Sitting of 12 February 1834

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. SHAWE, from Dissenters at Lowestoffe, for a National Registry of Births and Marriages.—By Mr. SHEPPARD, from Frome, to the same effect.—By Mr. BLAMIRE, from Caldbeck, Cumberland, against Tithes.—By Sir ROBERT PEEL, from Mr. Holmes, against the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt; and from St. Paul's, Southampton, against any Measures tending to weaken the Church.—By Mr. HUGHES HUGHES, from Dissenters at Ryde, for Redress.—By Mr. HODGES, from several Parishes in Kent, for the Commutation of Tithes; and for the Repeal of the Malt Duty; and by Lord SANDON, from Liverpool, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.

ESCHEATS TO THE CROWN—CASE OF MR. HATCHETT.
Mr. Warburtonbegged to call the attention of the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to a Petition which he held in his hand from Mr. Hatchett, of Belle-Vue house, Chelsea, a gentleman well known in the scientific world, who had a beneficial interest in a fund in the Bank of England, which had stood in the name of the late Henry Fauntleroy, as sole trustee of the property. Upon an application being made to the Bank for the payment of the fund, subsequent to the death of Fauntleroy, and for the appointment of a new trustee in his situation, an answer was returned by the Bank that the property to which Fauntleroy was trustee had, by reason of his conviction, become an escheat to the Crown. As soon as this answer was made to the person beneficially interested, he had resort to the advice of counsel, and obtained the very best opinion in his power. There being a considerable difference of opinion among the counsel as to the right construction of the law in such a case, and it being the opinion of many that the property had become escheated to the Crown, he was advised not to oppose the inquisition on the part of the Crown, but to accept back the property, which was escheated, from the Crown as a grant. An inquest was accordingly held, though he could not say in what manner it was conducted—whether in some dark hole or corner of the city, with a Jury who acted just as they were told by the Crown officers, or otherwise, but the consequence was, that the property was declared to have become an escheat to the Crown, and in conformity with that decision it had been escheated. When the party came to inquire how the property was to be obtained back from the Crown, he found upon an examination of the Stamp Act, that though in all cases of real property

247
the transfer was only subject to a duty of 1l. 15 s., yet in cases of chattel property an ad valorem tax of 5l. per cent was imposed. So that in the present case the duty alone upon the transfer would amount to no less than 400 l. These proceedings took place in the year 1824. Upon a representation being made to the Treasury of the circumstances of the case, it was admitted that it was an extremely hard one, and a promise was made that in the next Stamp Act an alteration should be made rectifying the mistake, and placing chattel property on the same footing with real property in this respect. The promised Stamp Act had been deferred from year to year, and the petitioner had been anxiously waiting, in the yearly expectation of seeing an alteration made, but up to the present moment no alteration whatever had taken place in the Stamp Act to meet the case of the petitioner. The correspondence which had taken place between the solicitor and the Treasury was set out at length in the petition, and could, therefore, be examined by the Government or any Member of the House. The tenth year had now arrived since the escheat took place, and in case the property was not immediately claimed, it must be paid over to the Commissioners of the National Debt, which would throw another important obstacle in the way of obtaining the money. This was a case in which Fauntleroy was sole trustee. He, would, however, also beg to direct their attention to another case in which Fauntleroy was a co-trustee. An application had been made in this case, since the death of Fauntleroy, to have a new trustee appointed in his room. The payment of the dividends had not been suspended; up to the present moment they had been regularly paid, but the answer returned by the Bank to the request for the appointment of a new trustee, which he confessed he did not understand, was this—the solicitor to the Bank signified the refusal by the Bank to allow the appointment of any new trustee, inasmuch as Fauntleroy's interest in the stock had become forfeited to the Crown, and as the Crown could not be a joint tenant with any other person, therefore the whole had become forfeited. The opinion which he (Mr. Warburton) had formed on the subject was, that the decision in the case where Fauntleroy was sole trustee was consistent with the law, but that in the case where Fauntleroy was
248
only a co-trustee, the opinion of the Bank and the Treasury was inaccurate. In ordinary cases the property became vested in the new trustee, and he saw nothing in the present to distinguish it from any other. The only question to be decided was, what was the best course to be pursued in cases of this kind, for the law of Which the petitioner now complained had been in operation for the last sixty years, and it affected the title of the chattel property of every person where his trustee had been guilty of felony or committed suicide. It appeared to him that the proper course would be that a Bill should be brought in, not as a simple remedy given to those who should solicit a remittance of the duty under the Stamp Act, but a Bill declaring that in cases of a trustee becoming a felon, or undergoing a civil death, the property should not become an escheat to the Crown, but should vest in trustees acting beneficially for the parties interested. It was not in the power of an individual without the consent of the Crown, to introduce such a Bill; but if the noble Lord assured him, that on the production of such a Bill the formal objection to it would not be insisted upon, from the encouragement he had received, he would undertake to introduce such a Bill. A noble Lord, formerly a Judge, had promised to superintend such a Bill in the House of Lords. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Lord would give him the assurance, that if such a Bill were submitted to the Lords of the Treasury, the pro forma objection to it would be waived, and that he would be allowed to introduce it. He believed that he had gone over all the heads contained in the petition; he would only state that this was not a single case, that there were a great number of individuals with small property who were in a similar situation, who were waiting the result of this petition, but whose properties were so small that they could not go to the expense necessary to obtain them. As this was not a solitary case, but affected a great number of individuals, he hoped the noble Lord would throw no impediments in the way of such a Bill.
Lord Althorpsaid, he had not the least hesitation in saying, that the statements which had been made showed a case of very extreme hardship. With respect to the individual, it was well known to the hon. Member, that he (Lord Althorp) had

249
the honour and the pleasure of his acquaintance. The case, however, had not come under his notice before, otherwise he should have felt it his duty to take immediate steps for an inquiry into it, and to have redressed the grievance at the earliest moment. As to the question put to him by the hon. Member, he could only say, that he would give his advice, and he had little doubt it would be acted upon, that no formal objection should be taken to the introduction of such a Bill as that spoken of. If any other individuals had the misfortune to be placed in the situation of the petitioner, who had become a sufferer from the misconduct of his trustee, the case of those individuals was one that ought to receive the commiseration and assistance of the House.
Petition laid on the Table.

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES—MR. SHEIL'S CASE.
Mr. Grotesaid, that as Chairman of the Committee of Privileges, now sitting, he had been requested to submit a Motion for the addition of one Member to the present number of the body. It would be recollected, that when the hon. and learned member for Dublin (Mr. O'Connell) moved for the appointment of the Committee, he not only abstained from inserting his own name in the list, although it had been the almost invariable practice that the mover should take the Chair; but, from peculiar feelings of delicacy, he had omitted all who were in any way, whether publicly or privately, connected with the hon. member for Tipperary (Mr. Sheil). Immediately they entered upon their inquiry, the Committee arrived at a strong conviction that they should not be able to prosecute it to their own satisfaction, or with a certainty of doing complete justice to the hon. member for Tipperary, unless some Member were added to the Committee in whom that hon. Member could implicitly confide, and by whose advice he was willing at all times to be guided. It was, therefore, proposed that the name of Mr. O'Connell should be added to the list of the Committee. He had only further to state, that this Motion emanated from the unanimous wish of the Committee, and that the hon. member for Tipperary had neither suggested nor encouraged it.
Lord John Russellwished the Motion to be made to-morrow. In itself it seemed a very extraordinary proposition, after
250
what had already passed upon the subject, and after the formation of the Committee without the hon. and learned member for Dublin, that it should now be proposed to insert his name, without giving any similar advantage to the other side. He did not say, that he was prepared to oppose the Motion, but he trusted that a day's notice would be given to afford time for consideration.
Mr. Grotewas quite ready to defer the Motion till to-morrow. He begged again to say, that it proceeded from the unanimous wish of the Committee, and from no other quarter.
Mr. Feargus O'Connorhoped that the proceedings of the Committee would be stayed until the point was decided. The question was one of a most ridiculous nature to be submitted to the solemn adjudication of a Committee.
The Speakerreminded the hon. Member that it would not be necessary to put any restraint upon the Committee. The hon. member for London had stated, that it was the unanimous opinion of the Committee that justice could not be done, and the inquiry duly prosecuted, unless the additional Member were appointed. Therefore, whether the present question were or were not postponed, reliance might safely be placed in the Committee either as to the course or speed of its proceedings.
Mr. Warburtonobserved, that the Member proposed to be added was to act somewhat in the capacity of nominee. If the question had not been formally put, there was not a single dissentient voice to the proposition that the present Motion should be made. It was the anxious desire of the Committee that the hon. member for Tipperary should have some friend present during the examination of the witnesses upon whom he could rely, and he trusted that the House would not object to the appointment of the hon. and learned member for Dublin.
Mr. O'Connellmight be permitted just to say, that the Committee had done him the honour to send for him to be present at their proceedings; but that when he came into the room, he had stated his extreme unwillingness to remain there in the doubtful capacity of adviser, when he had no right to take part in the proceedings as a member of the Committee. He had, therefore, totally declined attending, until the House had decided the point now in question.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that the opinion that the hon. Member should belong to the Committee, was unanimous. The charge personally affected a Member of the House, and it was considered very important that he should have somebody present who was possessed of his entire confidence. He had thought that the individual who moved for the Committee, would have been a member of it, and would have acted in that capacity, and not merely as amicus curiœ. It was necessary that the witnesses should be cross-examined, and it would very much paralyse the abilities, and mar the efforts of any man who undertook this task, if, not being a member of the Committee, he was obliged to put his questions in writing, or at least through the medium of a third person. He hoped that no resistance would be made to deciding upon the Motion now.
Lord John Russellwas anxious chiefly for a little time for consideration, and certainly did not mean to oppose any obstacle to the choice of the hon. member for Dublin. It was not to be forgotten, however, that the public character and private honour of the member for Hull were likewise involved. It would be hardly fair that the hon. and learned member for Dublin should have the opportunity of putting all his questions with the ability he was known to possess, in favour of his friend, and that no other Member should be present for the same purpose on behalf of the member for Hull.
Sir Robert Peelentered into the feelings of the noble Lord, but begged to remark that the hon. member for Hull was not a party accused.
The Question—"That Mr. O'Connell be a member of the Committee," was agreed to.

THE AUDITORSHIP OF THE EXCHEQUER.
Mr. Humerose to ask a question of his Majesty's Ministers on a point that had been talked of a good deal out of the House. He wished to know what arrangement had been made by the Government when the office held by the late Lord Grenville was given to Lord Auckland. Was Lord Auckland to hold that office consecutively with his present? It was generally understood that, by the Act applicable to that office, that office should cease with the demise of its late holder. But it now appeared that it was, emoluments and all, still in existence. What
252
arrangement then, he would ask the Government, had been come to with Lord Auckland, or if any, on his appointment to the Auditorship of the Exchequer?
Lord Althorpsaid, he was not sorry he was asked such a question. Much unnecessary and unfounded representation was made on the subject. From the state of the law relative to the Exchequer, it was found necessary that an officer should be appointed without delay. No money could be issued without the signature of the auditor. The appointment was one, not of choice, but of necessity. It was not intended that Lord Auckland should enjoy the emoluments of both offices, neither did his Lordship accept the office on any such understanding. He accepted it subject to any regulation the House might make. Nay, more: he took it on the condition that he would receive no salary while holding at the same time the office of President of the Board of Trade. In case the Bill regulating the office should pass, it was intended that, in place of the present salary of 4,000 l. a-year, it should be reduced to 2,000 l. a-year. The appointment, he repeated, would not have been made, had it not been necessary to fill up the office.

GLASGOW LOTTERY.
Mr. Sinclairbegged to ask whether it was the intention of Government to make any inquiry regarding the Glasgow Lottery? and suggested that a Committee should be appointed, to consider in what manner any further drawings might be put a stop to, and to take measures to provide against any future Lotteries of the same nature.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the subject had been before under the consideration of the House, when it was suggested that it would be unfair to put a stop to the Lottery at that time, as part had been drawn, and people who held tickets would lose their money. He regretted much that such a Bill had passed, and he trusted that means would be found to prevent the recurrence of such a circumstance in future.
Sir Robert Inglishad stated, when the case came formerly under the consideration of the House, that in his opinion a Bill ought to pass for the prevention of this lottery. He saw no difference between the circumstances then and now, and he Still was of opinion that the subject should be taken into consideration. He trusted

253
that, as the subject was now brought under the notice of the House, care would be taken to prevent the recurrence of any such scheme in future. He could see that the feelings of the House were hurt that such an affair should be permitted, and he was certain that such were the feelings of the country.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that there had been not one lottery, but three lotteries under the Act in question; and it was extraordinary, that neither the Member who took charge of the Bill nor the Solicitor who carried it through the House had had the slightest conception that it was the intention to make it the means of bearing a lottery. He thought it a public scandal that such a Bill had ever passed that House. He did not think that evil would come of publicly discussing the subject. It would, he hoped, open the eyes of the public, and prevent them from buying tickets. He concurred with the Members who had previously spoken on the propriety of preventing such Bills passing in future, and observed, that in the Bill in question the word lottery was not so much as once mentioned. He thought the whole matter disreputable to the Legislature, and hoped, by way of punishing the projectors for the fraud they had practised, that it might prove a losing concern to them.
The conversation was dropped.