in rising pursuant to his notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill "to revive the Registration of Certificates of the deaths, burials, marriages, and issue, of the nobility and gentry, and of other persons dying possessed of property to a certain amount," begged to say a few words in explanation of having delayed this measure, after having obtained leave to bring in a similar bill in the last session of parliament. The fact was, that he then found himself so late in the session, and the measure required so much deliberation, that he preferred postponing it to bringing a crude and indigested measure before the House. The subject itself was one not, as might be supposed, of mere curiosity or pride, but intended for the great and general purposes of business. It was not new. A similar measure had been attempted more than once in the last half of the seventeenth century; and in 1685, a bill, under a similar title, was not only brought into this House, but was actually read a second time, and lost on a question of going into the committee, by 83 to 75; yet in a manner that shows it was rejected only on some matter of form; for leave was given the same day to bring in another bill with the same title. There are no farther traces to be found of it; but this may be accounted for by the disturbed state of that reign: as it appears by the Journals, that the House met scarcely at all during the following year, 1686—and the revolution soon after ensued. As to the bill itself, sir Egerton said, he had that very morning recovered from a mass of old documents in the Herald's college, a copy of it, which he then held in his hand. He had examined this bill with a great deal of curiosity, and found the main objects to agree with his own, though it differed in the mode at least of some of its provisions. The bill indeed contained some clauses, which might be fairly objectionable; particularly as to the fees, which it must be confessed were exorbitant for those times; and in which his (sir E's) own bill, as he should presently explain, would be found as much the reverse. Perhaps it was not generally known that these funeral certificates, though not under the authority of any legislative enactment, were so far from being new, that they had existed under the earl marshal's orders from the time of king Henry 8th, even so late as the reign of queen Anne. Indeed one instance occurred so late as 1773, on the death of the last duke of Kingston, after an interval of 58 years, when one had been taken on the death of John Sheffield, duke of Buckinghamshire. These funeral certificates were preserved in 30 volumes, in the Herald's College; and formed the most invaluable, satisfactory, and complete documents that ever existed, for the purposes of proving the facts they embraced. Not a single instance had ever occurred of their having been proved erroneous; and when confirmed by the requisite attestations, they had always been admitted in courts of law, as evidence of a high kind. As to the details of the bill, and the machinery which sir Egerton said he had adopted for effectuating his purpose, he would not fatigue the House by going into it. If leave was given to bring in the bill, those would be best seen and understood when the bill had been read a first time, and printed. He could not himself anticipate any objection to that machinery: he had endeavoured to make it as simple as possible; and at the same time practical and certain in its operation: but of that the House would judge when they had the bill before them. As to the uses of such a body of evidence, applicable to clearing those questions in examining the titles to estates, which more or less occurred in every instance, when such titles came to be investigated by eminent conveyancers, they could not, he thought, be denied. At present such facts were to be collected either from oral evidence, or wills, or parish registers, dispersed through every part of the kingdom. This bill would combine them, with much additional matter, in one central spot, of easy access, with the utmost facility of reference, and at the expense of a trifling fee. The charge for the funeral certificate itself, sir E. proposed to limit to 3l 6s. 8d.

Leave was given to bring in the bill.

presented a petition of several inhabitants of Bristol and its environs; setting forth,

"That the petitioners have a full and immoveable conviction, a conviction which they believe to be universal throughout the kingdom, that the House doth not, in any constitutional or rational sense, represent the nation; that when the people have ceased to be represented, the constitution is subverted; that taxation without repre- sentation is a state of slavery; that war as a cause of excessive taxes, being the harvest of those who live by corruption; the cause and character of the war which commenced in 1793, the petitioners now conceive to be, by the enlightened part of the community, well understood; that as the tremendous tempest of war is not to be Stayed at the bidding of those in whose mad and wicked counsels it had its origin, so it is probable that the contrivers of the late war did not intend the magnitude and duration it attained, which magnitude and duration, by the portentous calamities now found in their train, are fast opening the eyes of a deluded nation to the evil deeds of its authors; and that now these wicked rulers themselves, if not infatuated, must know that either that usurpation which has divested the people of their representation must be for ever put down, or the liberty of England must perish, and the Security of property be annihilated; that there is no property in that which any person or persons, any power or authority, can take from the people, without their consent, that the scourging of a taxation without representation is arrived at a severity too harassing and vexatious, too intolerable and degrading, to be longer endured without being unceasingly protested against, and as unceasingly resisted, by all possible means warranted by the constitution, until redress be obtained; that, in such a condition of their country, the petitioners are shocked to behold contending factions alike guilty of their country's wrongs, alike forgetful of her rights, mocking the public patience with repeated, protracted, and disgusting debates on questions of refinement in the complicated and abstruse science of taxation, as if in such refinements, and not in a reformed representation, as if in a consolidated corruption, and not in a renovated constitution, relief were to be found; that, in the discussions which they have witnessed, the petitioners see nought but what hath a direct tendency to place the English people in a situation in which the unrelenting lash of unconstitutional taxation may, in all time to come, be laid on to the utmost extent of human endurance; that, instead of such a course, the petitioners hold it to be self-evident that there are not any human means of redressing the people's wrongs, or composing their distracted minds, or of preventing the subversion of liberty and the establishment of despotism, unless by calling the collec- tive wisdom and virtue of the community into council, by the election of a free parliament; wherefore, considering that through the usurpation of a borough faction, and other Causes, the people have, been put even out of a condition to consent to taxes, and considering also that, until their sacred rights of election shall be restored, no free parliament can have existence, the petitioners pray that the House will without delay pass a law for putting the aggrieved and much-wronged people, in possession of their undoubted rights to representation co-extensive at least with direct taxation, to an equal distribution throughout the community of such representation, and to parliaments of a continuance according to the constitution, namely, not exceeding one year."

Ordered to lie upon the table.

rose to call the attention of the chancellor of the exchequer to a circumstance that had lately occurred, relative to the collection of the last assessment of the property tax. A noble friend of his in Bedfordshire, possessing property in four parishes, and whose rents then due amounted to 4,000l., but which he could not collect, was assessed to the property tax according to that sum. On learning the assessment he wrote to the commissioners, stating the impossibility of collecting his rents, and desiring to be relieved from this injurious assessment. He, however, received for answer, that if he would pay of the first issues a shilling in the pound, he would be indulged with a delay of twenty-eight days, which as his noble friend justly remarked, was paying 72 per cent. for the indulgence. He desired to know whether this payment would be taken in part of the tax?

replied, that he was not prepared to return a direct answer at present, but that the question should be inquired into.

moved, "That there be laid before this House, copies of the memorial of William Campbell, esq.; praying for remuneration and reimbursement for establishing a new system of collection of the legacy duties, and all minutes of treasury thereon."

had no objection to the motion, and stated that Mr. Campbell had received 600l. a year for the collecting of one branch of the revenue.

was anxious to know whether there had been any breach of faith towards Mr. Campbell.

assured the right hon. gentleman that there had not been any. Mr. Campbell had communicated with him on the subject of his plan, and proposed, if the plan were carried into effect, and proved successful, that he should receive a certain centage on the nett increase in the public revenue, that would result from it. The difficulty of ascertaining what that amount would be, had, however, prevented the admission of such a proposal; and it had been suggested to Mr. Campbell, to carry into effect his own plan, in collecting the legacy duties, in an office quite distinct from the former one—that by comparison the relative merits of the plan might be ascertained. For this he received 600l. a-year, and he was advised by him (Mr. Huskisson) to depend altogether on the generosity of government for his ultimate remuneration, to which he acceded. The plan afforded great satisfaction to the public, and produced a considerable increase in the revenue.

thought that whatever remuneration Mr. Campbell was to receive, should be made by a vote of the House of Commons, and not privately by the lords of the treasury. Such an event might establish a precedent, productive of a system of favouritism.

The motion was agreed to.

on looking over the returns of the civil list, had seen a subscription to Mr. Peltier, for the Ambigu newspaper, on which he desired some information. In 1804, the subscription was 254l.; in 1805, it was 277l.; and so it increased progressively, until in the last year it amounted to 787l. He wished to learn the reason of this increased reward for Mr. Peltier's Services. His undertaking might have been considered an object of some importance during the war, when it might be advantageous to convey information to the continent, through the medium of the press of England, but it had now lost all its consequence in that point of view.

said, that those grants were made for public, and not private services, and for conveying instruction to the continent, when no other mode could be found.

observed, that Mr. Peltier seemed to have undergone some vicissitudes in his relation with the British government. He was now paid, but he was formerly prosecuted, and for a libel upon Buonapartâ. Perhaps the government felt that they had injured Mr. Peltier by that prosecution, and these after-payments were intended as a compensation. This, no doubt, was very comfortable for Mr. Peltier, but it was not very comfortable for the people of England to have their money thus needlessly squandered.

said, that Mr. Peltier had indeed undergone many vicissitudes, for he had not long since been ambassador from the emperor of Hayti.

presented a petition from the rope-makers of Woolwich rope-yard, complaining of the inadequacy of their pay of superannuation, which amounted only to 15l. a-year, and was insufficient to keep them from ending their days in a work-house. He would suggest, that, if it could not be augmented at the public expense, there might be a stoppage of 6d. a week out of their emoluments when able to work, that might increase their superannuation pay.

begged to recommend this subject to the attention of government. He had made a calculation that the number of superannuations of this class of people from all the dock-yards would not exceed 80 or 90, and an additional allowance of 8l. or 10l. a-year would be a great matter to them, while it would not cost the country more than 800l. or 900l.

observed, that the petitioners had strong claims to attention. The money which it appeared was given to Mr. Peltier would cover all the demands.

having seen an advertisement in the newspapers, for models of plans for the proposed Waterloo column, wished to be informed whether it was intended to fix upon any particular model, before the sum actually to be voted by parliament was known?

said the advertisement alluded to by the right hon. gentleman was published in consequence of an application of the artists for further time to prepare their models. The time for sending in those models was now extended to the first of July.

said, all he wanted to know was, what sum government intended to propose to be expended in these designs, as at present no judgment could be formed upon the subject.

said, the House was at present ignorant of the nature of the plan intended to be adopted for commemorating the glorious victory of Waterloo. Some were for columns, and others were for combining the useful with the ornamental, and building a church; for his own part, he thought no better course could be adopted than making additions to Chelsea and Greenwich hospitals, for the reception of those men who had been maimed or rendered incapable of service during the war.

was not able to inform the House what was the precise amount of the sum intended to be expended on the monument alluded to. This must depend on the general opinion of those to whom the subject had been referred. From opinions he had heard delivered, however, he thought the sum to be thus applied, might amount to 3 or 400,000l. and possibly more, if a more extended plan than that at present in contemplation was determined upon.

thought, that in the present situation of the country, for the chancellor of the exchequer to speak of three or 400,000l. and even more, for a monument, was not pleasing, and rather alarming. He wished some proposition should be made to the House to fix a limited sum, within which the monument should be erected. He hoped the right hon. gentleman would come better prepared in a few days on the subject. If the building in question were not a work of public utility, but merely a couple of columns, one for Trafalgar, and the other for Waterloo, he should think 100,000l. quite enough.

was stating that churches were wanted, and that a magnificent cathedral might be erected, when

spoke to order, as there was no question before the House,

He said that, instructed by the proceedings on the journals in the case of sir Elijah Impey, as well as by the information he had obtained from the Speaker on a former evening, when he rose to name a day for the consideration of the Charges which he had felt it his duty to prefer against the lord chief justice Ellenborough, he should strictly follow the precedent, and, as he could not, as in other cases, individually appoint the time, he would conclude by moving a resolution, "That they be referred to a committee of the whole House, and that evidence in their support be heard at the bar." He wished to act towards the learned lord in a different manner from that in which he (lord Cochrane) had been treated by him, by affording a full and fair opportunity to repel the charges, if such was in the power of the learned lord; who, he trusted, had no enemy so great within the walls of the House of Commons, as to oppose that course of proceeding, which, if guiltless, alone could establish the rectitude of his conduct. He could not anticipate an objection on the part of any honourable member—sure he was of the support of his majesty's solicitor-general, who had actually named the 8th instant for a motion on the subject. He (lord Cochrane) hoped that the 2nd would suit the views of the hon. and learned gentleman better, considering his anxiety that "charges of so serious a nature" should not hang over the head of the lord chief justice. In refutation, however, of the imputation of delay thrown out by that hon. and learned gentleman, he put it to the candour of the House whether he (lord C.) could have brought forward the charges at an earlier period? Twelve months had elapsed in the confinement imposed by the sentence of that judge; and it was a notorious fact, that when he had eluded that unjust restraint, with a view to bring the matter before parliament, he had been dragged from the very table of that House; and a committee had reported, that they saw no reason for proceeding against the authors and abettors of that unprecedented act! He had been liberated from gaol only three days before the termination of the last session—it was obvious, that had he proceeded then to prefer his charges, reflexions of an opposite nature from those now thrown out by the hon. and learned gentleman would have been cast on his conduct. Was he to blame for the prorogation of parliament until so late a period? Was he responsible for the public distress which called forth long and important discussions? It was known that, as soon as the charges had been printed, and before the late recess, he had expressed his anxiety that the members should avail themselves of the leisure it afforded to prepare their minds for the discussion of so serious a subject. Nothing could be more important than the due administration of justice. It was the bounden duty of the House to probe complaint such as that which he (lord C.) had preferred to the bottom. He had brought forward the charges deliberately and advisedly. On the guilty let their vengeance fall. He had courted investigation, and in every shape it had been denied. Either the lord chief justice was unfit to sit on the bench, or he (lord Cochrane) ought again, but not again without investigation, to be expelled from that House. He should not at present enter into any detail—the charges explained themselves; and the evidence he proposed to adduce would leave no doubt of their truth on the mind. He should examine, in support of the first charge, all the counsel, one of whom now sat on the bench whence it had pleased the Almighty to remove two of those who had sanctioned his unjust sentence, to a tribunal, whence there was no appeal. They now knew whether he merited the treatment he had received. The jury and the short-hand writers he also proposed to examine, to prove the artificial reasons assigned by the lord chief justice for compelling his counsel to proceed to his defence after the hour of midnight, when in a state of incapacity, owing to the length of their attendance.—He trusted that the solicitor general would publicly retract his insinuation, that the consideration of the charges he (lord C.) had preferred, had been delayed one day longer than unavoidable circumstances compelled. However that might be, the explanation he had given must prove satisfactory to the House. The hon. member for St. Michael's, the relation of the learned lord, he was convinced would second his motion for investigation, which would dispel falsehood and establish truth. Sure he was, that an opposite course could not with honour be pursued. The right hon. gentleman on the bench below (Mr. Ponsonby), on a former occasion had declared, that without inquiry he could not lay his head with comfort on his pillow. He trusted that such would be the feeling of the House on the present occasion—particularly of those connected by ties of consanguinity and otherwise with the learned judge.

The charges being read, pro formâ, his lordship concluded by moving, " That the thirteen first charges against the lord chief justice Ellenborough for partiality, misrepresentation, injustice, and oppression, be referred to the consideration of a committee of the whole House, on Wednesday the 8th of May."

seconded the motion.

observed, that this motion embraced two questions; first, as to the appointment of the committee; and next, as to the time for which that appointment should take place. The House would first dispose of the question as to whether they would go into the committee—the time might be arranged afterwards.

The question, as suggested by the Speaker, was then put.

said, he rose not to second the motion, though the noble lord had expressed an expectation that he should, but for a very different purpose; and he could assure the House, that whatever his personal feelings might be on the present occasion, they were merged and lost in a sense of the public importance of the question now before them—an importance not arising from the nature of the charges on the table, which were far too contemptible to require a laboured refutation, but arising from their tendency to vilify the administration of the justice of the country, and to destroy that confidence which it was of the last importance the people should have in the administration of the laws. He should indeed feel himself unworthy to sit in that House—that House in which the noble lord had already been declared unworthy to have a seat—if he, by his vote, added one to what he anticipated would be the extremely small list of those who would support the noble lord. He did not believe that the noble lord's object was to destroy the character of the lord chief justice; if such were his object, let him proceed to praise the lord chief justice: no, his object rather was, wickedly to vilify and degrade the public justice of the country.

called the hon. gentleman to order. He submitted, that it was contrary to all order of the House, that an hon. member in his place, should charge another hon. member in his place, and doing what he conceived to be his duty, with a wish to vilify the administration of justice, or to impute to him any other improper motive [Hear, hear !].

proceeded. There was no gentleman to whose opinion he was more disposed to pay deference than to that of the hon. and learned member who had just sat down, and if that also was the opinion of the chair and of the House in general, he was ready to submit to it. He would not, however, degrade the understanding of the House by entering into a serious refutation of the charges. He would beg leave to observe generally, that the duties of a judge, in summing up the evidence, appeared to be to draw the different radii of evidence to one point, in such a way as to lead the jury to the investigation of truth, and the detection of guilt. It was not his duty to protect the criminal, and to say all that an advocate might be presumed to say in his defence. After the evidence on both sides had been gone through, and the speeches of counsel heard, it became the judge's duty, on the sudden, so to bring the points in evidence to bear upon the case, that the jury might be better enabled to form their opinion. The task was an arduous one, and if, in performing this extemporaneous duty, he should sometimes fall into error, it was not very surprising. But what astonished him was, that after two years' consideration, which the noble lord had, no doubt, devoted to a matter so interesting to himself, he should be unable to draw even one colourable charge from all that passed on the trial. Even if some error had been detected, it would not be the duty of the House, nor consistent with their prudence, to visit it with severity. He knew but of one perfect judge. It was for the noble lord, in his wild and extravagant philosophy, to demand from man the first and noblest attribute of divinity. Let the House consider the extraordinary faculties of mind that were required in judges—the important duties which they had to fulfil; and then let them reflect whether, in the performance of those duties, they should have constantly presented before their eyes the fear of a parliamentary inquiry. Should not the House be prepared to interpret their acts with the same favour and liberality which they were always ready to show to those who had arduous duties to fulfil? But on the present occasion all he asked was justice, strict justice, and no more. He had always considered that the equal administration of justice to high and low, rich and poor, was one of its noblest attributes—that which had distinguished this country above all others, and so pe- culiarly contributed to its happiness and its glory. The noble lord had called upon the House to destroy this proud distinction of the country—that there should be a different law to the private individual, and to the member of parliament. And in what case was it proposed to subvert the equal administration of the laws? It was not in the case of charges brought by a third party, but by a convict against the judge who tried him. It was impossible not to feel convinced that the House would reject them with indignation. He wished the noble lord had heard the just appeal which was made on a former night to the House, by staying out the debate, and hearing the speech of an hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Plunkett), in which he described the confidence with which every individual in the kingdom looked up to the pure administration of justice. He would then perhaps have hesitated before he brought forward a motion which aimed at throwing suspicion on the conduct of a judge; and which was an attempt to demolish that fabric on which all our liberties reposed. If the House were disposed to drag the judge from the tribunal of justice, and place him on a level with the criminal convicted at his bar, then they would entertain the present charges: but if they were determined to maintain pure and inviolate the confidence of the country in its courts of justice, then their conduct would be very different. The noble lord had called upon the House to entertain the charges on his own responsibility forsooth; but was it necessary to state, that if the verdict of the jury which found him guilty was to be depended upon, he was in fact a perjured man? Was it necessary to call to the recollection of the House that the jury, in finding him guilty, disbelieved him even on oath; and that he was consequently an in competent witness in any court of justice? Upon the whole, he left the case entirely in the hands of the House, with a perfect conviction that they would place against the motion of the noble lord their negative of indignation and contempt.

said, that as the noble lord had adverted to what had fallen from him at the time when the question of the noble lord's expulsion was before the House, he should take that opportunity of explaining what he then said. His reason for opposing the motion of expulsion was, that he did not think sufficient ground had been laid to warrant it, and in this opi- tion he was supported by the votes of seventy-four members, but that opinion had no connexion whatever with the motion now before the House. It was, in fact, a motion of impeachment, attaching high misconduct to the judge in the trial of the noble lord. No man in the country would be more ready than himself to make or to second such a motion, if he thought it necessary for the ends of justice. Indeed, it had once happened to him, in the performance of his parliamentary duty, to have made such a motion against a chief justice who was guilty of gross misconduct; but nothing could be more unjustiable than to take such a step against any judge, unless with a perfect conviction of its relevancy. The House could take no notice of the noble lord's responsibility. The charges had been made, and the House must proceed either to reject or entertain them, on their own responsibility, and in the eyes of the country. It was no light matter to arraign a man placed at the head of the justice of the country. One of the charges was for a denial of justice. Mr. Ponsonby acknowledged that he was unable to see the propriety of that rule of court which refused a new trial, unless all the defendants were present: but this was the rule acted upon by the whole court; the blame, if blame there was, could not attach to one; and the proper Way of remedying the grievance was, to alter the law on the subject: nothing could be more unfounded than to make it ground of charge. But the proper question before the House was, Do the articles on the face of them contain, matter of criminal charge that would justify the House in entertaining them? Now, the substance of the first charge was, that the chief judge adjourned the court at three o'clock in the morning, having previously compelled the defendants' counsel to open their case to the jury, without hearing, at the same time, the evidence by which it was to be supported. Now it was, and always must be, left to the discretion of the judge how the course of justice was to be regulated, otherwise the public justice of the country could never be got through. The judge was to consider how the whole of the duty he owed to the public at large would be best discharged, not how Mr. A. or Mr. B. individual defendants, might be best accommodated. He conceived, therefore, that the chief justice, in compelling the counsel to proceed, and thus getting through as much of the trial as possible, did nothing but what was perfectly lawful, even on the statement of the defendant. Nothing, to his mind, arose from the circumstance, at all indicating partiality or injustice. He confessed it was always to be regretted when any adjournment of a trial took place, though in some cases the length of the proceedings might render it unavoidable. But what disadvantage arose to the noble lord from the precise period of the trial at Which the proceedings were adjourned? He confessed he could see none. Nay, the very circumstance of the statement of his case being the last thing left on the recollection of the jury, appeared rather advantageous to the noble lord. He had the benefit of the impression, which his counsel endeavoured to raise, being left as the last thing on the minds of the jury; and next day the evidence in his favour was most likely to operate an additional prepossession in his favour, if it availed any thing at all in the estimation of the jury. He protested, he could see no improper purpose, no undue object, in the mind of the judge; and if there were none, to What purpose should the House go into a committee? He had examined all the charges, and he declared he could see no ground for impeachment of the chief-justice, or for taking any step which might imply the slightest doubt of the rectitude of his conduct. If he had thought the chief-justice had been guilty of any malversation, the noble lord himself could not be more ready than he should be to institute proceedings against him; but, thinking as he did, that we owed the purity of the administration of justice, not so much to the character of the judges themselves as to the constant jealousy and supervision of parliament—to the conviction that existed in the breast of the judges that they must not be swayed by partiality, lest they should be visited by the inquiries of parliament: thinking all this, he felt it due to the character of the judges to afford them support where ever they maintained the course of uprightness; and nothing could be more cruel than to bring forward unfounded statements. It was not enough to prove a mistake in point of fact, but some gross error, which could only be attributed to improper motive, and which gave reason to suppose that the badness of the heart had contributed to the perversion of the judgment. As be had voted against the expulsion of the noble lord, because there was not then ground on which the House could found that motion, so he should vote against the motion now proposed by him.

after what had been said by the right hon. gentleman, would hardly have thought it necessary to trouble the House with any observations; but the right hon. gentleman had confined his remarks chiefly to the first charge; and the question before the House was, whether the articles should be referred to a committee or not? As the articles had been suffered to lie so long on the table, it struck him, that as soon as there had been an opportunity of reading and considering them, so soon should the subject be brought before the House: and that, for the reasons so eloquently given by the right hon. gentleman on the opposite side. He agreed with that right hon. gentleman, that as the House on the one hand should watch with jealousy over the conduct of the judges, so on the other it should protect them while deserving of protection, not only as a debt of justice due to the judges, but as a debt due to justice herself, in order that the public confidence in the purity of the administration of our laws might not be disappointed, and that the course of that administration might continue the admiration of the world; for, unless the judges were protected in the exercise of their functions, the public opinion of the excellence of our laws would inevitably be weakened; and to weaken public opinion, was to weaken justice herself. He agreed also with the right hon. gentleman, that, in order to bring the subject before a committee, the chief-justice must be charged with some matter of fact; for, if forced inferences were to form the whole of the charges, there was no act of a man's life that might not, by tortured constructions, be turned to his disadvantage. He trusted, therefore, the House would not suffer the subject to pass into a committee; for if they permitted a committee to sit, they, in some measure, sanctioned the charge.—He should now make one or two observations on the first charge. The right hon. gentleman who spoke last, had most truly said, that what the noble judge had done, so far from operating against the prisoner, had turned materially to his advantage; namely, the giving time for the impression that had been made on the mind of the jury to take its due course. With respect to the counsel, he would venture to say, that in a trial, of this sort, which depended not on any investigation of nice legal arguments,—not on points of abstruse or difficult learning, but on a plain statement of facts, he should say, as a counsel himself, when the whole evidence was warm from the hearing, "Let me now state what I have to offer, and don't let me be called on tomorrow morning, when the impression now so warmly felt shall have become cold and weakened." He should have preferred this as a counsel himself, at whatever expense of bodily or mental fatigue. But he had another important observation to make on the subject of time, for to that the noble lord's charge was principally addressed; he should say, that it was for the advantage of justice, of truth (which must be the object of every honest judge), in a case where the defendant comes prepared; to hear his statement before any division of the business: the end of the prosecution was not the proper time to divide a cause: he should say to a defendant, "Let me hear your opening; I shall then know the outline of your defence, and fix you to your first statement."—The noble lord had stated another circumstance as having operated to his disadvantage, from a most unaccountable misunderstanding of our legal forms of proceeding. A number of defendants in the same cause were assisted by as many as eight counsel, retained by some or other of them; and the noble lord brought as a cause of complaint, that all the eight were not permitted to address the jury. Did not the noble lord know, that although each defendant might, if he pleased, address the jury, yet no more than the leading counsel were ever permitted to do so?—As to the other charges, they filled a great quantity of paper; some of them he should not go through, because hon. gentlemen had had sufficient opportunity to weigh their merits; but all of them imputed misconduct at the trial; and, in order to prove this, facts which took place subsequently to the trial, which were never brought before the jury, supported by mere voluntary affidavits, were stated to have produced partiality and corruption in the judge at the trial Though he had no right to impute improper motives to the noble lord in bringing forward these charges, he had a right at least to desire that the noble lord would exercise some caution before he so readily attributed improper motives to another; but it was clear from the whole tone of the articles, that they did not come from any conviction of mind on the part of the framer of them, but from a cautious research for points of captious objection. Where was the noble judge alleged to have mistated the law? Where was he alleged to have mistated fact?Nowhere! save as to one Alexander Murray, which now proved to be without foundation. But the noble judge made use of erroneous reasoning, and did not give the proper inferences to the jury! This was the whole amount of the charge. And who was the fairest judge of the construction to be put on facts, a person who was not implicated, whose mind came to the examination unbiassed, whose fame and character were at stake on the construction he should form—or the accused himself? The solicitor-general said, he agreed with the right hon. gentleman who spoke last, that the House must see a corrupt mind, before they went into a committee; so far from this, what was the situation of the learned judge before this trial? This was no matter done in a corner; the trial took place before a crowded court, before persons of the highest rank and eminence, whom curiosity had attracted; and the noble, and, he would say, the upright judge who presided, was supposed to have violated his duties—to have sacrificed a character earned by a long and laborious course at the bench and at the bar—to have subjected himself to the disgrace of an impeachment in that House—and for what? What was it to him beyond the event of the trial, what became of De Berenger, of Butt, of Cochrane Johnstone?—what, even, of the noble lord himself? He would call the attention of the House to the character of the noble judge. Never was there an individual at the bar, or on the bench less liable to the imputation of corrupt motives. Never was there one more remarkable for independence,—he would say sturdy independence—of character, than the noble and learned lord. For twelve years he had presided on the bench, with unsullied honour—displaying a perfect knowledge of the law—evincing as much legal learning as was ever amassed by any individual. And now, in the latter part of his life, when he had arrived at the highest dignity to which a man could arrive, by a promotion, well-earned at the bar, and doubly well-earned on the bench, they were told, that, in the face of the public, when all around him had an opportunity of detecting him, he had sacrificed all his honours, by acting from cor- rupt motives, for which no reason whatever was assigned. If the noble lord had made specific charges against the learned judge—if his articles stated that he had been seduced by corruption—that he had taken a bribe—that he had consulted with this man or that man on the subject—then the noble lord might say to the House, "Give me a committee, that I may prove these specific facts." But where were the facts to be found? The noble lord referred in all his argumentative articles (for so they were, not one specific charge being made) to the printed report of the trial—which, he doubted not, was accurate, because it was given by a most accurate man. Let the House read the trial—let them look at the evidence—let them consider the summing up, and the comments of the learned judge—and they would assuredly come to this conclusion, that, instead of having pressed the case too hardly, he had omitted much that might have been urged against the noble lord. There never was a fairer nor a more impartial charge than that delivered by the learned judge, in summing up the case. The noble lord had drawn into consideration some other matters—that one point had not been proved, and another point had not been proved, which were material to him. This might be so. But was it the fault of the learned judge? Was he to suppose that those gentlemen to whom the case of the noble lord was intrusted, were deficient in their duty? No such thing. It was never suggested to him. And, even if it were, he could not command a different course to be taken. He had a right to suppose that the gentlemen employed had proved every thing that could be proved for their clients—and, conceiving the evidence to be fully given, he left the case fairly to the jury, who came to the decision of which the noble lord complained. He would only call the attention of the House to one point contained in the articles. It was alleged that the noble and learned lord, though he appeared anxious to know what passed at the time the servant brought De Berenger's letter to lord Cochrane, yet did not examine him as to all the facts connected with that transaction. Now, how did this stand? After having been examined by the counsel for the prosecution and for the defence, the learned judge asked the witness, "What did lord Cochrane say when you delivered him the note?" If that were not proof of a disposition to learn every thing that occurred, he knew not what was. The answer was—" Very well, Thomas, then I must return." This was all lord Cochrane said, according to the deposition of the witness—and yet the charge was, that the learned judge did not ask every thing about this meeting—and that, therefore, he was guilty of partiality and corruption. Without going through the articles, one by one, he could safely state, that they contained mere charges of inference. The learned judge was accused of partiality, injustice, and misrepresentation, because he did not reason in the same way in which the noble lord would have done. He had drawn, it was said, wrong inferences from much of the evidence—and, ergo he was guilty of partiality and injustice. In his opinion, it would be acting with gross injustice towards the noble and learned lord, if the House did not immediately, after the present discussion was ended, come to a determination, that those articles ought not to be referred to a committee. He did not advise this for the purpose of stopping inquiry, but to show that the judgment of the House was, that there was no criminal matter to consider. He thought the articles ought not to go to a committee, because there was nothing for inquiry that could, by possibility, throw the slightest imputation upon the character of the noble and learned judge. He was glad the time was at length come, when the House were called on to state their feeling on this subject. If he had conceived, that so long a time would have been suffered to elapse, before the question was brought forward, he certainly should have opposed the vote for printing the articles—not to prevent their being read—but to take the sense of the House on this important point, namely, whether they contained any impeachable matter or not. He did not pursue this course at the time, because he would not have it said, that he took undue means to prevent the publicity of the charges. Every person, however, having had an opportunity of considering them, he confessed, he then felt very anxious that a decision should be come to immediately, and, therefore, he gave notice of a motion on the subject, after the recess. The day and hour had now come, when a judgment was to be formed on this case; and he sat down, perfectly convinced that the House would agree with him in thinking, that these charges should not be referred to a committee, because, on the face of them, there was no criminal matter for inquiry.

expressed his disposition to deal out equal justice to all parties, and to consider this case with the utmost temperance. In the presence of the noble lord, who had brought forward these charges, he was indisposed, from motives of delicacy, to state his firm impression of the innocence of that noble lord, and of the severity and injustice of his sufferings. He would treat the question with that coolness and impartiality which became his duty, and to which he wished the learned judge, to whom the accusations referred, had paid more attention, upon the trial, under consideration. He could also wish that the hon. and learned gentleman who had just sat down, had evinced somewhat more of his characteristic candour upon this occasion. But with respect to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Law) who deprecated so much the entertainment of any charges of this nature, because, truly, such charges were calculated to interfere with the character of the administration of justice, it must be obvious that such language (excusable, perhaps, from that hon. gentleman) would operate against the investigation of any charges whatever against any judge—would, indeed, form a bar against the exercise of the best privilege of that House—the privilege of inquiring into the conduct of courts of justice. He could not, however, suppose that the House would be influenced in any degree by the common-place tirade of the hon. gentleman, for his observations would serve equally to defend all judges—to shelter even those judges who had been dragged from the bench for their misconduct—to protect, for instance, from trial or condemnation the judges who had acted so iniquitously towards Russel and Sydney. But the observations of the hon. gentleman could, in fact, have no weight with thinking men, and perhaps it would have been as well if the hon. gentleman had spared them: at all events, it would have been as well if the hon. gentleman had abstained from acrimony on the present occasion. It would be indeed becoming the nature of the case to avoid acrimony on both sides. He approved of the conduct of the noble lord near him, in wholly abstaining from acrimonious observations—in confining himself to the merits of the motion.

With respect to that motion, he could not concur with the opinion of the right hon. gentleman below him (Mr. Ponsonby), that it referred only to the first charge; that that indeed formed the gravamen of the charges. This, however, appeared to him a very erroneous opinion; for in looking to that part of the case which referred to the postponement of the trial, and the separation of the jury, which, by the way, was a practice of late years, it formed a very serious charge against the learned judge. The right hon. gentleman below him, as well as the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke last, had, no doubt, maintained that it was of the greatest advantage to an advocate to reply while the evidence upon which he was to comment was fresh in the mind of the jury. To this proposition, however, he (sir Francis) could not subscribe; for he must ever think it advantageous to any man to have some time to deliberate upon the facts and arguments which he was called upon to answer. But without the merits of any general proposition, it was sufficient to state, that on this particular occasion the counsel distinctly declared to the judge their inability, from fatigue, to enter into the defence at that late hour of the night. Therefore the tirade of the learned gentleman who spoke last, as to his general proposition, was quite beside the question. The counsel applied for a postponement of the trial until the next day, in consequence of their excessive fatigue after a trial of fourteen hours duration. But the application was resisted on this ground, as alleged by the judge, that several public officers were in attendance to be examined as witnesses, and that their attendance a second day would be inconvenient to the public business of the country. Yet the trial was afterwards postponed, without examining those witnesses. Therefore he felt himself entitled to say, that the judge assigned a false reason for rejecting the application of the defendant's counsel, and compelling them to enter into the defence when they were avowedly unable so to do—when, indeed, the jury as well as the counsel, must have been exhausted; such conduct, then, he conceived to involve a direct charge of bias and partiality, worthy of inquiry.

Then, as to the l3th charge, that obviously contained a very serious accusation against the learned judge. It set forth, "that the chief justice had unwarrantably enforced an opinion, that De Berenger ap- peared before lord Cochrane in a red coat, of which there was no evidence. This charge militated against the statement of the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke last, and it might be inferred, from his not having noticed it, that he had not perused the articles. This accusation was not of the nature he had described—it had nothing to do with erroneous reasoning—it was a specific charge of 'misdirecting the jury—of supplying evidence to them, which the witnesses had not given' There was not a tittle of evidence to support the observations made by the learned judge on this part of the case—and it ought not to pass unnoticed, that those observations were couched almost in the very words that had been made use of by the counsel for the prosecution, in his opening speech. If what the learned lord here stated had been proved in evidence (but he denied that it was), and had he (sir Francis) been on the jury, he should have been compelled to return that verdict which the jury had given. What were the words of the learned judge? "Having," said he, "hunted down the game, they showed what became of his skin. De Berenger, it seems, pulled his scarlet uniform off, and appeared in green. But if that colour did not excite lord Cochrane's suspicion, what became of De Berenger's star and medal? When he saw those, it became him, as an officer and a gentleman, to ask him where he had been in that masquerade dress? It was, therefore, for the jury to consider, whether the defendant did not know very well where De Berenger had been?" The learned lord also observed, "That De Berenger came before lord Cochrane in the costume of his crime." Now there was not an iota of evidence to prove that De Berenger ever appeared before lord Cochrane in what the learned judge had termed his "masquerade dress." If such evidence were given, his case would have been utterly defenceless. A hackney coachman was the only person who deposed that De Berenger went to lord Cochrane's house in a red uniform. That hackney coachman, he believed, received a sum of money for his evidence [Hear, hear!]. He had heard so. The Stock Exchange committee offered money for evidence: he did not mean to say for false evidence.

spoke to order. The question was, whether those charges should go before a committee; and in supporting the affirmative of that question, the honourable baronet had unwarrantably stated what he had heard elsewhere, that Crane the coachman had received a bribe, as the purchase of false testimony [Cries of No, no, no].

decided that the attorney-general was certainly out of order in calling the hon. baronet to order.

resumed. He said he was always happy to hear what learned gentlemen on these occasions wished to say, because, if their feelings could not be suppressed, the House generally got more from them than when they were on their guard [A laugh]. It was a great misrepresentation to say, that he had accused the coachman of receiving a bribe for false evidence. He had merely observed, that the Stock Exchange had offered money for evidence; and, therefore, the evidence of those who were thus rewarded ought to be received with great caution. The case of lord Cochrane depended on the evidence of Crane, the coachman—and his testimony, he thought, might be reconciled with the statement of the noble lord. De Berenger, when he got out of the coach, had a great coat on, and it was said under that he wore a red uniform. It was important to know whether he wore such an uniform or not; for, if he did not, there was an end to the main cause of suspicion. Lord Yarmouth stated, in his evidence, that the uniform of De Berenger, as adjutant of the rifle corps which his lordship commanded, was green, with red facings. Now the coachman might have seen the red collar, and De Berenger's great coat being buttoned, the principal colour might have escaped his observation. It was impossible, he conceived, to get rid of this charge, which imputed to the judge a serious misdirection, on a point of very great importance. The question for the House to consider was, "Did these charges, if admitted, contain criminal matter for the consideration of the House?" He conceived they did—and the one he had just referred to appeared to him of very great weight indeed. As to seeking for motives for improper conduct, it was not their duty. No doubt, the judges who condemned Russell and Sidney, were, at the time, spoken of as men of high character, who could not he supposed to suffer any base motives to influence their conduct. Such arguments as these ought to be banished from that House. It was their duty to look, with constitutional suspicion and jealousy, on the proceedings of the judges; and, when a grave charge was solemnly brought forward, justice to the country, as well as to the judge, demanded an inquiry into it;—much stress had been laid on the circumstance of these charges having been presented by the noble lord, who was a member of that House. Now, members of parliament possessed certain privileges; and one of them was, the right of laying an article of charge upon the table of that House. But a member had not, in fact, any material advantage in this respect, for any other member of the community might also prefer a charge in the shape of a petition, which he (sir Francis) should not hesitate to present; nor could he suppose that any member of that House, aware of his duty, would refuse to present such a petition. Therefore, there was no mighty difference in such cases between members of that House and other individuals. But as the charge under consideration was presented by a member of that House, it was surely not the less entitled to attention.

The sentence which had been passed on the noble lord was considered by every person, except the noble lord himself, as immoderately severe. The noble lord had scorned to apply for a remission of any part of that sentence. Conscious of his innocence, he had said, "If I committed this offence—if the accusation be true, then I deserve not merely this sentence, but one ten thousand times more severe." But he utterly disclaimed any participation in the transaction. Here the hon. baronet detailed the proceedings of the noble lord to obtain a new trial in order to prove his innocence, by adducing further evidence, and strongly animadverted upon the conduct of the court of King's-bench in rejecting the noble lord's application upon the subject, because, truly, others involved in the same indictment, and who had fled the country, did not join in the application. When the noble lord stated, that he could bring forward evidence to rebut those facts which weighed most against him, and which were sufficient to induce a court of justice to revise their sentence, he was met by a rule of the court, which, in his opinion, so far from providing for the administration of substantial justice, impeded and opposed it. He knew of no right a court had to make rules of such a description. The Great Charter said—" Nulli vendemus, nulli negabimus aut deferemus, jus- titiam vel rectum." But here there was a negatur; and, he might add, looking to the expense, if a new trial were granted, a vendetur also. This was extremely hard on the noble lord; and, situated as he was, it was no wonder that he made every effort in his power to do away the accusation of having been concerned in a transaction of which he knew nothing. But he was not permitted to bring forward his case again; he was told that, as all the parties were not in court, he could not have a new trial. They had heard of a very severe court, mentioned in an ancient author—

"—ubi Rhadamanthus habet durissima regna, Castigatque, auditque dolos."

But, in this case, the court was more obdurate—they would punish, but they refused to hear. The hon. and learned gentleman, who had argued that the charges ought not to be entertained, had selected the weakest of them for animadversion, and given them as a sample of the whole. This was not acting fairly. If he had picked out the strongest charge—combated with it, and showed its fallacy—that would have been treating the subject properly, and in the manner which its importance deserved. Nothing, however, could be more unlike the thing than the sample which the hon. and learned gentleman had produced. It was not a fair way of proceeding to pick out what might be considered as surplusage on the subject. The refusal of a new trial was not a light charge, and ought not to be lightly treated. He should hope, therefore, that the House would not be of opinion with the hon. and learned gentleman, that there was nothing in the charges of sufficient weight to make them a fit subject of consideration. The hon. baronet again contended, that the learned judge had been guilty of gross misrepresentation, in the course of his charge, and concluded by calling on the House to accede to the motion, unless they were of opinion, that a mistatement made by a judge to a jury—a mistatement evidently not arising from an error in judgment—was unworthy of their serious attention. It must, he said, be clear to any man who impartially read the charges throughout, that they contained a great deal of impeachable matter, which called for the inquisition of that House.

said, he knew that many persons were of opinion the House had paused too long before they arrived at the question before them. It was due to the noble and learned judge and to the character of the administration of justice not to pause too long. He, however, was not of opinion that there had been too much delay; for if the subject had been taken out of the hands of the noble lord, it might have given rise to the suspicion that there was something in the charges which was meant to be crushed. If, however, the noble and learned judge were not either more or less than man, he would consider this to be a proud day to him when he should hear the result of the discussion. It was a great consolation to the noble and learned judge to know, that after the lapse of two long years, there could not be found in this nation, in its present enlightened state, any man to present these charges to the House, but the unfortunate culprit who had been found guilty by a jury of his country. Nobody appeared with him on this occasion but the hon. baronet, so long and so honourably associated with him in the affections of the electors of that city in which they were then sitting. Passing over many of the hardships which it had been said the noble lord had been compelled to submit to, he came to the observations which the hon. baronet had made on the trial. In this it had been imputed to the learned judge who presided on that occasion, that he had dealt unjustly by the accused; that he, for some motive not to be conceived, had done that which, if really done, would have been one of the basest acts of injustice that had ever disgraced any judgment seat,—ordered the counsel of the defendant to proceed with a defence at a time when they were so much exhausted as to be unequal to the task, in order to get the noble lord into the trammels of conviction. The learned judge to whom this conduct had been imputed, had been so well vindicated with respect to his conduct in this instance by the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Ponsonby), that little or nothing was left for him on the subject. If he thought it necessary to say any thing on this point, he should feel he could not do better than to repeat the luminous speech of the right hon. gentleman. At present he should only remark, that somebody must regulate the sittings of the court, and determine when its adjournment should take place, or no business could be got through with, and this duty of course rested with the noble and learned judge. But it was said, "How cruel it was in the learned lord to call on the defendant's counsel to proceed, when they were so much exhausted, and at so late an hour." Those who spoke thus, knew little of the hardships to which the profession were subjected, if they thought this would be considered to press very hardly on those whose situation was thus made the subject of commiseration. He himself had been engaged in his professional labours from nine o'clock that morning, without having taken the slightest rest or refection, and he should be extremely ashamed if he could not continue his exertions till a later hour of the night than that at which they had yet arrived. In a case like that of the noble lord, the counsel, from finding it hopeless, might be content to adjourn on the plea of their being fatigued, but the result on this occasion had proved they were not disqualified from the due performance of their duties, for, on looking at the defence, it must be admitted that mortal man could not have made more of such materials than had been made of them by the counsel of the noble lord. Every man who had ever been placed in such a situation must know, that it was an advantage to proceed with the case, while the subject was growing upon them; while they had distinctly in their recollection the form and manner of the witnesses. This had ever been his feeling. That which was offered, with the benefit of all these circumstances of the moment, would be likely to be forcible and convincing; but, reserved to the following day, it would become vapid and of no effect. Much had been said of the misfortunes of the noble lord by the hon. baronet. He thought it was not the least of them that the noble lord had happened to have the hon. baronet for his advocate in that House [Hear, hear]! He meant to say he was unfortunate in this instance, as the hon. baronet had thought proper to enlarge on a part of the case on which he could be followed, with almost the certainty of bringing conviction home to every man, that that view ought to be taken of the question which was in direct opposition to the wishes of the noble lord. The hon. baronet had thought it was a serious charge against lord Ellenborough, that he had said—" Not only had the game been hunted down, but it had been shown what was become of the skin." By "the game," the person of De Berenger was evidently meant; by the skin, the red coat, with the orders, and all the trumpery which decorated it, which had been worn for the purpose of carrying on the fraud. The hon. baronet had said, if it had been proved that De Berenger had gone to lord Cochrane in that dress, this would have satisfied him of the noble lord's guilt. After what had passed in this debate, it became his painful duty to prove that De Berenger had done this. The attorney-general then went over the evidence, and attempted to show that De Berenger had gone to lord Cochrane's house in the costume of his crime. It was, he said, proved that he had worn it at Dover, where, at one or two o'clock in the morning he knocked up the people of one of the inns, he went, he believed, to the Ship-inn, where he pretended to be the bearer of great news, and wrote his dispatch to admiral Hallowell in the Downs, that the telegraph might be set to work as soon as it was day-light, and thus enable the conspirators, at this end of the chain, to pocket the produce of their fraud, even before their messenger could get to town. It was proved that De Berenger had worn this dress on the road, till he got into Crane's coach at Lambeth Marsh, and proceeded to lord Cochrane's house. It was proved that there he changed his coat, and put on a black one, which was furnished by his lordship; and stronger circumstantial evidence than that which had been obtained to establish these facts, had not been given in many cases, where the parties accused had expiated their crimes with their lives. But it was wished to get rid of Crane's evidence. The hon. baronet had not been very nice in speaking of this man's character, however tender he might be of character in other instances. It had been said that Crane received a large sum of money for the evidence he had given on this occasion. He (the attorney-general) had understood by this that it was meant he had received a bribe. He was not sorry that he had called the hon. baronet to order when speaking on this subject, as he had given him an opportunity of saying that he only meant that he had received the reward which he had been offered by the Stock Exchange, and that there was no harm in this. If there was no harm in his receiving this money from the Stock Exchange, he could not understand what sense or what importance there was in the observation which the hon. baronet had made. If he came forward but as the witness of truth, and received the reward which the Stock Exchange had offered to those who should come forward, what could this circumstance detract from the importance of his evidence? This man might be said to have gone through a fiery ordeal. If what he had said was untrue, the noble lord might have found means of proving it to be false; but two years had passed away, and who had dared to indict him for what he had sworn on the trial? If De Berenger did not go to the house of lord Cochrane in the red coat, where were his lordship's servants, and why were they not called to prove this? It might be said, that this was the fault of the counsel; but in a case like this, such a point would have been insisted upon; and he was sure the noble lord's counsel could not but see the importance of putting a negative on the red coat. But one of lord Cochrane's servants had been called—Denman, the servant, who had seen De Berenger when he arrived, and while he was writing the note which was carried to his lordship at the tinman's, yet none of the noble lord's counsel had ventured to ask him a question respecting the coat which De Berenger had worn. Every tittle of the evidence proved that De Berenger had worn the red coat from Dover to the house of lord Cochrane. It followed that he must have been seen in it by the noble lord; and it became the duty of the noble and learned judge to offer those comments which he had submitted to the jury. He would have been guilty of a dereliction of his duty had he not asked why lord Cochrane, seeing De Berenger in this mountebank or masquerade dress, which he must have known could have been worn for no honest purpose—why he appeared before him in it—knowing De Berenger to be then a prisoner in the rules of the King's-bench, and knowing him to be a candidate for a situation on board his majesty's ship the Tonnant, then going out to America. The noble and learned judge, he repeated it, had a right to assume that from its not appearing that this dress had been challenged by lord Cochrane, that he was a party to the imposition, to further which it was proved to have been used. If the hon. baronet was really disposed to draw the conclusion of guilt from the establishment of this fact, his heart, he was afraid, must be wrung with pity for the noble accuser, as there could be no doubt that the point on which he rested his defence was proved against him. The attorney-general next adverted to the charge that was grounded on the refusal of a new trial. The hon. baronet allowed that an obstacle in point of law stood in the way of granting a rule for a new trial, and that the noble and learned judge might plead precedent, and the practice of the courts for his conduct. The noble accuser, however, could derive no presumption in favour of his innocence from such a refusal, as his defence had really been brought forward in the pleadings on the motion for a new trial, and his additional affidavits received. He had at first been found guilty by a grand jury of his countrymen, and their decision was confirmed by the verdict of a petty jury. He then moved for a new trial; but as in cases of conspiracy, such a motion could not be complied with, unless all those who were convicted joined in it, it was refused. Did the noble lord suffer by such a refusal? No. His case was heard over again by the judges—the notes of the lord chief justice who presided at his trial were read—an opportunity was allowed of comparing them with the short-hand notes taken by others; and, after the most mature deliberation, after re-hearing all the depositions of the witnesses, and any new-affidavits that could be brought forward, a full court of judges confirmed the verdict of the jury, and decided that there was no ground for a new trial. Here the hon. and learned gentleman paid a high tribute of respect to the learned judges who occupied the bench on that occasion, and particularly to two of them now no more, than whom, more upright, more learned, or more humane judges never adorned a court of justice. They all supported the direction of the lord chief justice, and the finding of the jury.—It had been said, that on this occasion the character of the justice of the country had been artfully mixed up with that of the judge. He denied that this was the case. He, acting under the noble and learned judge, as he had done for some years, in the case of the meanest individual, should not fear to point out to his lordship any instance in which he conceived him to have travelled out of the law. He would act thus, as he thought it was his duty to do, treating the noble and learned judge with all the respect due to his high character and situation, without fear of his displeasure, or without thinking of courting his approbation by a different line of conduct. If he had seen what he thought an error in his conduct on the trial established by any thing that had been said this night, he would not have failed to have pointed it out to the noble and learned lord. Nothing of the kind appeared, and he thought, on giving his best attention to the whole of the circumstances, that the House would be guilty of an act of injustice if they did not reject the whole of these charges from beginning to end, as containing no matter of crimination against lord Ellenborough, whose conduct on the occasion of the trial referred to, called for approbation, not censure.

in explanation, repeated the assertion, that a link of evidence was wanting to prove that De Berenger had appeared before lord Cochrane in his masquerade dress. He denied having attempted to take away the character of Crane. He had only said that that evidence which was procured by the offer of a reward, ought to be received with great caution.

was of opinion that the charges could not be entertained by the House; but he said, he retained the opinion he had formed, on reading the evidence given on the trial, namely, that lord Cochrane was entirely innocent of the crime of which he had been convicted.

in reply, assured the hon. member (Mr. Law) that he forgave those personal invectives he had thought fit to utter, in consideration of the near connexion between the hon. member and the learned lord whose conduct was the subject of discussion. The outline which the hon. member had traced of the conduct of a just judge he perfectly concurred in, but the reverse had been the course pursued. His complaint was, that the lord chief justice had not acted on the principles the hon. member had laid down—he had not fairly represented the evidence, and brought truth before the jury in a clear point of view, to lead their minds to a just decision; but, on the contrary, had distorted and misrepresented facts, and had withheld circumstances from the jury which were in evidence, and were essential to their pronouncing a just verdict. How could the hon. member assert, that all he desired was, that the House would do justice?—All that he (lord C.) required was, that justice should be done—but inquiry must precede decision. The hon. member's chief argument, that the purity of a judge ought not to be suspected in the administration of justice, must equally apply to screen the most flagitious acts. He (lord C.) could not subscribe to that doctrine. He thought the hon. member had stepped in rather injudiciously between his noble relative and the proposed inquiry, if he felt that the lord chief justice had acted as he had described.

As to the gross and offensive expressions of the attorney-general, they could not admit of the same excuse, but he assured the learned gentleman, that a knowledge of the official duty he had to perform prevented their exciting any other feeling than that which every hon. member must have experienced. His empty declamation demanded no reply. He had made a bad speech in a bad cause. Although the learned gentleman had exemplified the freshness of his (lord C's) counsel, by his own state after a whole day's attendance in-court, he had not succeeded. "There is no act of a man's life," says his learned colleague, the solicitor-general, in defence of the chief justice, "that ingenuity cannot torture into evidence of improper conduct." It was of such ingenious torturing that he (lord C.) complained. He would ask the learned gentleman, whether a just judge would assign a false reason for an injurious line of conduct, and when the evil was effected pursue a different course? The learned gentleman triumphantly asked, "Does a misrepresentation appear on the face of the summing up imputable to the judge? Is there any assignable reason for his deviating from the line of his duty?" He (lord C.) had nothing to do with his motives, though probably he could assign them. It was sufficient that he had sustained injury and suffered injustice. He would ask the learned solicitor-general, whether upon the face of the summing up, transactions which were directly opposite in evidence were not represented to the jury as alike—as evincing a unity of action? He would ask whether the jury ought to have been told by the judge that the non-disclosure of facts which to an innocent man must be unknown, was evidence of guilt? Why did lord Ellen-borough, if his intentions were to do justice, assert no proof of his (lord C's) guilt, and the falsehood of his affidavit, that a name could not be written at the bottom of a note, because a postscript was afterwards added? How came he to tell the jury in his summing up, that it was impossible to say from whom the bank notes found on the agent of the fraud proceeded, though it was in proof from whom he re- ceived them? How came he to deny the existence of a letter sworn to by the person who wrote it, and the person who received it, although there was no opposing evidence, merely because, having been destroyed, it could not be formally produced? How came the learned judge falsely to assert to the jury, that the fraudulent messenger had no means of shifting himself, when it was in proof that he had a portmanteau? Why did he suppress the fact in evidence, that it was big enough to contain that change of dress so necessary for his subsequent concealment? The learned gentleman had called on the House to recollect the situation in which the judge stood—surrounded by men of the most enlightened mind—persons in high situations, and a crowded court. He asked, is it likely that he would so commit himself? But the learned gentleman had not favoured the House with the opinion formed by those present of his conduct.—He had called on the House to read the charge, and say whether the verdict was not merited. He(lord C.) hoped they had read the summing up, and the evidence too, and that they had themselves ascertained that the former was a gross misrepresentation of the latter. The learned gentleman had protested that it was a fair summing up against a body of persons. He (lord C.) did not complain of it in that point of view, but as he was individually concerned. He hoped the House would not be led away by assertions, but that they would investigate fully, and then pronounce their decision.

He (lord C.) would contend, in contradiction to the opinion of the right hon. gentleman below him (Mr. Ponsonby), who had said that the charges against the lord chief justice could not be entertained unless corrupt motives were set forth, that as the motives of the mind could not be ascertained, it was sufficient to show the injustice of his acts. He hoped the right hon. gentleman had read the whole of the charges, though he had confined his observations and criticisms to the first. As he had directed all his attention to this one charge, how came he to pass unnoticed the false reason assigned by the judge for compelling the defence to be entered on after midnight, when the jury were in a state of stupefaction, and the counsel incapable of conducting the cause from fatigue? Why did the learned judge adjourn the court the moment that the counsel had laboured through the defence, without examining one of those witnesses whose release from attendance he had represented as a matter of state necessity, and as the cause of his compelling the counsel to proceed. If the judge's views were correct, why resort to false excuses? But the learned gentleman (the solicitor-general) had told the House, that they became responsible for the truth of the charges against the lord chief justice if they entered on an investigation of the truth of their contents. This was a new doctrine. The slightest reflection would show the futility—the fallacy of this opinion. They were responsible only for the decision they should come to when the whole facts were before them.

It was the bounden duty of the House to probe the matter to the bottom; for, either the lord chief justice was unfit to sit on the bench, or he (lord C.) ought again to be expelled from that House, but not again without investigation. If the charges against the lord chief justice were untrue, why such anxiety on the part of the relatives, coadjutors, and legal friends of the chief justice to get rid of them without clearing the character of the learned judge from the slander they contained? He could not believe their conduct proceeded from any tenderness towards him (lord C.)—Why not prove them false, and expel him from that House and from society for ever? He trusted that the House would pursue that line of conduct on the present occasion which their duty to their country, a regard to their own character, and that which was due to the character of the lord chief justice demanded. He entreated the House to sift the matter to the bottom. He hoped they would hear the evidence he had to produce at the bar. Should they, however, be prevailed on to adopt a contrary line of conduct, he would pursue his object until he obtained that verdict from the public and from posterity, over which that House, powerful as it was, had no control.

The House then divided:

The tellers for the motion were lord Cochrane and sir Francis Burdett.

in reply to some observations that had fallen from lord Cochrane in the course of the former debate, assured him that he had given the subject much attention, and had read through the whole of the charges that very day. He thought the noble lord had acted a part extremely natural to a person in his situation, and that this situation called for the utmost indulgence and the most patient consideration on the part of the House. This indulgence, he conceived, had been amply afforded, and the last feeling which could influence him or any member of the House was the feeling alluded to by the noble lord himself, namely, that of derision. The question was not as to the guilt or innocence of the noble lord, but as to the guilt or innocence of lord Ellen-borough. The chief justice was there drawn into the character of a defendant; and the point was, whether or not a case had been made out against him. Upon this point the House, with the exception of the noble lord himself and the hon. baronet, had come to an unanimous decision. But there was now another question before them, with regard to the proceedings which ought to be taken on the matter of charge which had been just voted unworthy of consideration. It was impossible that the House should suffer to stand on its Journals those accusations which it had declared to be utterly unsupported. The necessary consequence of declaring them not worthy of examination seemed to be to expunge them from the records of its proceedings, lest any indirect appearance might be afforded that matter of crimination had been laid against the chief justice. Without any view, therefore, of preventing or interfering with the noble lord's intentions of pursuing any ulterior proceeding, he begged leave to move, " That the several entries in the votes of this House of the 5th day of March last, and the 1st and 5th days of this instant April, of the proceedings of the House in relation to the said articles of charge, be expunged from the votes of this House."

seconded the motion, which he thought due both to the House itself, and to the character of justice in the country. He was happy to see the question so fully and impartially considered, because it was desirable for all parties that every doubt should be dissipated, and because it was important to mark, that even if the noble lord had established his allegations, the facts proved would not warrant the conclusions Which he drew from them. They contained no criminal matter whatever, but imputations, devoid, indeed, of all colour, but amounting merely to vague charges of partiality and misre- presentation. He agreed entirely in the propriety of erasing them from the Journals. He had known instances in which the characters of political men had been unjustly attacked in parliament, and in which the House had marked its opinion in a decided way; but the most dignified course, when the judicial character was concerned, seemed to him to be that suggested by the right hon. gentleman, whose own legal eminence gave it an additional sanction. With respect to the learned judge against whom the accusation Was directed, he would only say, that the almost unprecedented vote that had just taken place, would show the sense the House entertained of his character and conduct.

said it gave him great satisfaction to think, that the vote which had been come to, was come to without any of his charges having been disproved. Whatever might be done with them now, they would find their way to posterity, who would form a judgment on them different from that which had now been come to by that House. After the decision just come to, it was useless to take the sense of the House on this new proposition. He, however, so long as he had a seat in that House, would continue to bring them forward, year after year, and time after time, till he was allowed the opportunity of establishing the truth of his allegations. Nothing in the charges had been disproved, and he should not fail to bring them again under the consideration of the House in another shape.

did not oppose the motion, as he viewed it as the necessary consequence of the decision come to on the motion of the noble lord.

The question was then put and carried.