Mr. William Cooke, being examined in the most solemn manner, said, That he was regis. tring clerk to the commissioners, and ingrossing clerk of the decrees. of him the particulars of his contract being cut out, and at what time it was done. Mr. Smith told them, he believed it was done upon his application to the board of commissioners, Upon his being shewn the loose leaf, whereon when he made it appear to them, that they is entered Hackett's contract mentioned before, had a better estate or interest left in them, and examined in relation thereto, he said, than what they had sold to him; and there That contract was of bis hand-writing, he some- fore he had got an order for a new contract, times entering contracts, when the clerk, whose | the draught of which Smith (upon the exabusiness it was to do it, was otherwise em. minant's asking him) said, he believed was ployed; but being so long since, he could not made out by the late Mr. Moor, who was then remember whether he wrote it in a book, or on master of the references: The examinant then a loose sheet of paper; but he did not remember, asking Smith, who tore out the first contract; that he ever wrote any contract on a loose his answer was, He did not see it torn out, nor leaf. did he know who did it, but he believed it was done the 30th of July; the examinant said, Mr. Smith did not mention the names of the commissioners present the day this order was made; but upon Allen's asking him, from whom he had this intelligence of the additional estate, Smith answered, From Mr. Moor. He likewise said, That Mr. White's contract for the purchase of Mr. Radcliffe's annuity, dated the 30th of July, 1723, and Mr. Smith's contract dated the 11th of the same month, were of his hand writing; but he could not remember the days of the month, on which he wrote the same; yet he believed, by the order in which they are entered in the book, that Smith's contract, dated the 11th, was wrote after White's dated the 30th. And he said be had his directions concerning this contract of Smith's, from one Mr. Harris only. Mr. John Harris, being examined in the most solemn manner, said, That he was clerk under the secretary to the said commissioners; and being asked, from whom he had the draught of Mr. Smith's contract, dated the 11th of July, and entered subsequent to White's of the 30th, he answered, he had it from Mr. Allen, but remembered no orders he gave to Cooke relating thereto, though Cooke sometimes assisted him. Being asked, if he never observed any leaves to be torn out of the Book of Contracts, he said, the first time he did, was at his former examination before your Committee; but he believed it had been a practice in the office to tear them out, when mistakes have happened in the writing, or the particular of an estate has been defective, or a better title has been máde appear, but then it was never done without order from the board of Commissioners. He further said, That he always attended the sales of the forfeited estates, and particularly remembered he was present the 11th of July, 1723, when the late lord Derwentwater's estate was set up to sale: and he believed, it was then sold to Mr. Smith; that the contract was entered that day in the book; and be believed he was witness to it, because he was witness to the other contracts entered the same day. Then he was shewn the Book of Contracts; and not finding it entered among the other contracts of that date witnessed by him, the examinant said, he believed it was torn or cut out, but by whom or at what time this was done, he could not remember. Whereupon he was directed to declare what he knew or had heard relating to this matter; and he informed your Committee, That Mr. Allen and himself went to Mr. Smith, to know Mr. Allen in his examination confirmed what Mr. Harris said in relation to that which Smith told Harris and him, and added likewise, that Smith said, the new contract was made for the same consideration as the former. Mr. Turbill also in his examination gave information to your Committee, that Mr. Smith bad, since this enquiry began, given him the same account in relation to the vacating his first contract, and that Smith told him, that upon his application to the commissioners, ano, ther contract was made about 20 days after, but dated as on the 11th of July. And Mr. Turbill in another part of his exa mination said, That some time after the death of Mr. Radcliffe, son to the late earl of Derwentwater, the examinant then being in the country, Mr. Smith wrote him a letter, acquainting him, that now Mr. Radcliffe was dead, they should want copies of several claims and decrees. Hereupon, Mr. Turbill was asked, if he knew what Mr. Smith meant when he made use of the word 'They; and he answered, he supposed he meant other persons that were linked with him in the purchase. The examinant being asked, if he knew who those persons were; he said, he had often heard Mr. Smith say, that Mr. John Bond, sir Joseph Eyles, and Mr. White (the purchaser of Mr. Radcliffe's annuity) were concerned in the purchase of the said late earl's land estate and the examinant said, he remembered, Mr. Smith told him, that on the 11th of July, the day of the sale of this estate, he, the said Saith, upon seeing the printed particular of the estate hang up in the office, asked one or more of the persons abovenamed, if they would' be concerned in a lottery; and the examinant thought he mentioned White; that since this enquiry the examinant has also heard Smith say, That he and White were jointly concerned in the purchase of the annuity; but he did not mention, whether they were concerned at the time of the purchase, or since. Your Committee also examined Mr. Allen 1 2 and Mr. Turbill, whether notice had been given of Mr. Radcliff's annuity being put up to sale, after that Mr. Hackett went off from his bar gain, as mentioned before. And Mr. Allen said, that he believed no notice was given of a second sale of the said annuity, nor did he remember that he ever had any orders for such notice. Mr. Turbill said likewise, that he never had any orders for notice of that sale himself, nor knew of any given to others; neither had he any notes of bidding at such second sale. By the Minute Book of the proceedings of the said commissioners, and by the Book of Contracts, it appeared to your Committee, that several contracts for sales bear date respectively on the days on which the names of two of the commissioners only are entered as present, in the minutes of those days proceedings. And Mr. Allen being examined, whether any estates had been sold, when four commissioners were not present; He said, that on the 30th of July, the impropriate tythes of Bucklebury, the estate of the late lord Bolingbroke, was sold to one Samuel Child for 2,025l. and Mr. White's contract for Mr. Radcliffe's annuity was executed and witnessed by him, when only two commissioners, Mr. Serjeant Birch and Mr. Bond, were present; and had there been any sale that day, the examinant should have known it, being present all that day, and the minutes of his writing; and if any other commissioners had been present, he should have entered their names in the minutes; for he believed he never forgot at any time to enter therein the names of the commissioners that were present. Mr. Harris likewise said in his examination, That he happening to come into the board room the said 30th of July upon business, Mr. Serjeant Birch and Mr. Bond were there, and he does not remember that on that day any other commissioners were present. Then Mr. Allen was asked by your Committee, whether to supply the defect of a sufficient number of commissioners at the board, such conmissioners as were absent, have not afterwards set their names to papers or instruments, or ordered others to do it for them: And He answered, That he had set sir Johu Eyles's name to contracts, as if he had been present; and that he had a general direction from sir John Eyles and sir Thomas Hales, to set their names to warrants, precepts, contracts, or any thing done at the board; that they knew he did it, and approved of it; otherwise be should not have ventured to have done it; and he said, he had those orders soon after he offciated as secretary; but he had no such orders from any of the other commissioners, nor did he know of any such orders given to others. Mr. Chocke laid before your Committee, pursuant to their order, two original precepts from the said commissioners, the one dated the 11th of July, 1728, and directed to Wm. Smith, esq. to pay into the exchequer, 1,060/. for the purchase of part of lord Derwentwater's estate, and the other dated the 30th of the same month, and directed to Matthew White, esq. to pay likewise 1,2014. 1s. Od. for the purchase of Mr. Radcliffe's annuity payable thereout: Both which precepts were sealed, and are signed with the names of Dennis Bond, John Birch, John Eyles and Thomas Hales. Upon notice being taken by your Committee of some words, or memorandum wrote on the precept dated the 11th of July; Mr. Chocke said, That a person came to pay money, pursuant to that precept, on the 29th of the same July, but went back and came again, and paid it in on the 31st. Mr. Allen was afterwards called in, and being shewed the said precepts, and examined, he said at first, That he wrote the names of sir John Eyles and sir Tho. Hales to both of them; afterwards he owned himself mistaken as to sir John Eyles's name being signed by the examinant to that of the 11th of July; but said, he sigued sir Thomas Hales's name to it; and both their names to that of the 30th. Being asked where he signed them, he said in the board room, when only Mr. Serjeant Birch and Mr. Bond were present; that they never made any objection to his signing, but upon several occasions have called upon him to do it. He was then asked, if sir Thomas Hales never left orders for the examinant to sign, after he has been gone; and he answered, he believed he had several times; but whether sir Thomas Hales was present that day, or not, he could not tell. Being asked, whether he had not entered the names of Commissioners in the Minute Book, as present, though they were absent; and being shewn the Minute of the 11th of July, 1723, where the names of four Commissioners are entered, as present, viz. Mr. Serjeant Birch, Mr. Bond, sir John Eyles, and sir Thomas Hales; he said, he believed he entered the names of sir John Eyles, and sir Thomas Hales, as present, though absent, to tally with their names, which he had put to the warrants or contracts of the day. Then he was shewn the Minute of the 30th of the same July, where the names of Mr. Serjeant Birch and Mr.. Bond only are entered, as prescut, and being asked, why he did not then enter the names of sir John Eyles, and sir Thomas Hales, he said, he could not recollect the reason of that particular. He was then examined, upon what occasion sir John Eyles, and sir Thomas Hales, gave him orders to sign their names, when absent; and he answered, it was for want of a sufficient number of Commissioners present at the board to dispatch business; but when any business of consequence was to be transacted, sir John Eyles has been sent for, and has often attended upon such notice; and at other times the examinant has waited on him at his house, with contracts for him to sign. Being, further examined, he said, That he never extended this power to any deeds of con veyance, or to any thing, but what he then apprehended to be matters of form; and that, when this power was given him, the limitation was to matters of form. He was thereupon asked, What be apprehended to be matters of form; and his answer was, a great many, things; such as orders for persons to attend to give their testimony; for persons to appear, and give in their claims; and precepts for paying money into the exchequer; and what the act directed to be signed by four of the Commissioners, he then did take to be matters of form; but he could not say, he took the attendance of four of the Commissioners, as required by the act, to be a matter of form. Being asked, who were the Commissioners then present, he answered there were four, but' could not name any besides Mr. Serjeant Birch, who was then in the chair; and that he never saw a sale without four. He was asked several times, if he could be positive there were four present on the 11th of July; and he said, he could not be positive, but on the best of his remembrance and belief, he thought, there were four present. Your Committee observing, that in the printed particular of the lord Derwentwater's estate, the value is there computed to be 5,013% per annum, and the timber valued at 4,500%. they examined in the most solemn manner, Mr. Henry Rodbourne; who said, that about three years ago he was upon the estate; that the same is improveable; and there are several lead mines upon it; and that he computed the value of the estate, with the profits of the mines, which are worked, to be about 6,300% or 6,400l. per annum, and the estate is increased since the time of sale about 2, 3 or Being asked, whether he thought contracts for sales of estates were matters of form, he said, he did at that time take them to be so and said, that the Commissioners signed and sealed the contracts they gave to the purchaser, (when demanded) at the same time that the purchaser signed his, but the same was not sealed or delivered in the inanner that deeds are, when executed; and that which the pur-4001. per annum. He also said, that since the chaser signed, was always witnessed; and that he looked upon these contracts to bind the Commissioners to execute the bargains of sale to the purchaser, according as the act directs. Upon which he was asked, if he ever put his hand and seal to any of those contracts; he said, he had signed the names of sir John Eyles and sir Thomas Hales to contracts, and sealed them with a seal that was in the office, but that he never had sir John Eyles's or sir Thomas Hales's seal; and he never remembered any contracts to be signed out of the board room, either by the Commissioners or purchasers. Being asked, whether Smith and White, at the time their contracts were signed, made any objection to there being but two Commissioners present, or to his signing thereto the names of sir John Eyles and sir Thomas Hales, he answered, they made no objection, nor could he say, they saw him sign, any otherwise than as they were at the board the time the examinant signed them. Mr. Harris (as being witness to all the contracts dated the 11th of July) was asked, whether Mr. Smith made any objection to Mr. Allen's signing sir Thomas Hales's name to his contract made the 11th; and he said, he remembered no objection made by Smith. But in another part of his Examination, he informed your Committee, that having occasion to go into the board room on the 30th of July, he saw Mr. Allen sign sir John Eyles's name to Smith's contract inade that day, and dated the 11th; and he more particularly remembers this, because it is the last contract entered in the book. Mr. William Marwood, being examined in the most solemn manner, said, he was formerly clerk to the master of the references; and to the best of his remembrance he attended at the sale of the late lord Derwentwater's estate on the 11th of July, and carried in the notes of bidding at that sale, when Mr. Smith was then declared the best bidder, late earl's death, his son had only a power to grant leases during the term of his minority, and for that reason the mines have been neglected; but if the said estate and mines were to be let out upon leases for the term of 21 and 31 years, the whole might, according to his judgment, be made worth about 9,000l. per annum. Mr. Joseph Studeley, being examined in the most solemn manner, said, That he was present the 11th of July, 1723, when the late lord Derwentwater's estate was put up to sale at 2,000% that the examinant came to bid for it at the desire of one Mr. Penson, but no person bidding for it, while he stayed, and other estates being set up to sale before he came away, he thought it would not be sold that day, and therefore he went and told Mr. Penson (who waited for him) that he believed the estate would not be sold that day, and had the examinant thought it would, he should have stayed, for he came on purpose to bid for it by Mr. Penson's orders, but was not to bid, untill others had bid before; and further said, that when an estate had been set up, and nobody bid, it was usual to put it up at a lower price the same day. 1 Being asked, what one Tooke had told him in relation to this affair; he answered, that about a week after Tooke told him, it was a hustled-up clandestine sale: and Tooke then belonged to the office: whereupon, Mr. Nicholas Tooke, being examined in the most solemu manner, said, that he did not remember he had any such conversation with Studeley, but had conversed with Studeley seve ral times. But he said, that he was at the sale of the late lord Derwentwater's estate, and having occasion to speak with sir Thomas Hales, he sent his servant from an outward room into the office, to know if he was there; and he brough him word, that he was not there; but the examinant did not know, whether sir Thomas Hales might not come after he went away; for that he stayed not above an hour in the forenoon, but went away before the estate was sold; and when it was first put up, the examinant was not there. Mr. Smith, the purchaser of this estate, was summoned to attend your Committee; but they did not think it proper to oblige him to be examined and therefore, upon the question being asked him, whether he was willing to be examined touching the subject matter of their enquiry; the next day he acquainted your Committee, that he hoped, they would not take it amiss, if he declined such examination. Ordered, That the said Report be taken into consideration to-morrow se'nnight. And that such a number of copies be printed, as shall be sufficient for the use of the Members. 1. Mr. Denis Bond, Mr. Baron Birch, sir Thomas Hales, sir John Eyles, Mr. John Bond, and sir Joseph Eyles, being named in the said Report; and it appearing to be the sense of the House, that they should promise to attend in their places to-morrow se'nnight; they severally stood up in their places, and declared, that they would attend accordingly. Ordered, That all the Members of this House, who are in and about the town, do attend the service of the House to-morrow se'nnight; and that no member do presume to go out of town, without leave of the House. The Bill, For securing the Freedom of Parliaments, read the third time, and thrown out.] March 23. The Bill, For the better securing the Freedom of Parliaments, by farther qualifying members to sit in the House of Commons,' was read the third time, and the question being put, that the Bill do pass, it was carried in the negative, by 66 votes against 60. Then a motion was made, That a Committee be appointed to inquire, whether any member of that House did sit in the House contrary to law; but the question being put, it passed in the negative, by 83 votes against 37.. Debate in the Lords on the Bill for reviving the Salt Duty.] March 22. A Bill from the Commons, "For reviving the Duties on Salt for the Term therein mentioned," was read the first time, and a motion being made for a second reading thereof, it was carried in the affirmative, by 40 voices against 25. March 27. The said Bill was read a second time; and a motion being made for committing the same, The Earl of Winchelsea stood up, and spoke as follows: My Lords; This House has often, with great honour to itself, and much to the advantage of the nation, opposed and defeated measures which had been first broached in the other House, when it appeared that such measures tended to the ruin and dissolution of both. This is a privilege we are indulged with by our happy constitution, and we never were under a greater necessity of exerting this privilege than we are at present. We never had a more favourable opportunity of shewing a disinterested regard for the true happiness and welfare of the people than we now have. The Bill now before us, though brought in by the representatives of the people, is a Bill the most iniquit ous and the most oppressive upon the people of any Bill that ever was brought into either House of Parliament. I cannot, my Lords, but call it a most iniquitous and oppressive Bill, because there is thereby a most heavy burden laid upon the poor, and a most unequal tax upon the subjects of this part of the united kingdoms. There is indeed, by this Bill, a very great favour This favour is really a sort of corruption upon shewn to the Northern parts of this island. the members from that part of the kingdom; and I must say, that if ever corruption was in any case commendable, it is in the present; their approbation of this Bill is engaged by shewing a partiality which they are no way in titled to by the articles of the Union, or by any stipulation since. I am, iny Lords, very far from arguing for, or desiring that this duty should be laid upon the people in that part of the island: Upon the contrary, I shall always be against it to the ut most of my power, because I am persuaded that the people of that part of the island cannot bear to pay so heavy and so grievous a duty: But for that very reason I am against this bill, for I think that no tax ought to be laid on for whole nation may be able to contribute a share the current service of the year, but such as the and therefore every part ought to bear its equal to it is raised for the service of the whole, share. If things are fairly and impartially conSouthern parts of the island are as unable to sidered, I am persuaded it will appear, that the bear so heavy a burden as the Northern parts are, and I hope there will be in this House an equal regard shewn to all parts of the kingdom. We ought to be ready to do all the favour we can to every part, without showing a partiality to any. And as Scotland may in some manner be looked on as the wife of England, we ought to be most careful not to allow any minister to debauch her, by shewing any particular favours to that part of the island, or by laying burthens upon others, which those are not to be subjected to. The Lord Carteret spoke next. My Lords; I must recommend it to your lordships to consider how this duty upon Salt came to be taken off. It is but two years ago, and there fore your lordships must all remember, that it was upon a most gracious recommendation from the throne. His Majesty, who always considers the good of his subjects in general, recom mended to both Houses of Parliament the easing of the poor of this nation. The words made use of by his Majesty on that occasion, are so moving and so compassionate; I have repeated them so often to the gentlemen in the manufacturers. Those very people who, but two years ago, were recommended to us by his Majesty as the greatest objects of pity, are, by this tax, to be the most heavily loaded. The poorer a man is, the more salt provisions is he obliged to consume, and consequently the more he will be obliged to pay towards this tax; such is the cruelty thereof, that the most wretched are thereby the most heavily loaded; such the injustice, that the more a man has, the less is he obliged to pay towards the public expence: the rich generally live upon fresh provisions, but a poor man must live upon salt country, that I have long had them fixed in my memory: However, upon the present occasion, I turned to them again, and for the more certainty I have taken them down in writing: They were as follows, "You will see by the Accounts that will be laid before you, the state, produce, and application of the Sinking Fund, as far as hath been hitherto directed by act of parliament; and you will not fail to take into consideration the farther disposition of the growing produce: You are the best judges whether the circumstances of the Sinking Fund and of the National Debt, will as yet admit of giving any ease where the duties are most griev-meat, or he must eat no meat at all. By such ous. I have the greatest regard for the Sinking Fund, and I look with compassion upon the hardships of the poor artificers and manufacturers. I leave it to your determination, what may reasonably, and with due caution, be done upon this critical consideration." methods we shall soon banish all the artificers and manufacturers out of the kingdom. We know how ready some of our neighbours are to receive them, and to give them all possible encouragement. We know how much they are already loaded with taxes in this country. They can have none of the comforts of life, without paying much dearer for them, than in any other country; and now we are going to take from them, or at least to make them pay severely for the very necessaries of life, for that without which they cannot subsist. How can we expect to preserve either our trade or our manufactures, if we are once deserted by that useful body of people the artificers and the inanufacturers? and how can we expect to keep them in our country, if we go on thus every year loading them with taxes, while our neighbours are declaring them free from all imposts and duties, and doing all that is in their power to intice them away from us? These, my Lords, were the words of his Majesty's most gracious Speech from the throne but two years ago. From these it appears that his Majesty looks upon the poor artificers and manufacturers of this nation, as the greatest objects of pity and compassion, and as the first that ought to be relieved. Then it was judged by both Houses of Parliament, that no tax was so grievous, no tax lay so heavy upon them as this tax upon Salt, and therefore it was taken off. Though the duties then raised upon salt stood engaged for the payment of some of the public debts, yet so unanimous was the voice of king, parliament, and people at that time against this tax, that nothing could be a bar to the taking it off; even the creditors of the pub- At the same time that this tax is an intolelic voluntarily gave up their security, in order rable load upon our trade, and an insupportable to second his Majesty's good intentions, and to burthen upon our poor, it will bring no ease, it get the nation set free from such a heavy bur-will bring no relief to the landed gentlemen, then. But what are we now going about? We are now going to defeat and disappoint bis Majesty's most gracious intentions for the relief of the most distressed part of his subjects, before they have tasted any thing of the benefit that was designed them by both Houses of Parliament, in pursuance of his Majesty's recommendation from the throne. For my own part, I always looked upon the abolishing of the Salt-tax as the pure effect of his Majesty's love and affection for his people; I always considered it as such, and in all the countries where I have been since that time, have made so much use of it as an argument for proving how much his Majesty has the good of his people at heart, that if I had no other reason to be against this bill, I must be against it out of respect to his Majesty, and for supporting that argument which I have so often made use of, in favour of our present happy establishment. I have many reasons, my Lords, for being against this grievous, this pernicious, this insupportable tax, some of which I shall beg leave to lay before your lordships. In the first place, it is a most grievous and a most unequal tax upon the poor labourers, the tradesmen and the See p. 766. VOL. VII. but must really at last prove to be the ruin and destruction of the landed interest. It is not, my lords, the land taxes which the landed gentlemen have paid, that have brought them into so many difficulties, but it is the many excises which they have been subject to, that has ruined their lands as well as themselves. It is a certain maxim, that the more taxes are laid upon the home produce, the cheaper it must always be sold by the producer, and the dearer it will always cost the consumer: the dealers between the producer and the consumer are the only persons who get any thing by the laying on of duties and excises. We know that there never was a duty laid upon any produce, either foreign or domestic, but what raised the price to the consumer more in proportion than what the duty amounted to; and at the same time the dealer or retailer made use of that duty, as a good argument for running down the price be was to pay to the producer or importer. It is by this our landed gentlemen, as well as their estates, have been undone. The many excises and duties now raised in this nation, eat up the yearly income of the gentleman's estate, and the farmers being obliged to sell the produce of their lands at a cheap rate, and to pay dear for all those necessaries which they do not nor can 3 X |