the courts of Equity was sent for the observations of the lord chancellor and the master of the Rolls; the report on the court of King's Bench for the observations of the judges of that court. He presumed that this ninth Report of the commissioners had, in like manner, been sent to the court of Exchequer: but
1274
here was the only instance in which the court was silent. They had the observations, indeed, of the chief barons, but the three other barons were mute; a circumstance which appeared to him to be extraordinary. It was here necessary to ad vert to a most extraordinary circumstance: one which he ventured to state because it came to his knowledge from the most unquestionable authority; one which he was ready to prove at the bar of the House, if it were necessary. It involved the privileges of the House, and it charged the chief baron with an offence which deprived the returns laid on the table of the House of all weight and authority. He (Mr. Rice) had moved for certain accounts relating to the court of Exchequer; these papers had been prepared by the proper officer; but as soon as the chief baron obtained any knowledge of their contents, he suggested that they should be altered and modified to suit his own purposes. If such had been his conduct, it struck at the very root of all confidence in the returns he brought forward, and under any other circumstances than the present, would form a proper foundation for a specific charge.
He next begged leave to call the especial attention of the committee to one assertion in the chief baron's letter. In the opening of that letter the chief baron stated, that as all judicial fees were now abolished, by an act which had passed the House of Commons, the public could derive no benefit from any minute investigation of the subject. If he (Mr. Rice) had believed that the only character which his propositions could bear was retrospective or vindictive, he would never have made them; on the contrary, he believed that character to be prospective. Undoubtedly, the vulgar consideration of the compensation of 1,500 l. a year, which was to be paid to the chief baron for his fees, was one which, in these times, was not immaterial. But he would not for ten times that sum have attempted to fix any delinquency on an Irish judge, were he not sensible of the fatal consequences which might follow from proclaiming to the world, that when a case had been made out by commissioners appointed by parliament to inquire into alleged abuses, the House of Commons sheltered and screened those to whom those abuses were ascribed. We were about to send a commission to Ireland, to inquire into abuses of another kind. The gentlemen of whom

1275
that commission was composed, possessed the fullest confidence of the authority from which the commission emanated; and he was satisfied they were as resolved as they were competent to do their duty. But what would become of the prospect of any benefit from that inquiry, if the report of a commission on another subject (and a subject of much greater importance; for surely the due administration of the law was more important than the just collection of the revenue) were utterly neglected by the House? were the House prepared to admit that in matters of finance only they were attentive and vigilant? Was the administration of justice in one of the supreme courts of the empire of less importance than the duties on spirits and tobacco? Was the characters of the judges of less importance than the collectors of the excise, and was the imposition of new taxes all that Ireland was to know of the superintending power of the imperial legislature? If no steps were to be taken on the reports of commissions thus appointed, the trouble and expense, the farce of appointing them might be saved. The legislature had recognised the former reports of this commission, and had passed acts founded on them. Why should they shrink from and disavow the present report? They had reformed courts of law by statutes founded on these reports. Besides, if a judge presiding in one of the supreme courts had violated the ancient laws of the land, what security had the House and the public for the observance of the statutes lately enacted? What security was there for the authority of future legislation? Two very important instances had occurred in very modern times in which the extortion of fees in courts of justice had been visited by the severest punishment. A committee of the House of Commons was appointed for the consideration of the laws affecting insolvent debtors. A noble lord, the member for Northamptonshire had done himself the greatest honor, and had conferred the greatest benefits upon his country, by the ability and attention which he had devoted to that most important inquiry. During the progress of the investigation it appeared that the chief judge of the Insolvent Debtors court had exacted fees unsanctioned by law. That judge was not continued in his office; the court in which abuses had grown up was freed from the stigma which his continuance in office would have cast upon it. Surely the House will show as high a regard for the charac-
1276
ter of the Court of Exchequer of Ireland as they did for the reputation of the court of Insolvent Debtors in this metropolis. The next case to which he should refer was still more important, as well as still more strictly applicable; it was one too from the authority of which the chief baron could not appeal, as it had been decided by himself. In their second Report, the commissioners of inquiry adverted to the law side of the Court of Exchequer, and charged an officer of that court, of the name of Pollock, who stood very high in every other respect, with an unwarrantable augmentation of the fees of his office. On the suggestion of the chief baron, the attorney-general extracted charges from the Report of the commissioners to found a proceeding against Mr. Pollock. The defence was, that the practice complained of had been sanctioned by long usage, had been acquiesced in by all parties, and had, in many instances, originated in the time of Mr. Pollock's predecessor in office. The chief baron, however, very properly dismissed that gentleman from his situation, and the chief justice of Ireland even felt it his duty to remove him from another office which he also held. The day after Mr. Pollock's dismissal, the vacancy created by that act was filled by the appointment of the chief baron's brother. Now the charges against Mr. Pollock were exceedingly like the charges against the chief baron himself.
Having made these statements, it would be better, perhaps, if he were to sit down, and say nothing as to the course which he thought ought to be pursued, if the facts were established. It was evident that if the facts were established, something must be done. The statement of the mere facts he felt to be within the reach of his powers; but to say what should be done, required more experience and deliberation than he possessed. At the same time he was free to confess, that he had formed his own opinion, which, if it were actually incumbent upon him to declare, he could have no hesitation in. declaring. Indeed he could not have felt himself justifiable in bringing forward these charges at all, if he had not been fully prepared to follow them up to a practical result. He much wished, however, that such a step might be taken by some member whose abilities and experience were far different from his own. Assuming, then, that a case of delinquency was made out, it was clear that some inquiry must be set on foot; it was clear that matters

1277
could not rest where they were. It was impossible, indeed, that this conviction could be expressed more strongly or better than it was expressed by the chief baron himself in his letter to Mr. Gregory. He there admits that the question must be brought to issue, for he states that, "although there may be a degree of depravity which corrects itself by the removal of a judge, yet that he deprecated that middle course which tarnishes his honour, and yet leaves him to linger in the seat of justice too bad to be trusted, and yet not bad enough to be removed." In justice therefore either to the public or to the judge himself, a full, a fair, and an immediate inquiry became necessary, and could not be resisted. There was much in the chief baron's letter which did not seem to him (Mr. Rice) very applicable to the subject before the committee: for instance, it was difficult to trace a connexion between the 9th Report, and the Impounding act. If, however, that act, or the proceedings on which it was founded, did afford the chief baron any palliation or excuse, he saw in his place the learned member for Barnstaple, who had been counsel for the chief baron in the House of Peers, in the contest between the Crown and the chief baron, and he could probably explain the matter to the House. The hon. gentleman then thanked the House for the patience with which they had listened to him, and read his first resolution, and subsequently, at the request of the marquis of Londonderry, the whole of the resolutions which it was his intention to propose.
Captain O'Gradysaid, he rose for the purpose of opposing the resolutions. He should, under any circumstances, feel considerable embarrassment in addressing the committee; but under the present circumstances, he hoped the House would grant him that indulgence which the peculiarity of his situation required. Before he proceeded further, he must say that he could not accept the compliments paid to the talents and abilities of the chief baron at the expense of his integrity and honour. What availed it, that a man was complimented on possessing great talents, when it was said in the same breath, that those talents were exerted in exacting, nay, extorting the most insignificant sums in his office? He was sure that the Report of the commissioners was made with the best possible intention. But admitting that, he denied that any legal proceeding could be ground-
1278
ed upon it. In the case of Mr. Pollock, alluded to by the hon. member, it was held that he could not be proceeded against upon the documents of the commissioners, as that would be making the party criminate himself by the evidence extorted from him. The court, however, stated, that it was open to the attorney-general to proceed against Mr. Pollock upon all the charges contained in those documents, which were capable of being substantiated by proof. He was so proceeded against in this way, and was deprived of his situation. There was another case of a similar nature to which the hon. member might have referred; he meant the case of sir J. Galbraith, an officer of the courts. Proceedings were about to be instituted against that gentleman, upon the Report of the commissioners; but the twelve judges decided such proceeding to be illegal. They stated, however, that if ground of charge existed, the individual might be proceeded against in the manner which he had described. Sir J. Galbraith was so proceeded against, and no charge existing against him, he was acquitted. He had great respect for the commissioners, but he thought he had already said enough to show that they were not infallible. The chief baron had stated, and truly, that a bill having been introduced, for the purpose of substituting salaries for fees, he could not see what advantage could be derived to the public from a retrospective view of this question. He should, however, be sorry to ground his argument upon this view of the question. The chief baron was, by his patent, entitled to receive all the fees received by his predecessor, or which being paid to the officers, had not been received by his predecessor; for in fact, the predecessor of the present chief baron was excessively remiss on the subject of fees. He thought it rather singular, that the hon. member, in bringing this report before the House, should have totally omitted the reports on the other courts. He could not help thinking that there must have been some little bias in this proceeding; seeing that those practices which were passed over as harmless in the Courts of King's-Bench and Common Pleas, were pointed out as most heinous in the Court of Exchequer. He agreed with the hon. member, that upon a subject like this it was impossible to hold a middle course, and hi the name of the chief baron he disclaimed

1279
any such wish. With respect to the case of the sheriffs, the hon. member contended that the sub-sheriff was appointed by the act. This the chief baron denied. He contended that the sub-sheriff was never within the meaning of the act. The decision of the court corroborated the chief baron in this. But if it was an error, it was one of forty years standing. The chief baron, in so construing the law, acted upon the grounds laid down by his predecessor; and therefore there was on this head no ground of charge against him. The hon. member, in alluding to the chief baron's clerks, had not stated what the duty of those clerks was. It was their duty to make up all the papers in the sheriff's office; and for this they were paid in the same manner as if they had been employed in other offices. He was sure the committee would agree with him in thinking it futile to place such a charge at the head of a number of accusations, upon which a bill of Impeachment was to be founded. Alluding to the fees for writs, he contended that those fees were never intended as a quantum meruit; they were the regularly established fees of the office. In the Secondaries'-office, the chief baron received no fee which was not also paid to the chancellor of the Exchequer, and to which he was not, according to established usage, fully entitled. Next came the copies of bills, which were paid for as exemplifications were in the Court of Chancery. This was made a crime in the chief baron; but it was no crime in the Court of Chancery. The hon. member, as well as other gentlemen, had these facts with respect to the Court of Chancery before them for years without even alluding to them; but the moment a similar practice was found to exist in the Court of Exchequer, it was declared to be a high crime. With respect to the charge made against the chief baron of having received fees upon a number of causes which had never been entered, the chief baron had not gained any thing by the new regulation alluded to, but would have lost considerably, had not that regulation been made. The hon. member proceeded to answer the other charges against the chief baron, and in conclusion, thanked the committee for the attention with which he had been heard. He felt himself bound to stand forward on that occasion; and if his arguments had net been sufficiently strong, it was owing, not to
1280
the deficiency of matter, but to the inability of the advocate. He had been defending that honour and character which might one day descend to him, and which, if it did, he should consider his proudest inheritance.—The hon. member sat down, evidently much affected, amidst the cheers of the House.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that the hon. mover had laid his view of the case before the committee in a very distinct and fair manner; and the hon. member who had last addressed the committee, with feelings which did him great honour, had applied himself to the statement of the case with an anxiety to give all the information which could be given on the subject. But he would state to the committee the great doubt he felt whether they were in a situation to form any distinct opinion respecting the case; whether they were satisfied that there was ground enough to ascertain the course to be taken in the prosecution of their purpose; whether there were facts to designate, define, and describe the nature of the charge, and the proper course of inquiry. With his impression of the subject, and with such legal understanding as he possessed, the facts did not appear to be sufficiently investigated to satisfy the House that all the evidence was before them which would be necessary to justify an ulterior proceeding. He did not see at present how parliament could be delivered of the question in a manner suited to their wisdom, and to the dignified station of the individual implicated. It was impossible to dispose of the question either affirmatively or negatively. Under these circumstances, it occurred to him, that the best mode would be for the chairman to report progress, and that members should take advantage of the interval to consider of the course to be adopted.
Mr. S. Ricesaid, he acceded willingly to the proposition of the noble lord.
Mr. Abercrombyconcurred with the hon. mover, who had done his duty in a manner that reflected great honour on him.
The Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Tuesday.

AUSTRIAN LOAN.
Mr. R. Smithrose to move for the production of a paper alluded to in the despatch which had been sent from Vienna to this country by lord Stewart, on the 5th of Feb. 1818. This despatch contained the, rea-

1281
soning of prince Metternich and count Stadion, in opposition to the payment of the debt due by Austria to this country, His object was, to show that the English government, by its acts in 1795 and 1797, Considered the advances of money made by this country to Austria to be in the nature of debts, and not of subsidies. Mr. Pitt said that the loans had been solemnly acknowledged by Austria in the face of Europe, and that she never could violate the conditions which she had entered into, without the destruction of her credit. Mr. Pitt also observed, that Austria, beyond any other nation, was bound to be exact in her pecuniary engagements; because, from the nature of her financial system, she was compelled to have recourse to loans. From the correspondence which had been published between lords Grenville and Henley, it was evident that the former noble lord considered the money advanced by this country to Austria was advanced, not as subsidies, but as loans; and that the debt had never been discharged. He had also the authority of the noble marquis himself, to prove that government regarded the claim on the part of this country against Austria as still in existence. In point of fact, the people of this country were not only suffering the loss of 21 millions and a half, but were also paying the interest on the money. Now, when the emperor of Austria contracted the debt with this country, he pledged himself that the finances of England should never be burthened with paying the interest of the loan. Every article of the conventions which had
been agreed upon at Vienna in 1795 and 1797 had been violated by the Austrian government. When our government, in 1818, applied to Austria for some ship-timber to be taken in liquidation of part of the debt, the Austrian government not only refused to let us have the timber, but denied the existence of the debt altogether. Under these circumstances, he thought that ministers, instead of opposing the motion, ought, in the present situation of our finances, to be willing to afford every possible information. No country had lost more by the war than England; while on the other hand, none had benefited more by the same circumstance than Austria. Her present resources were almost incalculable. Her government had lately declared, that it had not only been enabled to pay oft' its old debt, but a large part of
1282
its new debt also. The emperor of Austria possessed a larger revenue than any other sovereign in Europe. He was so abundantly supplied with money, that he had been able to make war upon Naples, and had now made a tender of his services to the king of Sardinia. When we saw the emperor enjoying these advantages, did it not become the duty of our government to inquire on what ground he refused to pay the debt which he owed to this country? There was nothing of a political character attached to this subject. It embraced no question of diplomacy, but was merely the assertion of a just demand on the part of England.
The Marquis of Londonderryadmitted, that if government was inclined to compromise the affair with Austria, there might be some ground for the interference of the House. But that was not the case. He should certainly be deceiving the House if he were to represent the debt due 'by Austria as good as assets to the same amount in the hands of this government. It was true that the money advanced to Austria was advanced in the shape of loans; but in consequence of the struggles in which she had been engaged since the loans were advanced, that power had not hitherto been considered capable of satisfying the claims of this country. Every administration which had existed in this country since, had been of opinion that Austria was unable to pay her debts; although he could prove, if he were not unwilling to trespass on the time of the House, that she had wished to do so. He certainly thought that Austria would stand ill in the eyes of the world, if she denied the debt, until she received a quietus from this country. But he was of opinion that it would only prejudice the interests of this country when the period should arrive for an arrangement with Austria, if the House were now to interfere.
Mr. Warreobserved, that as matters now stood, even a compromise seemed hopeless, as Austria refused all recognition of the loan: no man could draw any other conclusion from the papers, than that the faith of Austria was not to be depended on.
The Hon. J. W. Wardsaid, that the hon. mover was entitled to the thanks of the country, for agitating this question. A vast sum of money was owing to us from a foreign state. In the present embarrassed state of our finances, when re-

1283
trenchment on the one hand and taxation on the other had been carried to their utmost limits, it was the duty of the House to inquire what chance we had of recovering it. A small part of such an enormous debt, if repaid, would afford considerable relief, and still greater satisfaction to the people of England. He could not, however, press for the production of the dispatch to which he referred. The noble secretary of state had assured them that it would be prejudicial to the progress of the negociation; and he could easily conceive in what manner. Suppose, for instance, the Austrian government to have insisted upon certain principles, from which there might be still some hope that they might recede, how much more difficult that retractation would be rendered after they had been published in the face of all Europe. He felt it difficult to understand on what points the negociation could turn. If Austria denied the obligation, never was there a more scandalous breach of faith. If she stood upon the plea of inability, the question no doubt assumed a different aspect. The finances of all despotic governments, more especially those of Austria, were enveloped in an obscurity which no eye could penetrate. The grand principles by which they seemed to be governed were concealment and irresponsibility. But though the nature of the case did not admit of complete proof, there were circumstances that made one suspect that Austria was by no means so little able to discharge her obligations as she would pretend; not, indeed, to pay so vast a sum in one year, or in two, or in three; but to put it in a train of gradual liquidation. Austria was a country of great natural resources, which were continually rising up, in spite of that ancient and. venerable system of mal-administration that was so dear to the princes and statesmen of the imperial House. It was true, that during the early part of the struggle with France, her efforts had been very great; but it was equally true, that for some years before the fall of Napoleon, she had enjoyed complete repose under the shadow of his protection— years, to us, of the heaviest expense, and most exhausting exertion. The two last wars in which she had been engaged were but short; and at the peace, by which England gained immense glory, but was content to forego selfish objects, the emperor, who had gained no glory at
1284
all, was compensated by more solid advantages. Never was labourer of the eleventh hour so richly repaid. He was placed not only on an equal footing with those that had borne the toil and heat of the day, but on a far superior one. He might, indeed, justly say, that the sacrifices he had made on the side of feeling and character, were such as entitled him to a liberal equivalent on that of interest. He had violated the most solemn public engagements—he had broken asunder the closest domestic ties—he had degraded his grandson—he had made his daughter a widow, by condemning his son-in-law to perpetual exile—a punishment due, perhaps, to the guilty ambition of that great disturber of mankind—just from Russia—just from Prussia—just from England—but from Austria, altogether cruel, perfidious, and wicked. For these deeds, his imperial majesty had received Dalmatia, the Tyrol, Saltzburgh, all Lombardy, and all the Venetian States—some of the finest and richest provinces—some of the noblest and most famous cities in all Europe; and from these he had never ceased to draw money to the capital of what was ironically called his paternal government, by every art and every severity of fiscal exaction. Were we then to believe that the emperor had not a single florin in his treasury, to repay to the suffering people of England money advanced, in-order to save him from being hurled from his throne by the victorious armies of republican France? He was convinced that if the negociation were conducted with vigor, and in that high and temperate tone which, under such circumstances, England had a right to assume, it could not fail of success. He did not rely upon the gratitude or good faith of the imperial ministers; they had disclaimed both. But the friendship of England was too important to be risked for a comparatively trifling object. No doubt Austria was a valuable ally to England, but the advantages were not; equal on both sides. England could maintain her power and pre-eminence, not only without but in spite of Austria; but Austrian ascendancy was entirely the work of England. If Austria were left to herself, she must quickly yield to her enemies, foreign and domestic. No country was more hated at home and abroad, —by her neighbours and her dependents. She was hated by the great powers, to whom she was a rival—and by the small

1285
ones, to whom she was an oppressor— but, most of all, by those provinces which she had acquired by fraud and violence, and which she governed by the same means by which she had obtained them. She was hated by Russia—hated by Prussia—hated by the smaller German States—hated in Poland—hated in Italy— hated even in her ancient hereditary dominion of the Tyrol; whose loyal and valiant struggle in her behalf had formed one of the most splendid chapters in the history of the late war, but which she had alienated by cruelty and injustice— and where, never again, would a drop of blood be shed, or an arm voluntarily raised in her cause. If Austria persevered in an act of insolent barefaced injustice towards her only firm and powerful friends, it was because she flattered herself that they might be duped with impunity. That it was the duty of ministers to prevent; and, in the confidence that they would not neglect that duty, he gave them his vote.
Mr. Jamessupported the motion, contending that the emperor of Austria could have no keeper of his conscience, otherwise he never could have denied the existence of this just debt.
Mr. R. Smith, after what had passed, begged to withdraw his motion.

AMERICAN LOYALISTS.
Mr. Courtenaysaid, he had great satisfaction in being able to inform the House, that there were funds at the disposal of the Crown, out of which it was the intention of his majesty to provide for the claims of the American loyalists. It was not therefore necessary to press the motion for a committee on those claims.