rant, and for which, perhaps, they might not consider themselves responsible. But the fact was, that worthless persons were sent, or at least went about the country harassing great numbers of honest, creditable, and industrious tradesmen, offering them for sale, and even thrusting upon them, certain articles, with a view to lay the ground for informations against them. This was done, not from any view to protect the revenue, but for the purpose of aggrandizing those who employed such persons for such an object. In the county of Sussex, for instance, persons had been induced to go about persuading tradesmen to purchase certain articles, for the purpose of laying a foundation for informations; and then, when such informations were lodged, the same persons used all their influence with those whom they had entrapped, to induce them to petition to be allowed to compromise, on payment of costs. As he could not anticipate the possibility of any objection being made to his motion, he did not think it necessary to go more at length into the subject at this time. But in order to bring the subject fairly before the House and the public, he was not aware of any better mode than to move for the number of the Solicitors' bills sent to the Treasury, for the costs of the prosecution of certain specified cases of late Occurrence. He doubted whether any such bills were now in existence; but if they were, and could be produced, they ought to be laid on the table of the House. He concluded, therefore, by moving for "the Bills of Costs paid by the Crown in the various Informations filed in the Court of Exchequer, for penalties for breaches of the Customs Laws, against the following defendants:" [here followed the names of twenty persons lately prosecuted as above-mentioned.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed himself not at all unwilling to afford the hon. member every information which he could reasonably desire on this subject. But it was really too much to expect, that the hon. gentleman should be allowed to bring before the House, as a specimen of the whole matter, some twenty cases, such as he chose to select out of two or three hundred. He had no objection to such a motion generally; but this mode of selection would not bring the matter fairly before the House. He would therefore recommend to the hon. gentleman to adopt some fair principlesuch as taking the first twelve or twenty, or the last twelve or twenty cases out of a certain number; and then he would not oppose his motion. But if the hon. member refused to alter his motion in the manner he had stated, he should be com pelled to object to it. He could not help, however, remarking on the attempt of the hon. member to vilify the Board of Customs, and the Custom-house officers. He certainly understood that the hon. member had excepted from his censure the higher law officers of the Crown and the commis sioners of Customs; but he appeared at the same time to insinuate some censure against the solicitor for the Customs, as well as others, for instigating persons to lodge informations, not with a view to the protection of the revenue, but for the purpose of aggrandizing himself. Now, did not the hon. member know that, for the last three years, the solicitor had derived his emoluments, not from fees on account of prosecutions, but from a fixed salary of 2,000l. a-year; and that the utmost extent to which his income could be increased beyond that, whatever might be the number of prosecutions, did not exceed 5007. a-year? The greatest sum which he could possibly receive, therefore, in all, was only 2,500l. per annum; and it could not be reasonably supposed, that for the mere sake of the 5007. beyond the 2,000, he could be influenced, by dirty and scandalous motives, to increase the number of prosecutions. Mr. Burrell said, that there were fre quently great hardships in these prosecutions in the Exchequer. The supposed smuggler, for instance, committed the crime on the coast. The Attorney-general filed an information, and it was understood that it was to be tried in the county of Sussex. It turned out, however, that the trial was to be in London. The defendant all this while did not know what witnesses were to be produced against him; nor could he be prepared with them so well as he might be if the trial had taken place in the county where the offence had been committed. Whatever the man might be, this was a harsh proceeding; whether smuggler or not, he ought to have fair play. He did not mean to speak invidiously, but he was informed, that, on the preventive service, there were persons of no very good character, and that on the information of such persons, smugglers had been imprisoned for eighteen months, and then ordered to find security for their good behaviour, and being generally unable to provide such security, they were liable to be imprisoned for life. decided before a magistrate; and there was, in consequence, a great abatement of these cases in the court of Exchequer, He must observe, that the labours of the law officers of the Crown, in this department were extremely heavy; such as he believed would scarcely be undertaken by any other gentlemen. He knew not whe ther the hon. mover had, in his observations, an eye to Essex; but this he knew, that, in the very last case he was connected with, which related to Essex, a large and thumping verdict for the Crown, of between 2,000l. and 3000l. was given. That verdict was obtained against persons who were notorious violators of the law. The information never was carried before the court of Exchequer, unless the penalties were high indeed. When the hon. gentleman talked of prosecutions, or persecutions, as he was pleased to call them, he should like to know how many verdicts the Crown had received within a given time, and how many causes they had lost? The Attorney-General denied that any injustice had been done in the cases of those persons who had been alluded to by the hon. member. In fact, it was the opinion of the best-informed persons in Sussex, that smuggling offences ought not to be tried by juries of that county; and he had heard the same observation made with respect to Kent. The strength of local prejudice, it was asserted, strongly militated in those places against the course of justice. Those who wished to have the law ameliorated had made every inquiry on the subject; and they were universally met by this answer" Do not try cases of this nature in the places where the transactions were alleged to have taken place, but let the inquiry go on elsewhere." It was made a matter of strong complaint, that cases which occurred in other counties Mr. Bernal observed, that the measures were tried in Middlesex ; but let those who which had been taken to support the reso complained examine the matter, and venue laws had greatly encouraged the race point out where any real hardship lay? of informers. The Attorney-general must The most ordinary seaman knew perfectly be well acquainted with the fact, that well, that if he offended against the law he many instances of hardship and oppression would be tried at Westminster. The had occurred under the system. A fair phrase, that the man so erring would be question arose; namely, what benefit had Exchequered," was perfectly known and been derived from a multitude of prosecuunderstood. He, therefore, contended, tions under these laws? Now, it apthat no harm was done, when the parties peared, that in 1825-6, the sum lost by who erred were well acquainted with the the Crown, or rather by the country, in fact, that their trial would take place in consequence of these prosecutions, was the court of Exchequer. He never knew any upwards of 4901., and in 1825, the sum individual to come forward and say, when of 8971, was lost in the same manner. put upon his trial, that he had reason to There was in those cases no lack of counsel, complain, because he expected to have of agents, and of witnesses; and yet such been tried elsewhere. The hon. mover was the result in spite of all their efforts. expressed a great anxiety to convince the If they looked to the account to which he House, that, in introducing this motion, he had referred, from January to October, had nothing but the interests of justice in they would perceive the entry with respect view. It was extraordinary that he should, to the profits of the Crown to be "nil, nil, while thus declaring his own purity of in-nil." In February, 1826, an information tention, have been so unsparing of his ca- was laid against a man for a penalty of lumnies on others. It had been asserted, 4471. What was the result? Why, he that no improvement had been effected found the entry, as to the Crown, accordwith respect to the administration of those ing to custom, "nil;" but the costs were laws. Now, it would not be difficult to not " nil;" they amounted to 1147., which prove, that a very material improvement, the public had to pay. This was merely with respect to the administration of the one sample out of a great many. Did the revenue laws, had taken place. Formerly, Crown pay the costs or did it not? By every case relating to the revenue laws the smile on the countenance of the Atwas tried in the court of Exchequer. This torney-general, he supposed the costs were was undoubtedly attended with great ex-paid by the party prosecuted. Now, nopense. Many of these cases were now thing could be more unjust than this, Indeed, the whole system was so conducted as to afford facilities to subaltern officers to lay informations against individuals, whose pockets, whichever way the case was decided, were sure to suffer. Mr. Wynn expressed his surprise at the line of argument adopted by the hon. gentleman. Were actions of the kind to which he had referred to be supported, or decried, only in proportion as they brought money into the public coffers? Were they, because, from various circumstances, they might sometimes fail, to be therefore considered unwise and improper? Because money was not likely to accrue from these prosecutions, was that a reason why individuals who transgressed the law should not be punished, and made examples of? Supposing 4901. to have been expended in costs, was not that sum well laid out, if it deterred others from entering into conspiracies to defraud the revenue. Mr. Maberly said, he considered the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as to the imputations against the solicitor of the Customs, complete and triumphant. He trusted, that the right hon. gentleman, seeing how the new and very commendable arrangement respecting the allowance of the solicitor to the Customs had been received by the House, would be induced to place the Excise upon the same footing. Mr. J. Smith was of opinion, that the officers employed by government were sometimes very remiss in the performance of their duties, with a view, as it appeared to him, of benefitting by the irregularities which their own negligence permitted. He recollected being in the town of Hastings some time since, when, at mid-day, the town was absolutely blockaded, and a cargo of smuggled goods introduced. : Mr. Herries said, it was very unjust to make charges against the persons alluded to, as if they were the instigators of the very offences to which they were employed to put an end. He thought that there was not the slightest ground for the accusation that had been made against them. Instead of bringing up cases for trial here, they were anxious to have them settled before the magistrates of the county where they occurred. Much had been said about the profits made by the solicitor of the Customs; but, in the course of two years, he had given fup 11,0001, in consequence of his having allowed cases to be decided before magistrates, which otherwise would have been brought intothe Exchequer. I Sir J. Newport said, that nothing could be worse than the administration of the Excise laws in Ireland. Year after year, some alteration of the existing system had been promised: but the hope was still deferred. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the government were very anxious to carry into effect the recommendations of the revenue committee. Some of them had been attended to; but others could not be effected without a specific act of parliament. Mr. Curteis bore testimony to the great leniency with which Excise prosecutions had, in many cases within his knowledge, been conducted. Mr. C. Thompson contended, that it was impossible to put an end to smuggling, while the system of prohibitory duties held out such premiums to the smuggler. Sir C. Burrell advised, that the discretion lodged in the solicitor of Excise should be controlled; for he believed, that so long as it remained in his power to bring actions at his pleasure, oppressive proceedings would take place. Mr. D. W. Harvey complained, that he had been attacked in an unbecoming manner by the chancellor of the Exchequer. He would not, however, be deterred from doing his duty, by any chastisement which the right hon. gentleman, in his official dignity, might think proper to inflict upon him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that the hon. gentleman appeared to be sore under the chastisement of which he complained. The hon. gentleman had, on his part, made a severe attack upon officers whose conduct had not deserved it. In repelling that attack, he was not aware that he had offended against any of the hon. gentleman's notions of what he was pleased to term his official dignity. The motion was then agreed to. GALWAY ELECTION CHARGE AGAINST THE MARQUIS OF CLANRICARDE.] Mr. Chichester suggested to the hon. member for Galway, the propriety of postponing the motion of which he had given notice for Thursday, until after the decision of the committee on the merits of the Galway Election Petition. Mr. R. Martin said, his motion had nothing to do with the Election petition. If he had made good his charges against the marquis of Clanricarde at the bar of 1186 motion must of necessity lead to a discussion of the merits of the Election petition. If, indeed, the hon. member could shew that the object of his motion would be defeated by delay, that might be a ground for bringing it forward on Thursday. that House, Mr. Lambert would still have the right of turning him (Mr. R. Martin) out of that House, if he could. His motion had no more to do with the Election petition than with the history of the Trojan war. No man who wished well to the noble peer whom he meant to charge with unconstitutional conduct would endeavour to get rid of the charge by a dilatory plea. On the contrary, he would rather dare the man who imputed foul misconduct to that noble peer to substantiate his accusations. Now, he would consent to be stigmatized as the vilest of accusers, if he did not make good his charges against his majesty's Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the marquis of Clanricarde. Mr. Chichester begged to observe, that in recommending the hon. member to postpone his motion, he had acted entirely on his own discretion; and was not at all sure that his noble friend would approve of the course he had taken. He was perfectly satisfied that his noble friend would be fully able to meet any charge the hon. member might prefer against him. Mr. Wynn strongly recommended the hon. member for Galway to withdraw his notice. The terms of the notice of motion were," that it be referred to a committee, to inquire into the unconstitutional conduct of the marquis of Clanricarde, at the late election for Galway, he being then UnderSecretary of State for Foreign Affairs." Now, how would it be possible to enter into such a discussion, without entering into the merits of the Election petition? Such a discussion could not but have the effect of biassing the minds of the members of the committee. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. member would postpone his motion, until after the decision of the committee. There was no precedent of a discussion involving the merits of an Election petition, pending the investigations of a committee. Mr. Lyttleton concurred in the recommendation. The ballot for the Galway Election committee would take place on Tuesday, and the bringing forward of such a motion as that of which the hon. member had given notice for Thursday, would be a most unconstitutional and improper proceeding, which the House ought to discourage. The Speaker said, it was of course comwhich he would bring forward any motion; petent to any member to fix the day on but if the subject-matter of the hon. member's motion comprised anything which could be inquired into by the Election committee, the motion could not be entertained by the House, still less could the House enter into any discussion of it. The hon. member knew best what the precise nature of his motion was; but it would be necessary for him to satisfy the House, that it did not involve any subject which could be inquired into by the Election committee. at all times, to bow with deference to the Mr. R. Martin declared himself willing, Chair; but, as the subject of his motion could not, by any possibility, be inquired into by the committee, he must decline complying with the hon. member's request. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Wednesday, March 14. LETS.] Mr. Hume rose to move for a reHACKNEY-COACHES AND CABRIOturn of the number of Hackney-coach and Cabriolet Licences granted to the present the monopoly which was practised under period. The hon. member complained of the present system of granting licences, which he contended were reserved for the favourites of the hackney-coach commissioners, to the complete exclusion of instance, he said, was known of one person, An ina wine-merchant, who was the owner of eighteen or twenty cabriolets, each of which he was in the habit of letting out mous profit, which might be much more for 24s. or 25s. a day, giving him an enorbeneficially divided between a number of 2Q Mr. R. Martin recommended the right hon. President of the Board of Control to look over the precedents, and he, was sure he would find that there was no reason whatever for resisting the discussion on Thursday. He maintained that the dis-dustrious and deserving men. cussion would not have the effect of prejudicing the minds of the committee. He pledged himself to prove, that the marquis of Clanricarde went into the county of Galway [order, order!]. Mr. Hobhouse recommended the hon. member to withdraw his notice, for the VOL. XVI. poor men. The gross sum collected last [ man who was returned after a contested year by the commissioners of hackney-election for a county could feel secure of coaches amounted to 69,0007., and the his seat; for it was impossible that any expense of collecting the revenue was man who had to conduct a contested elec12,000l. per ann. In the year 1797, a tion for a county, could do so without committee was appointed to take into con- violating what was called the Treating act. sideration the state of this department; It was quite impossible that freeholders and they reported, that the whole of the residing at a distance from the place of duty of collecting the revenue, and grant-election could be expected to repair ing licences, might be transferred with ad- thither without some succour. He was vantage, to the Stamp-office; a measure aware that some committees of that House which the report recommended. Why had decided, that such a practice was no that recommendation was not followed, he infringement of the law; but every body did not know; but he conceived it would knew that other committees had decided be a very great improvement of the present differently. In one of the Middlesex elecsystem of granting licences, if that duty tions Mr. Mainwaring lost his seat, bewas transferred to the police magistrates, cause he had provided meat and drink who would have a judicial control over for the voters in his interest. Although the parties applying for licences, and who it was proved that the provision was not would be less likely to be influenced by an extravagant one, yet the House decided feelings of partiality. This would be at- that Mr. Mainwaring had been guilty of tended with a considerable saving. He infringing the Treating act, and he lost his meant to move, at a future period, for a election accordingly. It ought to be recommittee to consider the propriety of collected that it was not merely the losing abolishing the Hackney-coach-office alto- candidate who might petition the House gether. under such circumstances; as it generally happened that he participated in the violation of the law, he could scarcely himself object to the violation by another; but it was in the power of any freeholder, from vexatious motives, to take such a proceeding. Such was the case in the election for Norfolk in 1806, between Mr. Coke and Mr. Windham. This consideration, added to that of the expense, deterred many persons, otherwise well quali→ fied, from coming forward, and offering themselves as candidates for counties. The freeholders were thus prevented from having a full choice. For instance, although at the last general election for the county of York, the candidates never went to the poll, the expenses were so enormous, that it cost the gentlemen elected an expense, among them, of not less than from a hundred and twenty to a hundred and fifty-thousand pounds. If the election had been carried on for fifteen days, half a million of money would not have covered the expense attendant upon it. It had been said, that the members for counties should be men of high rank and large property. No doubt. from the experience which they had all had of county elections no one could suppose that the great body of the freeholders of a county would choose any man for their representative, unless he possessed rank and property which entitled him to Mr. Maberly concurred in the view which his hon. friend had taken of the subject. He regretted that the chancellor of the Exchequer was not present, as he was convinced that a saving of at least 10,000l. a year would be the effect of acceding to the motion of his hon. friend. The motion was agreed to. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, March 15. COUNTY ELECTIONS-MODE OF TAKING THE POLL.] Lord Althorp rose, in pursuance of notice, to move for the appointment of a select committee to consider the mode of taking the Poll at County Elections. The subject was one of great importance. The enormous expense frequently attendant on county elections was a grievance which required the intervention of the legislature. It appeared to him, that the best time for bringing forward a question of this kind, tending to produce a material alteration in the law of elections, must be at as early a period as possible after the meeting of a new parliament; because, among other reasons, opportunities would be thereby given, before the occurrence of a general election, to try, by experiment, the merits of the alteration. Not only was the expense frequently attendant on a county election a great grievance, but no But |
