صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

any thing pro bono publico, if he does not apply it accordingly, he may be indicted; and refers to that which I have just stated from 27 Assize; the distinction is very clearly taken too in 2d Hawkins, c. 25, § 4; he says in these words, all kinds of inferior crimes of a public nature, as misprisions, and all other contempts, all disturbances of the peace, all oppressions, and all other misdemeanors whatsoever, of a public evil example, against the common law, may be indicted; now I quote that for these words that follow but no injuries of a private nature, unless they some way concern the 'king. In 6 Modern, folio 96, the court says: If a man be made an officer by act of parliament, and misbehave himself in his office, he is indictable for it at common law; and any public officer, is indictable 'for misbehaviour in his office,' and there is no doubt but at all times, more especially in this, they whose offices give them such power over the public revenue, the public are extremely interested in; therefore I am of opinion, that the crime found by the jury is an indictable offence.

Mr. Justice Willes. I am of the same opinion as to both points; about a new trial, and an arrest of judgment.

Mr. Justice Buller. My lord has entered so fully into it, that it is impossible to add any thing to what he has said; therefore, I shall only enter my assent to every thing that has fallen from his lordship.

and that it was your duty, in that employment, to settle the accounts of the paymaster, and to state them with integrity to the auditor of the imprest; in the execution of which duty, you were to take care that no articles of charge were omitted to the detriment of the state. The declaration farther alleges, that you were called upon by the auditor of the imprest, to execute with fidelity this important trust, and to disclose and make known to him any charges against lord Holland's representative, which ought to have been inserted in this aecount; but that you with an intent to defraud the king, did wilfully, knowingly, and corruptly neglect and refuse to discover and make known the same, and did permit and suffer lord Sondes, one of the auditors, to proceed to close the final accounts, without bringing in the several articles according to the real truth: lord Sondes did actually proceed to close the final account, by sending this imperfect account of yours into the treasury.

That it was the duty of your office, as accountant, to settle the paymaster's balance, you have, in your examination before the commissioners of accounts, and afterwards before the treasury, on the 15th of February 1783, admitted. This examination at the treasury, the counsel have compared to a court of inquisition or star-chamber; but surely the treasury, without this severe and ill-founded reflection, had a right to inquire into the conduct of one of their officers. Evidence indeed was given that, in two instances, the ex-paymaster's accounts were passed without your assistance, though you acknowledge it was your duty, when called upon, to do it. Mr. Bangham, however, seems to think it was at your own option whe ther you would make up the accounts of expaymasters, or not; but it is admitted that whether you were concerned yourself in passing the accounts or not, that there was a fee due to you as accountant; if the fees were not optional, but must be paid on the part of the public, your duty, as receiving it, ought necessarily to be performed, and was not at your own option.

Mr. Justice Willes. Charles Bembridge; Amidst the various frauds and corruptions which have crept into most of the public offices in this country, and which have long preyed upon the vitals of our constitution, you are the only delinquent of this sort, within my memory, since Peter Leheup was brought up to receive the judgment of this Court, a court, where neither favour nor interest can protect you; but where punishment will be impartially inflicted, according to every man's demerit; and I am sure, in this age of reformation, when public economy and frugality can alone save this impoverished state; Lord Holland's accounts were immediately there is no honest man who would wish to under your care, and deserved a more than screen an officer of public trust, who has be-ordinary attention, as your superior officer trayed his duty, by endeavouring to defraud his king and country; examples become necessary, pro salute reipublicæ. It is not in the power even of this supreme Court of criminal jurisdiction, considering the venality of the umes, to cleanse the Augean stable, and therefore our only consolation must be est 'aliquod prodire tenus si non datur ultra.'

And now, without stating the precise formal charges of the information, I will give you the substance of them:-The information alleges that you as accountant were invested with an office of great public trust and confidence;

'furnish archers, et collector indicte pur 'conversion de ceo al son use demesne.'

Mr. Powell, the cashier, was, as lord Holland's acting executor, the person accounting. You were peremptorily called upon to take care that no charges were omitted; but, instead of complying with the auditor's earnest requisition, you referred him to Mr. Powell, whose interest it was to conceal the truth, or at least to delay the paying in the real balance. As to the allegation that you did this with a view to cheat and defraud the king, I will endeavour to explain the meaning of it; by the 21st of the present king, chap. 48, it appears that the commissioners of accounts had reported that there remained at that time, in Powell's hands, as executor to lord Holland, a balance of 256,4661, 2s. 4d.; and

[ocr errors]

the act directs that so much of the balance of federacy with Powell, in this iniquitous busi such money as remained unapplied, should be ness, is self-evident and beyond a possibility paid into the exchequer, on or before the 24th of doubt; and what aggravates your crime is, of October, 1781; these accounts, which un- that you received as your share for examining der that act of parliament, ought to have been this account, 2,6001.; whereas you were at passed, and the balance paid on or before the that time in league with the defaulter to con24th of October, 1781, were not delivered in ceal his omissions. till the 27th of October, 1782; and, by various And now, I cannot help lamenting the unarts and subterfuges, the real balance was happy state of this country, that in these not disclosed till the 4th of January, 1789; times of necessity and public distress, the during all which time, Mr. Powell availed passing the accounts of a paymaster should himself of the interest and profits of 116,0001., cost the state, in fees paid to its officers, the of which the public was defrauded. Can it enormous sum of 14,900l., as appears by the be said, that was not a fraud on the Crown? warrant read. The right to these extravagant You were privy to this cheat, and were at fees ought to be, and I hope will be hereafter, least a principal in the second degree: what a subject of parliamentary inquiry. share you had in the plunder is best known Your good character, as proved by several to yourself; but the Court cannot suppose respectable witnesses, has been mentioned by you were weak enough to be concerned in so your counsel as a ground for mitigating your gross a fraud without receiving some private punishment: in a doubtful case, a good chaadvantage from it.

racter will have some weight with the Court, In one respect, your conduct was more but in so clear a conviction as yours, it can criminal than Mr. Powell's, because, to an be of no avail. What remains for me, thereact of notorious dishonesty, you super-added fore, is only the irksome task, which falls to a breach of trust : that you did this wilfully my lot, of passing sentence upon you; and there can be no doubt, as the accounts lay the judgment of the Court is–That you, open in the office, and were obvious to every Charles Bembridge, be committed to the cusclerk's inspection in the office, and you your-tody of the marshal for six calendar months; self acknowledged to Mr. Rose, that you were and that you pay a fine of 2;6501.; and that perfectly apprized of each article.

you be imprisoned till you pay your fine. The jury have likewise found that you did it corruptly, and we think there is evidence sufficient to support that part of the charge; The proceedings against Messrs. Powell the error, though I ought not to call it so, and Bembridge occasioned much animated was not an omission of a few small articles, discussion in the Ilouse of Commons, in or one gross sum, but a variety of charges, at which Mr. Burke warmly supported the different times, amounting to 48,7901., so that accused. See the New Parl. History, Vol. there was an omission of half, and near a XXIII, pp. 801 et seq. 900 et seq. The comtbird, of the balance that was delivered in. passion which on these and all other occasions Was this a little peccadillo? In the execution was manifested by Mr. Burke for the sufferof your office, in iny opinion also, the deliver- ings of those public delinquents, the zeal with ing in a penciled balance, which could be which he advocated their cause, and the eagerafterwards easily obliterated, was a proof of a ness with which he endeavoured to extenuate fraudulent intention; and yet, for want of a their criminality, have received severe reprebetter, the account, in this imperfect state, hension, and in particular when contrasted was sent by the auditor to the treasury. with his subsequent conduct in the prosecu

Negligence you cannot plead, after having tion of Mr. Hastings. been so often earnestly requested to do your Respecting the office of paymaster-general duty: Ignorance is a plea equally false, as of the forces, see the debates on the bills for the fact of concealment was so notorious; and regulating that office, 23 New Parl. Hist. when the account was afterwards carried in, pp. 134. 988. the penciied balance was rubbed out, and the additional articles inserted in your own clerk Colborne's hand-writing; and this account, at I regret that the report of sir Thomas the end of the transactions, was clandestinely Davenport's argument, p. 126, et seq. is not given in to the auditors office, and given to more intelligible; perhaps, however, the conone of the clerks, in order, if possible, that it fusion observable therein is not wholly to be might escape notice. Your collusion and con- imputed to the Short Hand Writer.

a

569. Proceedings against PHILIP Lord Viscount STRANGFORD for acting criminally and corruptly as a Lord of Parliament in Ireland: 24 GEORGE III. A. D. 1784. [Journals of Lords and Commons in Ireland, and Statute Book of Ireland.]

IT appears by the journal of the House of Lords in Ireland, that a writ of error from the Court of King's-bench, in a cause wherein Gustavus Hume, esq. was plaintiff in error, and William Burton, esq. was defendant in error, had for some time been depending in

that House.

On Friday, the 5th day of March, 1784, counsel in the cause having been on that day, as well as on preceding days, heard upon the case, the two following questions were put to the judges:-1st. Whether in a case where the vouchee in a common recovery appears by attorney, the caption of the warrant of attorney, appointing such attorney, appearing upon the record to be taken by the chief justice of the Common pleas out of Court, be conclusive evidence of the capacity of such vouchee, as to the soundness of his mind, to make such attorney and suffer such recovery?

2nd. Whether upon the face of the record which was before the Court of King's-bench, on the issue joined between the plaintiff and the defendant in error, as sent to and now before this House on the present writ of error, there be any and what matter, which in law was conclusive evidence in favour of the defendant in error, so as to preclude the plaintiff from giving the evidence offered in the Court of King's-bench? And the judges were ordered to give their opinions on the same upon Friday next, the twelfth.

On which day the lord chief justice of the common pleas acquainted the House, that the judges were not prepared to give their opinions upon the questions ordered to be to them on Friday last, and that they desired farther time might be allowed them, for giving their opinions upon the said questions. Whereupon it was ordered, that the consideration of the said cause be adjourned till Tuesday next, and that the judges do then give their opinions upon the said questions.

On which day the lord chancellor acquainted the House that the lord chief justice of the common pleas had informed him, that the judges differed in their opinions, on the questions proposed to them.

Whereupon it was ordered. that the judges do deliver their opinions seriatim, with their reasons, which was accordingly done on the 16th, 17th, and 18th of the same month. Mr. Justice Crookshank, Mr. Baron Metge, Mr. Justice Kelly, Mr. Baron Hamilton, Mr. Baron Power, and the lord chief baron of the Court of exchequer delivered their opinions VOL. XXII.

The lord

upon both questions in the negative, assigning their reasons. Mr. Justice Hellens delivered his opinion, that the caption of the clusive evidence of the capacity of the warrant, as stated in the first question, is conchief justice of the Common pleas delivered vouchee, assigning his reasons. mative, and gave his reasons. The farther his opinion upon both questions in the affirconsideration of the cause was adjourned until Thursday next, the 25th of March. On Wednesday, the twenty-fourth, a motion being made to reverse the judgment of the Court of King's-bench, to set aside the verdict mentioned in the record to have been given in that Court, and that the parties may proceed to a new trial on the issue before the Court of King's-bench,

A long debate arose thereupon, and the question being put,

The House divided: and the lord visbefore the bar were 16; and the non-contents count Enniskillen reported, that the contents in the House were 15.

It was resolved in the affirmative.
Dissentient.

R. Dublin
Char. Cashel
J. D. Tuam

Shannon
Bective

Mount Cashel
Ranelagh

Farnham
Clifden

G. L. Kilmore
R. Cloyne
Longford
Gosford
Muskerry

Then the following order and judgment was made:

Whereas, by virtue of his majesty's writ of error, returnable into the House of Lords in parliament assembled, a record of the Court of King's-bench was brought into this House on the 11th day of November last, wherein Gustavus Hume, esq. is plaintiff, and William Burton, esq. is defendant; and counsel having been heard on the 27th of February last, 1st, 2nd, and 5th days of March instant, to argue the errors assigned upon the said writ of error; and the judges who were ordered to attend, having been heard seriatim, as well on the 16th, 17th, and 18th days of this instant March, to deliver their opinions, with their reasons, upon two questions of law, to them proposed, and due consideration had of what was offered on either side in this cause:

It is hereby ordered and adjudged by the Lords spiritual and temporal, in parliament assembled, that the said judgment given in the Court of King's-bench be, and the same

M

a

is hereby reversed; and that he verdict, &c. that the said parties do proceed to a new be set aside, and annulled. And it is further trial of the issue joined be iween them, in the ordered, that the parties do proceed to a said Court of our lord the king, before the new trial, upon the issue joined between king himself; and that the said Court do them, as in the said record, and that the therein according to law; and the aforesaid said Court do proceed therein according to record, and also the process had in the said law, and that the record be remitted. Court of Parliament on the premises, by the

said Court of Parliament are sent back to the The tenour of the judgment to be affixed said Court of the said lord the king, before to the transcript to be remitted, is as follows, the king himself, at Dublin aforesaid, to proyiz.

ceed thereupon, and do therein what to lay - At which day, before the said parliament and justice may appertain. aforesaid, at Dublin aforesaid, came the par- Ordered, that lord viscount Strangford do ties aforesaid, by their attornies aforesaid; atlend at his place in this House on Friday whereupon the said Court of Parliament, hav- next. ing seen and fully understood all and singular Ordered, that George Rochfort, esq. do at. the premises, and having diligently examined tend this House on Friday next. and inspected the said verdict of the said ju- On Friday, the 26th March, James Corry rors, the judgment thereupon given, and the being by order called in, was sworn at the bar; said bill of exceptions, under the seals of said and being examined, proved the service of justices of our said lord the king, before the the order of this House of Wednesday last king himself, and also the causes and matters on lord visc. Strangford, to attend in his place. above assigned in the said Court of Parlia- The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House ment for errors, by the said Gustavus Hume, that he had received a leiter to excuse his in this, that the chief justice, and justices of attendance for a few days. our lord the king, before the king himself, Ordered, that lord viscount Strangford do upon the trial at the bar of the Court of attend at his place in this House on this day King's-bench to the jury there sworn to try se'nnight. the issue joined between the said Gustavus Ordered, that George Rochfort esq., do Hume and the said William Burton, declared attend this House on this day se'nnight. and delivered their opinion to the said jury, On Friday, April 2nd, the lord chancellor upon the said trial, that the evidence in the acquainted the House, that he had received said bill of exceptions mentioned and offered a letter from lord viscount Strangford, into be given in behalf of the said Gustavus forming him of his being unwell; whereupon Flume, to prove the facts in issue aforesaid, it was ordered that Dr. William Harvey, and was illegal and inadmissible evidence to go Geo. Rochfort, esq. should attend the House before the said jury; and declared that the on the morrow, between three and four o'clock. record referred to and mentioned in the said And accordingly on Saturday the third, bill of exceptions, and brought here before Dr. William Harvey, attending, was called in our lord the king, and the lords spiritual and and sworn at the bar, and proved that lord temporal, upon the writ of error by the said viscount Strangford had the gout in his Gustavus Hume against the said William Bur- stomach on the 31st day of March last, and ton, and now remaining in the Court here, was not able to attend at his place in the vas conclusive evidence to the jury, to find a House. verdict for the defendant; and the chief jus- Thereupon it was ordered that lord viscount tice and justices of the said Court aforesaid Strangford should attend at his place in the accordingly directed the said jury to find House on Wednesday next the seventh, and a verdict for the defendant; and accord that George Rochfort should attend the House ing to the said direction, the said jury found on the same day. a verdict for the defendant; without any evi- On that day a letter directed to William duice whatsoever, save the said record, it ap- Watts Gayer, esq., Clerk's office, House of pears unto the said Court of parliament, that Lords, signed, “ Strangford,” being read as the said verdict of the said jurors ought to follows, viz. be set aside and annulled, and that the judg.

South-Hill, 7 April, 1784. ment thereupon given is crroneous, and at Sir; The annexed memorial, submitted in the record and process aforesaid, and also to the Lords spiritual and temporal, could in giving the aforesaid judgment, there is not, in my poor opinion, be addressed with manifest error; therefore it is considered by propriety to any individual peer. Unfortuthe same Court of parliament aforesaid, thatnately my wretched state of health prevents the verdict of the said jurors be vacated and searching the journals, where probably preannulled; and that the judgment aforesaid, ' cedents might be found. Clear I am that for the errors aforesaid, being in the record in your official department of clerk to the and process aforesaid, be reversed, annulled, Hlouse of Lords, every paper transmitted to and altogether held for nought, and that the your care is to be delivered either to the noble said Gustavus Hume be restored to every viscount, chairman of the comunittee of prithing he hath lost on occasion of the judg: vileges, or offered to the consideration of the gent aforesaid. And it is further considered, Ilouse. For thesç reasons, I recommend it

[ocr errors]

apology for not attending in his place pursuant to the order of the House, he begged pardon of the House for such his disobedience.

Resolved, that the lord viscount Strangford be discharged out of custody for his contempt in not obeying the order of the House.

The House then proceeded to take into consideration the matter of the letter heretofore produced to this House, and remaining with the clerk of the parliament, directed to George Rochfort, esq., with the name, 'Strangford,' appearing at the foot thereof; and the same being produced to the lord viscount Strangford now in his place, he viewed and perused the same, and afterwards the said lord viscount Strangford acknowledged that he wrote the said letter, and sent it as directed, but he declared he had no corrupt motive or intention in so doing.

After which he retired by leave of the House, and the House proceeded further in consideration of the said matter. The said letter was then read, as follows, viz

[ocr errors]

Dear Sir; As a busy scene is likely to open after the recess, which will bring on 'momentous transactions to individuals, I 'could wish by regular attendance to frame a right judgment on the different cases will be brought forward; but as distressed cir'cumstances deprive me of means to appear, shall I be deemed too presumptuous in looking up once more to that friendship I experienced early in life? I am conscious that on a former application you assigned such reasons for a denial as silenced all ' reply, but as probably since that time, rents have been more punctually paid, I am enforgiveness, by renewing a request produc'couraged from that consideration to hope tive of too many advantages to enumerate: 2001. would fix me in the most enviable ‹ situation, and one hundred would surmount some pressing difficulties, and enable me by daily appearance to express my gratitude by doing justice, when I flatter myself to see success crown the undertaking. Be so good to favour with a line one who you may be 'assured is, with the sincerest regard, dear Sir, your very faithful and most humble STRANGFORD.'

to your particular care, and am, with esteem, | being brought accordingly, and making an Sir, your most humble servant,

" STRANGFORD.'

Then the said Memorial was, by order, read as follows, viz.

To the Right Honourable the Lords
spiritual and temporal, in Parliament
'assembled ;'

With the utmost deference, lord Strangford presumes to lay before their lordships his absolute inability to obey their orders, having been severely attacked by the gout in his stomach, one fit particularly, so re'cently as Monday last; for which, and other complicated disorders, he is following thrice a day a course of Dr. Harvey's prescriptions, which might, on attempting to go abroad, produce most fatal consequences to the short <remainder of a very declining life. He still trusts, under God, their efficacy will restore him to such a portion of health as shall release him from present confinement, rendered infinitely more afflicting by its de'priving him of an opportunity of learning the real cause of accusation, and conse'quently taking the liberty of offering some defence in his vindication, to mitigate their lordships displeasure, happily never incurred before in the course of upwards of forty years 'he had the honour of a seat with their ⚫ lordships.'

James Corry, being by order called in, was sworn at the bar, and proved the service of the order of this House, of Saturday last, on lord viscount Strangford, to attend in his place.

Ordered, that Dr. William Harvey do attend this House to-morrow, at three o'clock.

George Rochfort esq. being by order called in, was sworn at the bar, and proved the receipt of a letter, dated South-Hill, 10th Jan. and signed Strangford.

Ordered, that the order for lord viscount Strangford to attend at his place in the House this day be adjourned till to-morrow.

On Thursday the eighth, the House proceeding to take into consideration the excuse made by the lord viscount Strangford for not attending in his place according to the order of this House, and having examined Dr. William Harvey respecting the same, do conceive such excuse not to be well-founded, and therefore do order, and it is hereby ordered, that the said lord viscount Strangford be taken into the custody of the gentleman usher of the black rod for his contempt of the order of this House.

On Saturday following, the tenth, the gentleman usher of the black rod acquainted the House, that he had taken the lord viscount Strangford into custody according to the order of the House on Thursday last, for his contempt in not obeying the order of this House. Ordered, that the lord viscount Strangford be brought to the bar of this House, by the • usher of the black rod.

Whereupon the lord viscount Strangford

'servant.

"South-Hill, 10 January.'

Resolved, by the lords spiritual and temporal in parliament assembled, nemine dissentiente, that it appears to this House, that the lord viscount Strangford in writing and sending such letter as aforesaid, hath acted criminally and corruptly.

Resolved, that the lord viscount Strangford be committed to the custody of the gentleman usher of the black rod.

Resolved, that this House will, on Monday next, proceed to take into consideration, what further becomes the justice and dignity of the House to be done on this occasion; and that

« السابقةمتابعة »