he knew very well, was now given up; but still it was necessary for him to advert to it. In judging of the value of the commissioners' report, it was fit to see, not only how much of it remained, but how much of it had already been abandoned or disproved. A second charge in the report was, for an addition of five farthings to the fee upon an affidavit taken under particular circumstances. It turned out that the loss arising out of that arrangement was greater to the judge than the gain from the increased fee. Another charge of the commissioners, and one which had made a considerable impression was for an increase of the fee taken for swearing in the sheriff. Now, there certainly was a particular act of parliament, fixing the amount of the fee to be taken for swearing the sheriff; but there was no reason to believe that the chief baron had been cognizant of that act; and his predecessor (lord Avonmore) had uniformly taken the same fee which he took. And here he would ask the House, whether it was reasonable to expect that a judge, when appointed to his seat, should set about investigating, upon the instant, the origin of every fee which he took? Of course he would leave such a matter to his officers, and take probably the same sums which had been taken by those who sat before him. The charge, however, as to the fee for swearing the sheriff was given up, and the next charge in the commissioners report was declared by the committee to have originated in a clerical error. So here were four charges, and four of the gravest charges, in the report which the hon. member for Limerick so much relied upon, entirely abandoned. With respect to the charge contained in the resolution now in debate, the committee had not negatived it, but, on the other hand, they had not confirmed it; and until the chief baron himself was heard upon it, how was it possible for the House to decide? Who was there in the House so well informed upon the case, that he could lay his hand upon his heart, and say to the chief baron, standing for judgment-" I find you guilty ?" Had the written evidence, such as it was, been fully considered by the house? The hon. member for Limerick, perhaps, had read it, and one or two other gentlemen: but was it fully in the knowledge of the members, generally, of the House? For his own part, he had certainly read the evidence; but his opinion was, that if it made out

a case against the chief baron; it was at the most only such a case as admitted of an answer; and therefore, again he said, he would pass no vote of censure without the chief baron being fully heard. Much stress was laid upon the change of practice with respect to the fees upon the bills of costs. The case in reality stood thus

the judge signed the writ of taxation, and he signed the bill of costs, and he received for each signature a fee of one shilling. The signature to the bills of costs being merely a matter of form, the judge gave up the practice of signing them, and directed his officer to collect the two shillings upon the signature of the writ of taxation. And certainly it had happened in some cases under this practice, that the clerk had collected the fee of two shillings, where only one shilling would have become due; but that fact had been utterly unknown to the chief baron, who had only gone on in the same course which his predecessor, lord Avonmore, had followed before him. The instances of undue charge had not been known; and how were they likely to be known to the chief baron? For the argument, that it was an abuse to take the fee without giving the signature, where the signature was nothing else than a matter of form, it was an argument which could hardly require an answer. The offi cer took the fee, it was said, and did not perform the duty. Well; and half the fees taken in our courts of law were taken under the same circumstances. The chief justice, in the Court of Common Pleas in England, took a fee for the taxation of costs, and the duty was performed, not by the chief justice but by the prothonotary. He could not help repeating that he thought the measure of the hon. member for Limerick contrary to law, to fairness, and to constitutional principle. How best to meet the measure, he hardly knew. It could not be met by a direct negative: and as the previous question was not applicable he should move that the Speaker do leave the chair.

Mr. Hutchinson suggested, that he had already moved that amendment.

The Solicitor-General said, that in that case, he would sit down by seconding it.

Mr. Tierney observed, that it was rather extraordinary the hon. member should express an anxiety that the chief baron should not be condemned unheard, and yet should propose an amendment, which would have the effect of preventing his

being heard at all. It was his opinion, that the chief baron ought to be heard at the bar, and therefore the House ought to take some step which would induce him to appear. He spoke only to the dry question of form, but pledged himself to no opinion on the merits of the case.

Mr. Secretary Canning stated, that he was ready to affirm the resolutions, as far as they were simply extracts of the reports; but as far as they contained matter of accusation against the chief baron, he was not prepared to affirm them. If the committee entertained the charge, he saw no constitutional mode of following it up but by impeachment; but, perhaps, at the present period of the session, and considering the appearance which the House presented, that course could not be satisfactorily pursued. He should be glad if any better mode of proceeding were suggested. Perhaps the proceedings might be suspended after the committee should have adopted an initiative resolution, which would operate as a warning to the chief baron to apply for permission to be heard at their bar.

Mr. Wynn was of opinion, that as the two reports contained matters of accusation, the chief baron had already been forewarned of the necessity of entering upon his defence; and he had in some measure done so, by the two letters which he had written relative to those reports. He thought it might be an eligible mode to suspend the proceedings, with the view of giving the chief baron an opportunity of making application to be heard at their bar. He would be glad if an hon. and learned gentleman opposite could tell him whether the chief baron was desirous of being heard at the bar? For if it were ascertained that he was not, the committee ought not to stay its proceedings.

Mr. Scarlett said, that in his opinion there was no ground for coming to the last resolution; and, indeed, he thought any resolution would be exceptionable which implied a censure, as the reports only related to matters of fact from which no inferences of crimination ought to be drawn, as there was no proof before the committee, that the chief baron might not be entitled to the fees which the reports stated him to have received. If the resolution were put to the vote, he would move an addition, the substance of which would be, that the practice did not appear to be known to the chief baron.

Mr. S. Rice stated, that in the course
VOL. IX.

of the proceedings which had taken place on this subject for three years, sufficient notice had been given to the chief baron to enter upon his defence. He vindicated the fairness of his own proceedings, and said, that any hon. member who accused him of having acted unjustly, ought to point out a fairer mode of proceeding than that which he had adopted.

Mr. Secretary Peel thought, that if there was any difficulty it was not to be obviated by postponement. There were several modes of proceeding. He did not approve of that course which would fix a resolution of censure upon a Judge. It was his opinion, that a person holding such a situation ought to be dismissed altogether, if guilty of the acts laid to his charge, but ought not, under any circumstances, to be partially degraded. He did not approve of the mode of proceeding by scire facias in such a case, nor by address. He thought impeachment the only constitutional mode; but he could not consent to follow any of these courses, for to each of them many and serious objections presented themselves. His opinion in this respect had not been formed without due deliberation, nor had it been influenced by communication with any other persons. It was founded on the nature of the charges themselves. Supposing those charges to be proved-which but for the sake of the argument could not be admitted-still they would not amount to the high crimes which had been alleged against the chief baron. He (Mr. Peel) could very well conceive that in such a court as that over which the chief baron presided, improper charges might be made without his knowledge. He would not be understood to deny that it was the duty of a judge to examine accurately and scrupulously the conduct of the officers of his court; but if that care had not been shown in the present instance, he could not think, taking into consideration the character of the individual, that the neglect called for so grave a punishment as impeachment. Another objection which he had to this latter measure was, its importance and solemnity, which rendered it unfit to be applied to the charges now brought against the chief baron. He knew it would be easy for some gentlemen to rise and say to him-"Will you, then, connive at offences so reprehensible in their principle, be cause they are only small ones?" but he should reply, that he did not connive at 3 T

them, nor did he go the length of vindicating the chief baron; but he objected for the sake of the public interests, which were so powerfully upheld upon important occasions by the proceeding by impeachment, that its solemnity should be diminished by exercising it for an inferior cause. If it were objected to him, that what he had now urged in favour of the chief baron ought to have been urged three years ago, he would admit that, as applied to himself, the argument ad hominem would be unanswerable, but as applied to the House, he thought it would be a more dignified as well as a more candid course to say, "We have let pass the time at which this charge and the defence would each have had a sure efficient operation; and for this reason it would be better now to postpone it." At the period alluded to, the charges were of much graver import than they now appeared to be. That relating to the fees taken on swearing in the sheriffs had then seemed to be a serious violation of the law. But no person could now say that it had not been materially altered; for it seemed that this practice, unjust as it certainly was, had at least the sanction of the chief baron's predecessors. To this charge, he might with great truth reply, that his attention had never been drawn to the particular statute under which it was received, and that he had never required of his officer information on the subject. Certainly this was no reason why parliamentary proceedings should not be taken; but it was a reason why an impeachment should not be the course adopted. There were also other charges made against the chief baron with which he (Mr. P.) was not satisfied. Considering the burden which the chief baron's duties imposed upon him, the time which they occupied, the importance and anxiety of the office, and the character of the individual by which it was filled, he was prepared to believe, that although grounds might exist for those charges, still they were far from authorizing the charge of corruption against that individual. He (Mr. P.) could not conceal from himself, that a very lax method of proceeding had been adopted for many years, in taking fees in the courts of justice in Ireland. The remedy for this was, not to select any individual as a victim for these offences, but to abolish the system; and this had been done by an act of the legislature. The right hon. gentleman here referred

to a list of the fees claimed by the masters in Chancery in 1815, contrasted with those allowed in 1735. This long continued practice weighed, in his mind, as a powerful reason why they should not select the present case to visit with a punishment which had been withheld for so many years. So strongly did he feel this, that if he were now called upon to choose between the evils (for they were both evils) of passing by altogether the further investigation of these charges, or of proceeding to impeachment, he should feel inclined to choose the lesser evil, and to pass them by altogether. When the House should have decided to pass the resolutions before it, it would have to decide upon the mode of proceeding, and he had therefore risen in that stage, to call to their notice the difficulties which, in his view of the matter, seemed to beset their future progress. He could not sit down without bearing testimony to the pains and intelligence with which the committee of inquiry had discharged the duty imposed upon them by the House. He had had frequent opportunites of communicating with them, and he had never beheld a more inflexible resolution to surmount the obstacles which had been opposed to them. He could never hear any thing like censure cast upon them without expressing his opinion of their merits.

Sir J. Mackintosh said, he would give no opinion whatever on the merits of the case. If any subsequent proceeding were to take place, there would be abundant opportunities for doing that. The committee had heard as fair and liberal an accusation from the hon. member for Limerick, and as judicious and meritori ous a defence from the hon. relative of the chief baron, as any at which he had ever been present. When he (sir J. M.) left the House, which he had been unavoidably compelled to do, he understood that the difficulty was not whether the house should proceed, but as to the manner in which that proceeding should be conducted. But now, from the last part of the right hon. gentleman's speech, he understood there was an objection to ulterior proceedings.

Mr. Peel said, he had expressed an opinion, that the proceeding by impeachment would be better than by address.

Sir J. Mackinto h said, that the committee, so far from being called upon to decide the question, had no right to give an opinion upon it. He objected strongly

night the chief baron would be absent on the assizes. The delay must therefore be greater. But, was it probable that hon. gentlemen would be disposed to devote the summer to such an inquiry? For his part, he deprecated commencing it at so late a period of the session, and recommended its postponement to the early part of the next.

to the argument which had been used, that the smallness of the offence ought to excuse it from punishment. To sanction this principle would be to sanction the destruction of the judicial body and the character of that House. He thought the chief baron ought to be heard before the House, if he thought fit to apply. Three years had now elapsed since these charges had been preferred; and during the whole of that period the chief baron had not thought fit to petition to be heard by himself or his counsel, at the bar of the House. If his hon. friend would therefore withdraw his amendment (which, though carried, would be no acquittal for the chief baron, but rather an escape, which he would disdain), he would then move that the Chairman should report progress, and ask leave to sit again on that day fortnight, with a view to give the chief baron an opportunity to act as he thought proper in his own defence, and for the justification of his character.

Mr. Secretary Peel denied having said that the smallness of the offence ought to prevent a parliamentary proceeding against a judge. What he had said was, that the sinallness of the amount almost precluded the possibility of a corrupt motive.

Mr. J. P. Grant observed, that if he thought the smallness of the amount precluded the probability of a corrupt motive, he would propose to pronounce that opinion as the decision of the committee, and not pass the subject entirely over by reporting progress. If, on the contrary, he thought that corrupt motives did exist, he should think that, painful as would be the task, the House ought to proceed.

Mr. Hutchinson said, that his object in moving the amendment was, not to evade justice, but to do justice. What he objected to was coming to a decision on the merits of the case, in a state of ignorance with respect to them. He was quite ready, however, to withdraw his amend ment, if the committee were disposed to adopt any other course.

The amendment was accordingly withdrawn.

Mr. S. Rice, to obviate some of the objections which had been made to it, moved the insertion in the fourth Resolution of the words, "appears by, and stated in."

Mr. Scarlett, while he coincided in the spirit of the proposition of his hon. and learned friend, observed, that in a fort

Sir J. Mackintosh felt the full force of the argumentum ad inertiam which his hon. and learned friend had used, and which had always a great effect on that House. He thought, however, that if the decision on the subject were postponed to the next session, the chief baron would have a good right to arraign the justice of the House, in denying him an earlier opportunity of clearing his character.

Mr. R. Smith was apprehensive that the inquiry must stand over until next session. Some notice of the subject however, not of the nature of a prejudgment, ought to appear on the Journals of the House.

Mr. Canning, while he admitted that the amendment to the first resolution made it, not a fact, but an inference from the Report of the Commissioners, denied that a similar amendment introduced into the succeeding resolutions would have the same effect.

Mr. Wetherell thought the real question was, in what shape the subject should be abandoned now, in order that it might be resumed afterwards? For his part, he saw no use in agreeing to some of the resolutions, unless the others were also adopted, If it were not intended to proceed with the investigation this session, the better way would be to postpone the whole matter to a future time.

The Attorney General wished the first resolution to be postponed as well as the others. In his opinion, no culpability would attach to the chief baron, unless it appeared that he had knowingly taken improper fees; and, according to the report, he had only placed his signature officially to bills of costs that were not taxed, without examining them.

The House resumed. The Chairman reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.

USURY LAWS REPEAL BILL.] Mr. Serjeant Onslow moved, that the bill be committed. On the question, "that the Speaker do leave the Chair,"