Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

courts possessed equal jurisdiction, and where the judges were taken from the same bar, and distinguished for nearly the same degree of talent, there must be some inherent defects in the court of Exchequer, which clogged the court in its proceedings, and prevented the subject from approaching it for redress. The advantages which would arise from enabling the suitor to approach it with the same facility that he approached the other courts, were palpable; for it would diminish the labour of two of them by adding to the labour of the third. There was also in his motion, an allusion to the equitable jurisdiction possessed by the court of Exchequer. Considering all that the House had recently heard on the proceedings in the court of Chancery, he thought it would be advantageous to know something of the number of causes decided on the equity side of the court of Exchequer. The House would then know why a court scarcely inferior in jurisdiction to the high court of Chancery should have its files scarcely touched, whilst the court of Chancery had its files overburthened by the bills which were filed in it. If, therefore, the equity side of the court of Exchequer could be made auxiliary to the court of Chancery, an avenue would be opened, by which the discontent generated by the expensive delays of the latter court might gradually disappear. He did not now mean to say what degree of equitable

ferred that, so long as the solicitors, who enjoyed the exclusive power of wielding this destructive weapon, should enjoy it without limitation, so long as all parties liable to the excise laws were placed under their particular jurisdiction, they would not hesitate to seek their own aggrandizement, under the mask of advancing and protecting the revenue. It was a fact well deserving the attention of the House, that no sooner had its vigilance been directed to the subject, than the average number of annual informations was reduced from 700 to 250-a reduction by which every victim rescued from the grasp of the excise laws was saved an expense of 150l. and the Crown an expense of 3007. or 4007. upon each prosecution. The reason which induced him to revive his former inquiry, was a wish to see how far the power of filing informations under the customs and excise laws had been exercised since the year 1820. It was not for him to draw hasty conclusions from statements which were not before the House, but which, he believed, could be substantiated; but he should be much surprised, if it were not found, that a recurrence of the old abuses took place as soon as the vigilance of parliament ceased to be directed against them.-The other motion which he had to submit to the House, was for a return of the number of causes set down for trial and disposed of in the courts of King's-bench, Common Pleas, and Ex-jurisdiction should be extended to the chequer, during the last seven years, and was therefore intimately connected with the proceedings in the courts of law. Those three courts possessed equal jurisdiction in most things, though in some the court of Exchequer possessed an exclusive jurisdiction. Though they were all filled by the same number of judges, and though each of them, with the exception of the chiefs, received the same stipend, still, when the business which they respectively transacted was compared, it was impossible to come to any other conclusion than this-that the courts of King's-bench and of Common Pleas were overburthened with business, to the great injury of the suitors in them, and that the court of Exchequer was little better than a receptacle for legal sinecurists. Whilst from seventy to one hundred causes were daily entered for trial in the courts of King's-bench and of Common Pleas, there were seldom more than six entered in the court of Exchequer. His object was to show, that where the

court of Exchequer; but he thought that, as the court of Exchequer generally rose after a sitting of half an hour, some business might be given to it, which would diminish not only the labour, but the odium at present attached to the court of Chancery. Having made these observations, he would move, "That there be laid before the House,

a Return of the total number of Informations filed in the court of Exchequer, for penalties under the Customs and Excise laws, from the year 1820 to the end of Michaelmas term, 1826; with separate statements of the amount of penalties sought to be recovered, and the actual amount eventually received; distinguishing whether the same was paid before or after verdict, and whether the same was the full verdict recovered, or the result of compromise; together with the amount of the costs incurred in each prosecution, and what proportion thereof was paid by the Crown and the defendant."

Mr. Hume seconded the motion. He

said, that last year a similar motion had been made by him, in order to obtain information upon this subject. His object had been to show the grievous hardships under which persons laboured, who were exposed to the operations of the Customs and Excise laws. At present it was in the power of any individual to institute a suit, or information, against whomsoever he pleased for a breach of the Revenue-laws; and, however triumphantly that suit might end for the accused, he was obliged to pay all the expenses of the process. He had known an instance of a suit instituted against an individual, upon the oath of an excise officer, and which had been scouted out of court. This individual, however, found himself liable to all the heavy expenses attending the suit. Persons who were decidedly innocent, should be placed on equal advantage with the Crown; which ought to pay all the expenses if the party it accused was acquitted. He had known persons involved in ruin by Exchequer prosecutions, although the court had pronounced them thoroughly innocent.

Mr. Lockhart thought, that if the judge who tried the information, were to certify that there was no cause for filing it, the Crown should pay the defendant his costs. If such certificates were given by the judges, they would bring before the notice of the public the conduct of those who had the power of filing the informations. The reason why so little business was transacted in the court of Exchequer was, that an attorney could not practise there in his own name, but was obliged to practise in the name of one of the side clerks. He received, therefore, only half fees; and that was the reason why he went in preference to the court of King'sbench, where he received whole fees. He thought it would be of great advantage to the public to get rid of these side clerks altogether. He supposed they had a vested interest in their situations, and that therefore the House must indemnify them for the loss they would sustain by the abolition of their offices. When they were got rid of, the court might be thrown open, and so be made to relieve the other courts from the pressure now thrown upon them. He was anxious that some attention should be paid to the internal arrangements of this court for some years ago, several mal-practices were detected among its officers, and that he had himself brought forward a motion on the subject. It was

[blocks in formation]

Mr. Spence said, that the hon. member's motion called only for a return of the number of causes set down for trial, which was not in itself sufficient. The House ought to be informed how long the court was occupied in hearing interlocutory motions. He thought, therefore, that a more extensive motion was necessary. He could assure the House that the judges of the court of Exchequer were anxious that that court should be made an efficient court, and that they would willingly lend their assistance to any measure which would prevent it from being branded as a receptacle for sinecurists, by giving it an active and extensive jurisdiction. The two motions were then agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS,
Monday, December 4.

CORN LAWS.] Lord King said, he had a petition to present to their lordships against a grievous and scandalous monopoly; namely, the Corn-laws. It had pleased some of the landed monopolists to deceive themselves (he did not think that they would deceive any body else), and to state, that their own wish was to have cheap corn. He had very little hopes that they would effect their object, nor did he think that they would carry their other point; namely, to make a permanent settlement, until they did that which was just and right. They might make a new law, and he had very little doubt that they would make a new law; but, until they repealed the existing monopoly, they never could effect a permanent settlement. The petition which he held in his hand came from Association No. 1, he did not know how many more there were, of a society of the manufacturers and inhabitants of Charfield, in the county of Gloucester, called the Anti-bread-tax Society. tioners stated, that they could see no reason why the landed interest should have the special privilege of exempting themselves from taxes; but the petitioners added, that if the landowners should exempt themselves from paying all taxes, it

The peti

would be far less injurious to the community than prohibiting the free importation of foreign grain. They likewise stated that the English manufacturer paid 3d. per day more than the continental manufacturer, which amounted with petitioners only, to a tax of 381. weekly, or 2,000. yearly on wages. This would show their lordships how highly oppressive the Corn-laws were to the labourer, and that, as far as regarded the manufacturer, those laws were bad in policy, and highly injurious to the trade of the country.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Monday, December 4.

ATHLONE ELECTION.] The Speaker said, he hoped the House would permit him to draw its attention to the petition which had been received last week from the borough of Athlone. On Saturday last, he had told the House that such a petition had been presented, and had requested its assistance in deciding whether it came within the restrictions which were requisite to constitute it an election petition. The restrictions, as the House well knew, rendered it necessary that the petitioners should be persons who claimed to be either candidates or voters. Now, this petition did not describe the petitioners, directly or indirectly, as persons who claimed to be either candidates or voters. A question might be raised upon it; namely, had the petitioners a right to vote? which question they wished to raise by their petition. If the House should be of opinion, that their petition was an election petition, they had nothing to do but to leave it to the usual course of such petitions; but if they should be of a contrary opinion, the House ought to have the petition entered as read, and then some member could move to discharge the order made upon it, and treat it as a mere ordinary petition.

The petition of certain inhabitants of the borough of Athlone was then delivered in and read, setting forth,

"That, notwithstanding that by the constitution of the charters of Athlone, by law and by the express rules of justice, by law and by the sound principles of the constitution, there should have been present at the election of a member of parliament for the borough of Athlone, the whole and every of the burgesses, unless proof made in open borough court of indisposition, or

other necessary cause of absence, yet the same has not only been studiously avoided at the late borough court for electing a member to represent the petitioners and fellow townsmen in parliament, but the commonalty have been excluded, and the necessary notices not posted, nor the rules or regulations required by law complied with, but on the contrary, the election was held by subterfuge, and under the most peculiar and unconstitutional degree of injustice; that, therefore, petitioners humbly submit to the House, for the reasons aforesaid and herein stated, that Richard Handcock, esq., has been unduly and unfairly returned, in direct violation of the constitution and of the established law of the realm, and, in particular, of the laws, rules, and regulations for regulating borough elections in Ireland, inasmuch as four days' notice should have been given, in the most public manner, signed by the returning officer upon the receipt of two precepts from the sheriffs of the counties of Westmeath and Roscommon, to each of which counties the precincts of the borough extends; whereas the election was held upon one precept, and without any returning officer legally appointed, and without the necessary number of burgesses required by law having been present at such elections; and, above all, petitioners humbly submit to the House, that as the corporation of Athlone has been long in part defunct, and the corporate body having died a natural death, and ought to be dissolved, as will appear by the corporation books when laid before a committee of the House, with other substantial incontrovertible proofs, and also by the returns signed and filed in the Hanaperoffice, Dublin, of Mr. Kerr's return the election before last, and of Mr. Handcock's return at the late assumed election; that the House will not permit a member returned not only unconstitutionally but unfairly, and in direct violation of the laws, to sit in the House as representative for Athlone, and whose vote might perhaps be calculated to form a majority on an important question upon which the salvation of Great Britain might depend; wherefore petitioners humbly implore the House to try and inquire, by the production of the corporation books, of copies of the returns in the Hanaper-office, Dublin, and by the examination of witnesses, whether the said Richard Handcock is constitutionally, fairly, or legally, returned or not; and if it

appears that he is not, the petitioners humbly expect that the House will order new writs to issue to the sheriffs of the counties of Westmeath and Roscommon, and that petitioners may be entitled to their valuable privileges, the right of freedom of election."

Mr. Wynn said, that he had before stated the rule of the House, and the law of the country on all cases, like the present. Such petitions by law could only be received from those who were candidates at the election, or from those who claimed a right to vote for them. That was the rule of parliament, and indeed the law of the land, until the time of the Grenville act. The right of petitioning was thrown open by that act to all persons. Considerable inconvenience, however, being found to arise from the practice, the former rule was revived. In all points relating to the reception of petitions, it was the duty of the House to lean to the side of the petitioners; but, in cases like the present, the words of the act were imperative, and the House was bound to abide by them. There was one point to which he wished to call the attention of the House; and that was, that any decision to which they might that night come was not final, and that the election committee to which it might be referred would have the power of deciding whether it came under the head of an election petition or not. He needed only to refer to the decision in the Nottingham case; where, in the middle of the trial, it was discovered that the petitioners who had described themselves as freeholders of the town and county of Nottingham were not such, and therefore were not entitled to vote for the election of members for the said borough. If the House were to send to an election committee the present petition, not being such as an election committee could take cognizance of, it would be making a heavy infliction on both parties, owing to the expenses which they would have to incur in bringing their witnesses to England. He mentioned that circumstance, in order to show that the course which it ought to follow was chalked out by the act of parliament, and that there was nothing in the particular features of the case to induce it to transgress that course. Now, from the petition itself, it did not appear that the petitioners were electors. They did not say that they themselves had a right to vote-all that

'they said was, "that at the election of a member of parliament for the borough of Athlone, the whole and every of the burgesses should be present." They did not even claim to vote at the late election, unless such an inference could be drawn, which he thought could not, from the concluding sentence of the petition :-"The petitioners humbly expect that the House will order new writs, to issue to the sheriff's of the counties of Westmeath and Roscommon, and that petitioners may be entitled to their valuable privileges, the right of freedom of election." He submitted to the House, that this petition could not be considered as an election petition. If the House thought that, under particular circumstances of the case, some indulgence ought to be extended to the petitioners, it could extend the time for receiving their petition beyond the usual term of fourteen days; and could give them, but them only, the right of presenting another petition against the return, within a certain limited

time.

Mr. Goulburn contended, that it was evident, from a former petition presented by the individuals whose names were subscribed to this petition, that they did not claim a right to vote at the last election. He therefore thought that the order made on the petition ought to be discharged.

Mr. Hume thought it only fair that time should be allowed to the petitioners to amend their petition.

The order was then discharged; and Mr. Wynn gave notice, that he would tomorrow move for an extension of time, in order that the petitioners might have an opportunity to amend their petition, by stating in what capacity they came before the House.

PRIVATE BILLS COMMITTEES.] Mr. Littleton rose to move the resolution, directing that any individual who appealed from the decision of a committee on a private bill, should, in the first instance, deposit the sum of 500l., to meet such costs and expenses as might ultimately be awarded by the select committee, which he had felt it his duty on a former evening to withdraw, in consequence of the request of several honourable members. He now meant to move this resolution in substance; but, with such an alteration, as would, he trusted, remove the objections that were urged against it. He here thought it right to state, that a precedent

for the principle on which this resolution | tended greatly to the public good, and was founded existed in the uniform prac-decided with the least disadvantage to tice of that House, which made it impera- adverse parties, whose interests were aftive on every parliamentary agent to de- fected by particular measures. Cases, posit a certain sum with the proper officer however, had occurred, in which misconfor the payment of fees; the amount of duct was apparent; and therefore he was which fees was, after the case was disposed friendly to a court of appeal, before which of, settled by the House. In his view of persons complaining of being aggrieved the subject, the whole system which he might be heard. At the same time, he wished to introduce would be completely thought it was absolutely necessary that useless, unless such a security as that some security should be given, to prevent which the resolution set forth were given. frivolous and vexatious complaints from It was his firm conviction, that it would being preferred. effectually prevent frivolous and vexatious appeals against the decision of committees on private bills. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving,

"That the party or parties complaining, or their agents, shall, previously to the balloting for such select committee, deposit with the clerk of the fees the sum of 5001., for the payment of such costs as may be awarded against him or them; and shall, at the same time, sign a note in writing, declaring that the whole or any part of that sum, shall be paid in such manner as the select committee shall adjudge."

Mr. Secretary Peel said, that, on the whole, he thought great benefit would result, if the House laid down some specific rule, in accordance with which an appeal might be made against the decision of a committee, instead of leaving the matter in so indefinite a shape as the present resolution did. The resolutions, generally, went to purify the constitution of committees; and therefore appeals were likely to be less numerous than they otherwise would be. But he hoped, if it appeared that injustice had been done to an individual, that he would not be debarred from redress because he could not put down 500l. A poor man ought to have liberty to say, "It is true, I have not 500l. to advance; but I will state my case to the House, and call on them to do me justice." The House ought to reserve to itself the right of doing justice to an individual, in any stage of a private bill.

Mr. G. Bankes observed, that a great part of the argument against the resolutions of the noble member for Northamptonshire (lord Althorp), with respect to bribery at elections, on a former evening, turned on the right of the House to award costs; and he could not easily divide the two cases. In his opinion, the final decision with re- Mr. Calcraft felt the proposition for a spect to costs should not be left with the deposit of 500l. to be most objectionable. committee; and therefore he thought it It would be adding materially to the difwould be right, supposing the House to ficulties which poor people had to encounbe favourable to the resolution, that these ter, in procuring justice from a committee. words, "unless the House should other-Be the case of oppression what it might, wise direct," or words to that purport, should be added. By this alteration an opportunity would be given to the House to remedy any wrong, or to rectify any error, in the adjudication of costs, which might be committed by the select committee. He was aware that this ultimate appeal to the House might occasionally take up a considerable portion of their time; but it appeared to him, that the interests of justice required such a

it was quite clear, that unless the appellants possessed considerable resources, they could not obtain justice at the hands of a committee. After having been defeated before one committee and incurred great expense, persons feeling themselves aggrieved could not come before this new tribunal without depositing 5001. He had but little expectation that benefit would be derived from the resolutions; and he thought that, in receiving them, the House had suffered the conduct of private-bill Sir T. Acland said, he would not, as committees to be greatly overcharged. some gentlemen had done, condemn in toto From his own experience of those commitcommittees on private bills. He believed, tees, he was convinced that justice had generally speaking, that substantial jus-generally been done by them. It seemed tice was administered by those committees. to be supposed, that there was at present They frequently forwarded matters which no appeal from the decision of a commitVOL. XVI.

course.

appeal

« ÖncekiDevam »