rose to present a petition from the inhabitants of Arundel, against the system observed by the Board of Excise respecting the prosecutions they instituted on the oaths of informers. The petitioners warmly complained of the manner in which those prosecutions were instituted and conducted; they stated, that so glaring had the conduct of informers been, that the board of excise was itself obliged to turn round upon those informers, and punish them. He trusted the House would see the necessity of reforming a system so pregnant with abuse.

strongly recommended the petition to the attention of the House. The greatest grievances were apparent in Sussex, from the system pursued by the excise board. Four of these informers were convicted last year of per- jury. He was as anxious as any man to prevent smuggling, but he thought that in the mode of punishing the offence some attention ought to be paid to the morals of the people. The hon. member then quoted the case of Mr. Henty, a gentleman residing within four miles of Worthing; who was charged on the oaths of some ruffians of having smuggled spirits into his premises at a time when he offered the clearest evidence of his being absent from home at the time the crime was alleged to have been committed. Yet the evidence of those ruffians was taken, though eventually Mr. Henty succeeded in convicting them of gross and wilful perjury.

said, that whatever grounds of complaint had arisen in Mr. Henty's case had been removed, so far as the board of excise could remove them, on the discovery of the imposition which had been practised upon them. But he could not see how this petition could be acted upon by the House. It was true that the petition contained a general complaint, but it stated no fact in its support, no name, no dates, nothing in the way of specific complaint that was tangible, or could be made matter of inquiry by the board.

said, that so far from their being nothing in this petition to justify inquiry, he thought there was every thing, for the petition referred to a transaction which had occurred in a court of justice, where the perjury and profligacy of the excise informers was openly exposed and punished. The question was, whether those acts complained of had been done or not? Information had been given by two persons of smuggling to the customs; on inquiry, their information was found to be false, and the persons, instead of being discharged, were taken into the employ of the board of excise. Information had been laid against Mr. Oliver, a respectable gentleman of Sussex, that he was engaged in smuggling on a particular day in a certain vessel. On inquiry, it appeared that the vessel was in dock at the time. The informers then changed their ground, and named another day; when, upon fresh inquiry, it appeared that on this second day so named, the vessel was lying under seizure at the custom house. The miscreants who had so perjured themselves, instead of being punished, were released by the excise. In Mr. Henty's case, the board preferred the evidence of similar wretches to the unquestionable testimony adduced in contradiction to it by the gentleman himself. One of the informers against Mr. Henty was at the time in Horsemonger-lane on a charge of murder, and another for theft. The perjury of others was at length clearly proved in a court of law, but they would have escaped on small bail were it not that charges of felony were brought against them—they were of course detained, and afterwards transported. The judge repeatedly admonished the witness, Todd, at Mr. Henty's trial, in consequence of the evidently perjured manner in which he was giving his testimony. The ruffian swore he had at the time taken a note of the particulars of the alleged transaction—and on pencil being put into his hand for the purpose of proving he did not know how to write, the miscreant was incapable of tracing a single letter in the alphabet. It was upon such testimony as this that the solicitor of the excise acted—upon testimony to which no police magistrate would for one moment listen. It was for the board of excise, it would appear, to set the example of acting upon the evidence of perjurers, vagrants, and every sort of miscreants. This was the first time that a minister of the Crown had objected to a petition being received, the main facts of which he knew to be true. In one of the cases, where the board were obliged to repay the injury they had done the party prosecuted, and pay all the costs, the country had to pay 1,500l. because, forsooth, the solicitor of the excise thought proper to lend his ear to the falsehoods of these informers. Since the time of the court of Star Chamber such a jurisdiction as this had never existed. Would the House believe that in Mr. Henty's case, the form of the charge was so vague, that it was impossible to know what day, between the months of January and April, it was alleged to have been committed! It was a positive fact, that the terrors of these prosecutions at the instigation of such perjured informers was so great, that thirteen men who were now known to be innocent of the crime of which they stood charged, pleaded guilty, rather than be brought to a distance from their homes, and then tried where they knew they had no chance of escape. He trusted the time would speedily arrive, when the whole System of excise prosecutions, and the practice of the courts respecting them, would be inquired into, with a view to their effectual alteration.

defended the conduct of the board of Excise, who had in Mr. Henty's case paid the whole costs that gentleman had been put to, when they found they had been imposed upon. He really thought that a petition complaining specifically of no oppression, which was open to explanation or inquiry on the facts of the case, ought not to form the ground of any proceeding before parliament. If any specific case of grievance could be satisfactorily pointed out, it should be instantly remedied, or if any specific remedy were devised, which without screening the guilty would shield the innocent, it should be immediately attended to by the board of excise.

suggested the propriety of withdrawing the petition, in the event of there being no objection to lay before parliament copies of the whole of the proceedings in the case of Mr. Henty.

repeated, that his only objection to the petition was, that when it called for inquiry, it set forth no specific facts upon which that inquiry could be grounded.

replied, that the petitioners had contented themselves with broadly stating the existence of a grievance which it was thought no man could be found to dispute. If particular facts were necessary to support inquiry many could be found to bear out the abhorrence which the petitioners had to the present practice.

said, he held in his hand a petition from Charles Pitt, esq. who had presented a petition to the House, complaining of an undue return for the borough of Camelford. The petitioner stated, that he had arranged with the clerks for the production of the sureties to enter into" recognizances yesterday, but they had subsequently discovered that that was a day beyond what was allowed by the act of parliament, and when he came down yesterday with his sureties, that was stated to him. Such were the allegations of the petitioner: whether they were true or false, he did not know, but it undoubtedly appeared to him, that if he could satisfactorily make out that the not entering into recognizances within the time required by the law did not arise from any wilful neglect of his own, the House was bound to grant him relief, perhaps by extending the time for so doing.

said, it might be convenient to state, in reference to the petition, that yesterday he had informed the House the petitioner had not entered into recognizances, in consequence of which the order for taking the petition into consideration was discharged. He had also subsequently said he had received a letter from the petitioner, describing his inability to enter into recognizances within the proper time, from the mistake of the clerk in fixing it for yesterday, a day too late; since that he had thought it his duty to call for information on the subject. He had learned that the day had been fixed on in the usual manner, and approved of by the petitioner himself; but that when the latter came yesterday, Mr. Ley found it was a day too late, and made a communication to that effect to the petitioner. He, however, put a different construction on the words of the act, and contended he was not. Under these circumstances, Mr. Ley proposed to enter into the examination of the sureties and to grant the certificate, if they should be approved of: and afterwards the petitioner might make any application to the House, touching the transaction he thought proper. The petitioner declined that course—said that he was resolved to petition the House on the conduct of the clerks—left the room, and then wrote the letter he had before referred to. In a case nearly similar, the course had been to appoint a select committee to take the facts of the petition into consideration, with a view to determine whether the case admitted of any, and what remedy. He had only further to observe, that though the petition did deal in part with the recognizances, it also went largely into the merits of the petition.

then moved, "That so much of the said petition as regards the non-examination of the sureties proposed by Charles Pitt, esq. in respect of such petition, be referred to a committee to examine the matter thereof, and to report the same, together with their observations thereupon, to the House."

thought that the petitioner ought to have applied to the House yesterday, and doubted whether the act of parliament left the House any power to resume the consideration of the petition, after the order relating thereto had been discharged. Even if it had, the petitioner should be called to the bar to verify upon oath the facts alleged, before any other step was taken in relation thereto.

rose, pursuant to notice, to make a motion to which he apprehended that no objection would be made, as the measure to which it referred was confessedly desirable. It had long been a subject of complaint, that improper persons had become conveyancers; for the only qualification required, according to the existing law, for any person to become a conveyancer, was the payment of about 401.; and such was certainly not the intention of the act of the 44th of the king, chap. 98, which it was therefore his object to amend. The hon. member concluded with moving, that the House should resolve into a committee to consider the act alluded to.—The House having resolved into the committee, the hon. member proceeded to state the nature of the amendment which he proposed in the existing law, namely, that all persons should be subject to a penalty who should draw or settle deeds, or do the business of conveyancing, except serjeants, barristers, conveyancers at the time of passing the act, persons having kept eight terms, and done exercises at an inn of court, attorneys, solicitors, proctors and notaries. The committee would perceive that he did not mean 'the act to be retrospective. Nor did he mean either that this act should extend to prevent any steward of property, being a member of one of the inns of court, from drawing any lease or conveyance of such property: nor to prevent public officers from drawing official instruments, or any individual from drawing wills, gratuitously. The hon. member dwelt upon the sums which attorneys were required to pay before they were qualified to practise; many of them having to pay in London, 1,000l. apprentice fee. Was it then lair that persons should be allowed to practise as conveyancers merely on the payment of 40l., thus taking away from attorneys the main source of their professional emolument; for it was notorious, that the common law practice of an attorney was comparatively very unproductive. The hon. member concluded with moving, That it be an instruction to the chairman to move for leave to bring in a bill for amending the act alluded to.—The motion was agreed to, the House resumed, and leave was given to bring in a bill accordingly.

observed upon the origin of this bill, which was to be attributed to what was disclosed on a recent debate, respecting the conduct of an hon. member, the representative for Limerick. It appeared on that occasion, that the late custos rotulorum for the county of Limerick, sold the place of clerk of the peace to a boy, who was quite incompetent to perform its duty; that on the accession of the present custos, this boy became a man, and, capable of performing the duties of his office, was dismissed, not for any negligence or malversation, but on the principle of sic volo sic jubeo, stat pro ratione voluntas. Such an extraordinary proceeding naturally called for animadversion. But as to the merits of the bill before the House, it was by no means calculated to answer the end in view; for the robbery and peculation committed through the office of the clerk of the peace in Ireland, were of such a nature, as this bill had no tendency to remedy. He would on Friday produce a document, which he had no doubt would astonish the House, and suggest a measure that would save 50,000l. a year to the people of Ireland. He hoped the bill of the right hon. baronet, which really was not an honest measure, because it was not calculated to produce what it professed to have in view, would be so framed as to put an end to the system of exaction which had so long prevailed in this office.

said, he had no interest whatever in bringing the bill forward. He was not connected with any clerk of the peace in Ireland—but, as such a measure appeared to be necessary, he had fulfilled a public duty, in introducing it.