brought in a Bill to regulate Assessments for the Poor in Scotland. Mr. Alderman WOOD brought in a Bill to prevent the spreading of Canine Madness.

Petitions presented. Against the Spirit and Stamp Duties (Ireland), by Mr. PRITTIE, from the Freeholders of Tipperary:—By Colonel BERNARD, from the Freeholders of King's County:—By Mr. S. RICE, from Lower Conelloe and Shannit:—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Tulla, Clare. Against the mode of appointing Surgeons to County Infirmaries (Ireland), by Mr. HUTCHINSON, from the Surgeons of Tipperary. Against the Administration of Justice Bill, by Mr. SADLER, from the Corporation of Macclesfield. Against the use of Climbing Boys, by the same hon. Member, from Newark. For the repeal of Vestries Acts (Ireland), by Mr. KING, from the Roman Catholics of Whitechurch and, Kilmacabea;—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Aglis (Cork) and Bandon Bridge. Against the Payment of 6d. to Greenwich Hospital, by Colonel WILSON, from the Seamen of Whitby. For the Abolition of Slavery, by Mr. MACAULBY, from the Inhabitants of Southampton. For the Repeal of the Hop Duty, by Mr. CURTEIS, from the Hop Planters of Heathfield. For the Abolition of Tithes (Ireland), by Mr. CAREW, from Maglats, Ballymore, and Kilrane:—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Cappoquin and Seapatriek (Down). For Abolishing the Punishment of Death for Forgery, by Mr. S. RICE, from the Managers of the Provincial Bank of Ireland at Waterford. For encouragement for a Plan for giving security to Miners, by Lord J. RUSSELL, from Wm. Wood. Complaining of the Governors of Kilmainham Hospital, by Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, from Wm. Warren. For compensation under the Chancery Registrars Bill, by Sir C. WETHERELL, from James Bird, Clerk of the Exceptions.

moved that this Bill be recommitted. He did this, because the Committee of Appeal had found that there was a deficiency of evidence to prove the preamble. It would be a great hardship to the parties to lose their Bill from what appeared to be an Omission which might have been easily supplied.

was very reluctant to trouble the House on this subject; but it was one of very great importance, as their proceedings on this would be a guide for the future proceedings of the House in all similar cases. If, after the Appeal Committee had reported that the allegations of the preamble were not proved, and that the two most material points of the Bill were supported by no evidence whatsoever, the House should agree to recommit the Bill, he thought they would be acting very inconsistently.

, as a member of the original Committee, thought the Bill ought not to be recommitted.

said, that as to the authorities respecting the merits of this Bill, they were pretty nearly balanced. Thirteen out of the fifteen members of the original Committee were in favour of the Bill as it stood, and six out of the seven members of the Committee of Appeal were against it. The parties, he had good reason to know, were prepared with more evidence in support of the preamble; but thirteen out of fifteen gentlemen being of opinion that there was already enough to support the preamble, no further evidence was adduced. Under these circumstances, he was strongly of opinion that the justice of the case required that the Bill should be recommitted,—not, of course, to the same Committee as before, but to gentlemen of the other list for Scotland.

said, that if the decision of the Committee of Appeal was not to be considered as final, there would be no end to litigation in that House, and the appointment of such tribunals as Committees of Appeal would be worse than useless.

contended that the Bill ought to be recommitted.

thought the decision of the Committee of Appeal ought to be final.

had great doubts whether this was a proper case to be referred to a Committee of Appeal, and for that reason he had not voted on the question; but after the House had agreed upon such reference, he thought they would be acting inconsistently if they recommitted the Bill.

should vote for the Bill being recommitted, but not to the same Committee from the decision of which the parties had appealed.

thought the matter ought not to be re-opened after the decision of the Appeal Committee,

said, that the Appeal Committee had only found that there was not evidence enough to support the preamble; but did it follow from that finding that the parties should not be allowed to supply a defect of evidence, which defect had been solely caused by thirteen gentlemen out of fifteen being of opinion that they had evidence enough?

thought, the public interests required that the Bill should go again to a Committee. The Appeal Committee went through the matter with such haste, that it did not give an opportunity to many parties who were interested in the Bill to come before it, to be heard in favour of the Bill.

said, a word of this was never mentioned by the counsel for the Bill before the Appeal Committee.

said, the ground on which he had voted for the Appeal Committee was, that the Committee on the Bill had made an award of 16,000l. without having any evidence to support it. He should now wish to have the opinion of the chair on two points—first, whether, if in the progress of a private bill, the House should discover that the preamble was reported as having been proved, though without sufficient evidence, the House would not reject it altogether: and secondly, whether, if the House delegated power to a committee to examine as to the fact whether or not the preamble was proved, and the committee reported that it was not, then, he wished to ask if the House ought afterwards to take the matter into its own hands.

said, the present was the first case since the adoption of the Standing Order, and the question as to the Bill was in little better Situation now than before the reference to the Appeal Committee. The case was this: any hon. Member presenting a petition, stating that a bill was reported, of which the preamble was not proved, the question would be whether the bill should be recommitted or rejected; but those Members who were most conversant with private business were aware, that if such a report were made, the House would in general reject the what difference, then, was there in case now, and before the matter was referred to the Appeal Committee? The House, in appointing the Appeal Committee, devolved on that Committee the business which it would do itself if such committee were not appointed. The House was just in the same Situation as if it had a report of a bill before it, of which the preamble was not proved; and in all such cases, as those acquainted with private business knew, the practice was, to reject the bill. If the award of the Appeal Committee were not adopted, and the House was not bound by it, the House would be in the same Situation as if no such committee were appointed, and would have to decide whether it would recommit or reject the bill. Perhaps the House would allow him to State, with respect to the Suggestion of an hon. Member, for the recommitment of the Bill to a committee different from that which first sat on it, that such a course was without precedent. The House was in the habit of recommitting private bills on the report of the Chairman, but always to the same committee.

, in reply, said, there was nothing inconsistent with the report of the Appeal Committee, to send back the Bill to the former Committee to supply evidence in which the Appeal Committee had declared it deficient.

After a few words the Motion was withdrawn.

wished to ask the right hon. Secretary of State whether any steps had been taken to protect British Subjects against the effects of the Law passed in Georgia not to allow vessels pratique having on board three people of colour.

replied, that the restriction laid by the State of Georgia on vessels having on board three free persons of colour, and the requisition that such vessels should perform a stipulated period of quarantine, was part of one of the most extraordinary enactments by any legislature he had ever seen or heard of. The question for the British Government was, whether other States had a right to remonstrate on the subject, as being included in the restriction, which, it was evident, was intended only as a means of protection, and an arrangement for the internal regulation of that state. It appeared to him (though the he allowed the question was still open, and the matter unsettled), that this was an enactment merely of internal regulation passed by that State, which appeared to be very jealous of the coloured population; and that we had no right, as a friendly power, to interfere in the regulation: however, we might be led to hope that it would not be long ere that State would consent to revise this amongst other late regulations, unless it should be shown that great public inconvenience would be felt thereby.

presented the Petition of the Solicitors of London and Westminster, to the number of about seventy, which, he stated, would have been augmented to nearly the whole of the profession, had sufficient time been allowed them, stating their satisfaction with the manner in which the transactions in the Registrar's Offices were now conducted by the present Deputy Registrars, and praying that there commendation of the Commissioners of the Courts of Common Law should be carefully examined ere it was reduced to practice, or before the House sanctioned the Bill now pending, founded on that recommendation.

stated, that no resolution had yet been come to on the subject of this specific recommendation. The Bill would soon be before the House, when, if the hon. and learned Member felt so disposed, he might suggest any amendment that would meet his wishes, or those of the persons on whose behalf he appeared there.

said, this was only one of a fasciculus of recommendations made by the voluminous reports put forth by these commissioners on the subject of our law. It came accompanied by a recommendation of a fourth Judge in the Equity Courts of this country. The question, it would be found, was whether the business of this office of the Registrar was to be continued in the way in which it had been performed, so much to the general satisfaction of the members of the legal profession, or whether the nomination to these offices should be changed for a selection of A, B, or C, from the Lord Chancellor's list? or, in other words, whether they were once more to sanction a nominal reform for the purpose of increasing the ever-intrusive principle of patronage?

hoped, that the hon. and learned Member would see the propriety of waiting to take the discussion on the subject of these Bills when they were regularly brought down to the House by his hon. and learned friend the Solicitor General. The Bills were in their object totally disconnected, and the mode he recommended to the hon. and learned Gentleman would be for many reasons the most convenient. If his hon. and learned friend were to show, perhaps, the reasons why he felt disinclined to the prayer of the petition, it would be necessary to open up the whole question, and he would be obliged to go through the details of the scheme, of which the parts could not be separately understood.

considered it was the duty of Parliament before its rising to do something definite, so as to redeem the pledge which it had given indirectly, in the year 1810, relative to the meditated reforms in this Court.

The Petition to be printed.

was desirous of ascertaining from the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Department, whether there had been any notice officially of the appointment of a Regency, to act for or on the part of the Infanta Donna Maria of Portugal, in that part of the dominions of Portugal, called the island of Terceira? and next, whether any communication had been made to this country, through the minister of the court of Brazil here, that a negotiation was pending relative to the cession, or the settlement of the succession to the throne of Portugal.

said, in reply, that the existence of a regency for and on behalf of Donna Maria, in the island of Terceira, had been already notified to this Government. Respecting the second part of the inquiry, no notification had been made relative to such a negotiation as that to which the noble Lord had alluded. In the course of last year, or rather in the latter part of it, a representation by this Government had been made to the court of Brazil, as to the State of the kingdom of Portugal, and its probable effects on the existing relations with this country. No answer had as yet been received on that subject, though he thought it not improbable that an answer was on its way, or might very shortly be received.

said, he hoped, as soon as convenient after that answer arrived, that the House would be put in possession of the correspondence on this subject between Lord Aberdeen and the Marquis of Barbacena.

.—As Donna Maria was now Queen of Portugal, he wished to learn of the right hon. Baronet, whether there had been any relations established between his Majesty's Government and the Regency in question.

replied in the negative.

moved, by Address to his Majesty, for copies of the correspondence between the Reis Effendi and the British Government, relative to the terms on which the British Ambassador had last year resumed his functions at Constantinople. As he understood from his right hon. friend that there existed no objection on the part of Ministers to the production of those papers, he would then avoid discussing the policy involved in them, and confine himself to a Statement of the grounds on which he was induced to move for their being produced. He conceived that it was essential to the thorough investigation of the several points of policy embraced by the question of the settlement of Greece, that the House should be in possession of every document illustrative of the part which the British Government had taken in effecting that settlement, however indirect might be the apparent bearing of the document which an hon. Member might feel induced to ask for. The first paper he should move for was a copy of the letter of the Reis Effendi to the British Ambassador, dated the 10th of September, 1829. This was a document of great importance, for it showed, if he mistook not, something like a discrepancy between, in the first place, the conception or view of the terms on which the British Ambassador returned to Constantinople, as entertained by the Effendi and our Ambassador; and in the next place, a difference of opinion between the British and French Ambassadors, as to the footing on which they felt themselves entitled to resume their diplomatic functions in obedience to the overtures of the Ottoman government. The House was aware of the circumstances under which the British and French Ambassadors felt themselves compelled, on the refusal of the Grand Seignor, to accept of their mediation in 1828, to the bringing about termination of hostilities in Greece, to declare their ambassadorial functions at an end at Constantinople, and withdraw from that city. In consequence, however, of a letter to them from the Reis Effendi, the Conferences at Poros, to which much allusion had of late been made, were proceeded with: they returned to Constantinople, and a settlement of Greece had been, as the House was aware, agreed to. But previous to this satisfactory arrangement, a very curious letter was written by the Reis Effendi to the two ambassadors, which gave rise to a correspondence between the British and the French Ambassadors and his Majesty's Government, which, with the original letter, he should also move for, as important to the thorough understanding of the transaction. The letter of the Reis Effendi, which was, as he had stated, dated the 10th of September, was not replied to by either the French or the English Ambassador, they feeling—and the ambassador of Russia concurred with them—that its terms were such as precluded the friendly tone which they wished to preserve towards the Ottoman government. The minister of the Netherlands was the indirect Channel through which they communicated their intention of not answering the letter, and not proceeding to Constantinople. The right hon. Gentleman was proceeding to read extracts from the letters to which he alluded, and from that addressed by the Reis Effendi to the Duke of Wellington, and the Duke's answer to it, when—

rose to deprecate the course in which his right hon. friend was proceeding as superfluous, in as much as he had been told that there would be no objection raised by Ministers against the production of the paper moved for by him, and as contrary to what he understood to be the intention of his right hon. friend. The papers asked for by his right hon. friend would, as he had informed him, be granted, so that the discussion he was then entering upon was, to say the least, unnecessary and ill-timed.

had no wish to take up the time of the House with a premature discussion of the important topics to which the papers he should move for referred, and only meant to State the parliamentary grounds, for the satisfaction of other hon. Members, on which he felt himself justified to ask for them. These papers referred to very important negotiations, and therefore were indispensable to the discussion of the policy involved in these negotiations. The Reis Effendi had, as he had stated, written one letter which led to the Conferences at Poros and their results; another, to which neither the French nor the English Ambassador had sent an answer; and another on the return of those ambassadors to Constantinople, in which he refused to accede to the terms on which it was understood they had consented to resume their diplomatic functions. The correspondence on these matters, he thought, should be laid before Parliament, as also that relating to the Conference of the 19th of August, and to the terms on which the Porte at length consented to accede to the Treaty of London. This last was the more necessary, as a difference existed, of no small moment, as to its Interpretation, between the English and French Ambassadors and the Reis Effendi. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by saying, that he should on another occasion enter more fully into the subject, by moving for the papers referred to.

had no hesitation to second his right hon. friend's motion. His object in interrupting his right hon. friend was to prevent him from departing from the usage of that House, which forbad discussion on moving for papers which a Minister had officially announced beforehand would be unresistingly granted. His right hon. friend had in courtesy communicated to him his intention of moving for the papers to which he had just referred, and he had mentioned to his right hon. friend, that Government would not oppose his motion, so that a discussion was inexpedient and irregular. If his right hon. friend thought that the difference of opinion between two of I the ambassadors of the three Powers, parties to the Treaty of London, on a point which had arisen in the course of a series of negotiations, justified his entering into a discussion of the circumstances, let him give notice of his intention to bring the subject forward, and he should be prepared to meet him on its merits. But let him not, without notice and contrary to an implied understanding between them, enter thus irregularly upon the investigation of a subject which required the undivided attention of the House. This was the more expedient, as no objection, he repeated once for all, lay with Ministers to produce every document relating to our interference with the settlement of Greece compatible with our own interests, and those of other States. In the course of the negotiations which led to that settlement, hostilities had occurred between Russia, a contracting party to the Treaty of London, and the Porte; those hostilities were now happily terminated, and a friendly feeling between the two belligerents was now growing up, which we were bound to foster. If, therefore, the production of any document relating to these negotiations were at all likely to revive unfriendly feelings, and delay the amicable relations now again forming between Russia and Turkey, his Majesty's Government would feel it to be their duty to withhold it, but on no other ground. Now he conceived the production of the indiscreet strange letter of the Reis Effendi, to which his right hon. friend had alluded, might tend to thus revive angry feelings, while it could not be of any use as illustrative of our policy; therefore he should object to its being granted; he was sure his right hon. friend would admit, that in doing so he was Consulting only our own interests, as involved in the amicable relations of two great Powers with whom we were on friendly terms. It was true that extraordinary letter was in this country; but still, as it had not been officially acknowledged either by our minister at Constantinople, or by the Government, and had been virtually retracted, it was better that it should not be produced, and be, as it were, forgotten.

wished to see the letter referred to, only that he might be the better enabled to judge of the discrepancy of opinion as to its tendency, which it was understood had existed between two of the ambassadors at Constantinople.

wished to know from the right hon. Home Secretary, whether there existed any objection to produce the papers illustrative of the negotiations on the 22nd of March and the 3rd of February, respecting the boundary lines of the new Greek State? It was most desirable that the House should be in possession of the fullest Information on the subject, particularly so far as the policy of giving up Acarnania to the Turks, and annexing Euboæa to the Greek territory, were concerned.

could assure the noble Lord, that no indisposition existed on the part of Ministers to produce every document for the withholding of which there existed no reason derived from the consideration of the public interest.

begged to repeat a question which he had put a few evenings since. He wished to know from his right hon. friend, whether he had any objection to produce copies of the correspondence between our Government with the Porte during the interval which elapsed between the two Russian campaigns? His object was, to ascertain the definite extent and nature of our interference with a view to effect a termination of hostilities with the Turkish Government—a point on which there existed a considerable difference of opinion.

conceived, that the correspondence between the Reis Effendi and the Duke of Wellington, which had been laid before Parliament, was decisive on the point alluded to by his noble friend. It was clear from that correspondence, that when the Reis Effendi called upon England to interfere and assume a decided tone in favour of the Porte, in its contest with Russia, the Duke of Wellington answered, that England would not take any such step, and would not make itself an offensive party to either of the belligerents. There were circumstances besides which then existed, that gave a colour to our remonstrances and counsels, in order to bring about a termination to the war, which, being of a peculiarly delicate nature, could only be alluded to in the most confidential private correspondence, which precluded their publication at this time, the rather as that publication could not have any other effect than marring the results of our counsels and interference, by reviving angry feelings and unpleasant recollections on the part of the Porte towards its late antagonist, with whom it was now on a friendly footing. It was this unwillingness to open old grievances that induced Ministers to withhold the papers alluded to by his noble friend, and not any disinclination towards having their conduct in the transaction fully investigated.

might admit the force of his right hon. friend's objection, if Turkey had been the triumphant party in the contest; but as she had not, and was on the contrary humbled, he could not see what delicacy there was in not producing every document relating to our interference to bring that contest to a friendly issue. He should like to know especially whether any and what assurance had been given by the British Government to the Reis Effendi of the part which we might take in the event of Turkey's being unable herself to offer a successful resistance to the Russian arms; whether England would, under such circumstances, at all interfere and act offensively on behalf of the Porte. The Duke of Wellington's letter, to which his right hon. friend had alluded, was not decisive on this point, as it related to another transaction.

maintained, that though the Duke of Wellington's letter was written with reference to the settlement of Greece, as preliminary to our interference in behalf of Turkey, it was decided against the Porte's expecting any aid from us in the event of her defeat by Russia. His noble friend was aware that at the time in which we were carrying on the negotiation to which he had referred, we had no direct intercourse with Turkey; that which we had having been effected indirectly through the Ambassadors of other powers; so that there could not exist any direct Statement of our intentions towards Turkey in the event of her unsuccessful resistance to the Russian arms. But still he could positively assert that all our counsels and declarations were directed as he had previously stated, to warn Turkey not to look to England for aid in her contest with Russia, for that we would not take part with either of the belligerents. The right hon. Baronet repeated, that no objection existed on the part of Ministers to the affording every information relative to the whole of our negotiations with Turkey, so far as our own interests and that of our allies was not likely to be compromised by its publicity, as he thought would be the case if the letter of the Reis Effendi, to which his right hon. friend had alluded, were produced.

would not press for the letter, lest its being produced should lead to any of the unpleasant results apprehended by his right hon. friend.

expressed a wish to have additional papers relative to the Conferences at Poros produced.

could not help saying, that if every hon. Member were thus to be asking for some paper relating to this or that point which Struck him as requiring elucidation, there would be no end to their production; and they would at length become so voluminous that to all purposes they would be useless, no hon. Member being able to wade through them. There existed ample documents before the House to enable it to discuss the policy of Ministers in the transactions consequent upon the Treaty of London, and no indisposition existed to produce any necessary additional information.

Motion agreed to.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the Statutes in force in Ireland, as enabled Parish Vestries to assess rates for the building, rebuilding, and enlarging of churches and chapels, and also for the repairing of the chancel of churches, and also for providing things necessary for the celebration of divine Service therein. His Motion was one which, if it succeeded, would be beneficial not merely to the Catholics and Dissenters, but to the members of the Established Church also, for it would in fact be advantageous in its effects to all the people of Ireland. Within one half hour he had presented two petitions, one from the parish of Aglis, and the other from Bandon-bridge, in support of the principle of the bill which he wished to introduce, and both of them signed by many of the members of the Established Church, as well as by Protestant Dissenters. His object was, to restore the common law, and to place the Church in the same State in Ireland as it was in England. In England, where the great mass of the population belonged to the Established Church, the building of churches was not thrown as a burthen upon the people; while in Ireland, where the Proportion of members of the Established Church was not one in twenty, compared with the members of other persuasions, the burthen of building churches was thrown upon the people at large. To such an extent was this System carried, that churches were actually building in two parishes, not fifteen miles from Dublin, from which parishes he had presented petitions upon the subject, although there was not above one Protestant in each parish. Nothing could be more monstrous than this abuse! It could not be surpassed by any thing which had taken place even in Ireland, where the most monstrous of all abuses notoriously prevailed.—In the parishes he had alluded to, the Protestants were quite as unwilling to have the churches built as were the Catholics and Dissenters. What reason was there why the Protestant Dissenters and Catholics, and the Protestants who were averse from it, should be rated to build churches for the Protestants in Ireland, which would not also apply to England, and what was there which ought to exempt the people of England which ought not to exempt the people of Ireland? He laid down the proposition that there was nothing—and he had no fear that his proposition would be controverted. In England the parish vestries had no power to rate the inhabitants for the building of churches. In the case of the parish of St. Anne, Westminster, where such a rate was made, the question was brought before the Court of King's Bench, where the rate was declared to be null and void, as churches could be built only by Act of Parliament, or through the medium of commissioners acting under the authority of an Act of Parliament. In order to justify the difference in this respect between the two countries, something must be found peculiarly applicable to Ireland, or there could be no ground for upholding the present oppressive System in that country. With respect to the repair of churches he would proceed to show what the common law was upon the subject, the principal object of his motion being to restore that common law. The common law of England differed from the canon law. By the canon law, though all the tithes went to the Bishop, yet one-fourth was appropriated for repairing the church, and when the tithes went to the rector or the lay impropriator, the canon law which declared that the clergy should repair the churches out of the tithes, was enforced against them also. The canon law was, however, over-ruled by custom, and the com- mon law placed the repairing of the church upon the parish with the exception of the chancel.—It, in effect, actually re-pealed the canon law—and the parishes took upon themselves the repairing of the churches, though in a qualified way, for they only undertook to repair the nave, and the repairing of the chancel still continued as a burthen upon the rector or lay impropriator. This was, at present, the State of the law in England, and this was the state of the law which he wanted to restore in Ireland—to have the burthen of repairing the chancel thrown upon the clergy. He was desirous of repealing the provisions of the 7th of George 3rd, which enabled parish vestries to tax their parishes for such things as they might deem necessary, which was a very indefinite power, but he had no intention to interfere with the common law, which allowed rates to be made for things necessary for the celebration of divine Service. He had thus stated the purport of his Motion for those few Members who were kind enough to condescend to listen to a subject peculiarly Irish; and as an Irishman, he felt grateful to them for their condescension, and though he regretted the thinness of the House, yet it was attended with one advantage, which was, that he had no fear of being interrupted by the private conversations of those hon. Members who might think the subject unworthy of their attention. He did not wish to complain of the Irish Members; but he would tell them that this was a subject of the greatest importance to their constituents—at least, to those who had any, which was about two-thirds of the whole number—for it was a subject which had engrossed a large share of public attention in Ireland, and before he sat down, he would endeavour to show how just were the complaints upon the subject. The common law of the land, throwing the building of churches on the tithes, he might be asked how the alteration had taken place? and to those who asked the question, he would reply, by asking how they could justify the change—He was, however, able to give an answer which would prove that the change admitted of no justification—of no palliation—that it was, in fact, an act of gross and grievous oppression. At the time of the Reformation Ireland was replenished with churches, there was no country in Europe better off; so that when the Catholic Church was forced to abdicate, the reformed religion found the country full of churches, which, of course, fell into Protestant hands, giving the Protestant clergy the very worst title in the world to call upon the Catholics subsequently, either to repair the old, or build new ones for them.—The common law actually fortified the canon law for preventing dilapidations. By that law, a Bishop was rendered liable to be degraded for suffering dilapidations, and it enabled any person to proceed in the Ecclesiastical Courts to deprive that clergyman of his living, who suffered dilapidations in his church.—Not withstanding this law the churches did go to ruin, though at that time the Established Church was the richest in the world, for so it was universally admitted to be. The rectors and the other clergy were exonerated from repairing the churches, because it was Said, to make them do that, would be to throw a cruel burthen on them, but the very cruelty which the Government would not inflict upon the clergy, it found no difficulty in fixing on the Roman Catholic peasant. Thus he arrived at the principle, that there could be no justification for throwing the building of churches on the people.—The thing, however, came on by degrees—the burthen was gradually thrown upon them by Statutes which were not supposed to have any such object. These Statutes were, first, the 6th of George the 1st., which directed that a rate might be made for repairing a church, with the consent of the patron and proprietors, and on the petition of the parishioners and the incumbent; but still leaving the chancel to be repaired by the clergy out of the tithes. This Act, therefore, only enabled the Lord-lieutenant and the dignitaries of the church, to allow parishes, if they thought proper, to charge themselves with the building of churches. At that time every one who paid parish cess, whether Catholic or Protestant—for both at that time attended vestries—had a right to vote, and the Act therefore was not unjust, and it created no alarm. This Act passed during the existence of the penal code—but a Statute was passed eight years afterwards, which effected a much greater change; for that Statute declared that the consent of the Protestants alone should be sufficient to authorise the building of churches. This was a great step, and yet, two years afterwards, it was Said in the preamble of an Act of Parliament, that the Catholics had prevented the building of churches, though they had excluded them from vestries two years before. In the Irish Parliament it was asked, how such a thing could be said in the face of the fact of their exclusion, and it was replied, that it would be too bad to deprive men of their rights and privileges, without assigning some cause for it. By the 11th and 12th of George the 1st, Archbishops and Bishops in Ireland were empowered to direct that churches should be built whenever they thought proper. By the law of England Archbishops and Bishops have no power to tax parishes for the building of churches, nor have the parish vestries this power—but in Ireland they have, and the hardship is the greater, because in England, if the power existed, the tax would fall on Protestants; whereas in Ireland it falls upon Catholics and Protestant Dissenters, who are thereby compelled to build churches for the Protestants.—Thus it stood; to the richest church in the world was given the power to tax the poorest people in the world, to repair churches for the celebration of a Service which that people abjured. One would imagine that this was sufficient to gratify the spirit of taxation—but no such thing. It was found that there were some parishes which had no churches, and it was therefore re-solved to unite such parishes with those which had churches, in order that the former might be taxed for their support. These episcopal unions were sanctioned by the 3rd of George 2nd, chap. 11, and by one or two other Statutes also—but the Act which gave the greatest facilities for these unions was passed in the present reign, By this Act, a parish in which there was no resident rector, and no church, was made liable to be united to a parish ten miles off, simply for the purpose of taxation. This was the 4th of Geo. 4th, which contained no pretence of being passed for spiritual purposes, but simply for the purposes of taxation.—The Act recited that—"Whereas it is expedient the people should have and enjoy the use of the church."—Mark—the church was ten miles off, and even if it was near them, the persons thus taxed would not go into it; but because they might go, they were to be taxed for the support of the clerk, the sexton, the sextoness, the organ-blower, the pew-opener, the gallery-keeper, the under gallery-keeper, the clock-winder, and others too numerous to mention. This was a monstrous case of oppression, to be charged against those who passed such laws, and those were not free from the charge who now concurred in continuing them. These laws taxed the poor wretch, whose poverty compelled him to leave his wife and family to maintain themselves by begging, while he proceeded to England—to Lancashire, or Lincolnshire—to earn a trifle at the harvest; and who upon his return, found one-third of his earnings taken from him to support a church he never saw, and to maintain ceremonies which he never witnessed. It might be said, that he, a Catholic, was by his Motion of that night assailing the Established Church; but he would reply, that his only object was to put it on the same footing in Ireland as in England. In England the Established Church was sufficiently protected, and all he asked for was, to give to Ireland the English law. Even then the people of Ireland would not get the same value for their money as the people of England—for they did not profess the religion they were supporting—but no matter—he only asked that they should not be subjected to such oppression as he had described. Such was the State of the law, but he was aware that it might be said, it is true, the law does bear rather heavily, but then its administration is very light—the hardships of it are not enforced. Human nature told them that where an oppressive power existed, its administration could not belight, and the Returns on the Table of the House told them that it was not so. When the right hon. member for Waterford made his Statements upon this subject on a former occasion they were denied, but when the Returns were produced, they clearly showed that the most corrupt and profligate abuses had taken place, and the hon. Baronet then called upon the House to alter the System. He showed that parishes had been rated to furnish the cabinet of a Bishop with basins, perfumery, and curiosities. What! were the members of the Established Church—were its dignitaries—so poor as to go begging for their perfumery?—This was not surmise. He appealed to the Returns on the Table for the truth of it. If he was desirous of exciting feelings of another and of a higher nature, he had only to refer to the Returns from Ardee, where two dozen of wine for the clergyman was charged at the enormous sum of 5l. 18s., but that not being deemed sufficiently exquisite in its flavour, the wine on the following year was charged 7l. 3s. for two dozen. Now any one who knew anything of Ireland must know, that at the rate of wine in that country, 4l. would be a most ample price for the best wine they could procure. In Wexford the salary of the bell-ringer had been increased—and upon what ground? Because the bell was broken, and could be no longer rung. For this reason they raised his salary; thus shewing that utter contempt of common sense which people will shew when they are invested with unjust power. They also, in the same parish, built at an expense of 429l. a house for the clerk and sexton;—but he would not disgust the House by going through all the Returns on the Table, for he only referred to them to shew that where power was given to people to search the pockets of their neighbours, they must be a most extraordinary race indeed, who could refrain from taking every thing they found. On the occasion to which he alluded, the hon. member for Waterford shewed that in England vestries could not rate parishes for the building or repairing of churches, while in Ireland they could be taxed for the repair of a church ten miles off. He shewed the abuses which existed in the latter country, and he called upon the House to remedy the evil. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, (the Chancellor of the Exchequer,) when he was Secretary for Ireland, took upon himself to amend the law, and the right hon. member for Waterford, of course, left it in his hands. He did bring in a bill in consequence, and it was a fact, that there was not an evil previously in existence which that bill did not aggravate and legalize. Formerly the parishioners had one great protection. If in any rate whatever, an illegal item was introduced, the assessment was void in toto. This was a very efficient and salutary protection, for it made parties cautious of introducing illegal items, but the bill of the right hon. Gentleman took it away. It was rather a curious fact too, that those who jobbed in this way, in vestries, though Protestants in name, were Catholics in reality, and generally reverted to their original faith, which gave occasion to the saying of a reverend prelate, that when the Pope was weeding his garden, he threw the nettles into the Protestant Church. The right hon. Gentleman, by his bill, gave facilities to the rich, but no remedy whatever to the poor. He had, it was true, granted them a use- less appeal, but surrounded by forms, such, he would venture to assert, as were never known before. He arraigned the Statute of the right hon. Gentleman, because it was, contrary to the common law of the land—he arraigned it because it rather increased the evil it professed to remedy—and he arraigned it as a mockery of relief, which instead of abating evils, tended entirely to perpetuate them. No lawyer could conduct an appeal under the Act with success. He would prove this out of the Act itself. The consequence was, that a series of abuses had grown up. Parish-clerks, pew-openers, bell-ringers, sextons, sextonesses, organ-blower, gallery-keeper, deputy gallery-keeper, and a new officer, that of caretaker, had all been appointed, and parishes were rated to pay the salaries of all those persons, and not only those, but a salary was appointed for a person to wind the church clock, and another salary for a person to wind the vestry-room clock. It was suggested to him that it might be difficult in many cases, to find this latter clock, but he would admit it to be there, and he would then ask if such charges were not calculated to excite the indignation of the Catholic who had to pay them. In one parish in Dublin there was collected for vestry taxes the sum of 1,710l. There were three organists, with salaries amounting to 135l. There was a charge for tuning of 13l. 2s.; for bellows-blower of 19l. 2s.; for vestry clerk 80l.; for collectors at ten per cent, 170l.; for sexton and sextoness, &c. 165l.; for three clerks, 65l., besides other equally objectionable charges. When the motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Newport) was before the House, relative to the Board of First Fruits, he was not in the House, but if he had been, he confessed he should have been inclined to vote with the Government, for he was aware that the effect of giving a sum of ready money for the purpose of repairing or enlarging churches, would but lead at once to fresh impositions upon the people. The Rector of the parish he referred to in Dublin had an income, as Rector, of 3,000l. a-year, as nearly as he could judge, but at all events, he had more than 2,000l. a-year, and surely he might appropriate some portion of this towards the maintenance of these officers, without throwing the whole of the burthen on the inhabitants, and putting all the income destined to support public worship into his pocket. He would proceed to shew that peculation existed to a great extent under the Act of the right hon. Gentleman. In Naas, claret brought from the Vicar's own cellar was charged to the parish at 5l. per dozen. A school house had been built, for which the parish was rated, and mounted coffins were charged for, though the parish Catholic poor were buried in the plainest manner. The sum of 15l. was charged for a vestry clerk who had only two days duty to perform in the year; and the clergy actually proceeded to excommunicate a man for calling on a person to account for some unfair charges to which he was a party. By the Act of the right hon. Gentleman, the pre-existing evils were established, its principle effect being that of increasing the inflictions on the Catholics, by confirming their exclusion from the vestries, and thus preventing them from taking care of their own properties. It might be said that the bill was not drawn up by the right hon. Gentleman, and he was aware that it was not; but that was no excuse to the people who suffered from it. The bill was drawn up by an eminent and skilful individual, whom he regretted to see now thrown into the corner of an Irish Court; but at the period when it was first announced, he (Mr. O'Connell), gave his opinion upon it, and he published that opinion, which the result had since proved to be correct. It inflicted an additional cruelty upon the Catholics, who were previously turned out of the vestry, for it required their dismissal on nearly all occasions, except in voting for coffins, for the law prevented their attendance when the following subjects were under discussion:—"The building, or enlarging, or rebuilding of churches; the providing things necessary for the communion service, according to the English rubrics; and the salaries of officers." This was the most unlimited power that could be given, for by this the parish might be rated for anything contained in any English rubric, though such thing might not be in the rubrics of Ireland, and the rate was to be decided upon by Protestants exclusively, though Roman Catholics as well as Protestant Dissenters were called upon to pay the rate. It was the practice to hold two half-yearly synods, at which the dignitaries of the Church went through the canons and the rubrics, and anything ordained in any of these rubrics the parishes might be rated for under this Act. He arraigned the Act upon two grounds. In the first place, it took the property of the Catholic away from him, without Consulting him; a thing which was wholly contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. No person could be found in this country to maintain that such a principle was correct or proper, for it was unconstitutional in its very nature. If power be given to one man to tax another, the act which gives the power ought also to specify what it is, for which he is to be taxed. Even where a tax is levied by a corrupt majority, it is considered as a cruel infliction by the minority; and how much more cruel must it be for a minority of twelve Protestants to tax 2,000 Catholics. Yet such was the case in a parish from which he had presented a petition, where twelve Protestants elected themselves or each other into fifteen Offices, fixed their salaries, and rated the Catholic inhabitants to pay them. Appeal was useless, for the Act did not limit the power which it conferred. In what country was it that this was done? Was it in England, or in the territories of the Reis Effendi, of whom they had heard so much that evening? It was not in Turkey, for the Turks never were so cruel as to tax the Greeks in order to build their mosques. He might be told there was an appeal. He admitted it;—there was, but it was so clogged with forms that it was useless. In the first place, notice of appeal must be given within fourteen days, and in that notice all the causes of that appeal must be specified. Now, in many cases it would take more time technically to set forth all the causes of appeal. In the next place, the name of every man appealing was to be affixed, in his own handwriting, to the appeal. That at once took away the right of appeal from all those who could not write; and yet this protection, as it was called, was given as a Substitute for that which was really a very efficient protection. Persons, by this appeal, might protect themselves, but if they were unable to avail themselves of the appeal, the rate then stood for ever. Then again the notices must be given all on one day, so that if the magistrate before whom they were to be signed was ill or absent, the appeal was gone. Then again the party appealing was to give security for costs to the amount of 100l. He might be told that the magistrate had the power of dispensing with the security, and it was true that he had a discretionary power of doing so when he knew the party appealing was solvent; but what relief did that give to the poor? Another objection was this: where the appeal came on for trial before the assistant barrister, he must first try whether all these forms had been complied with before he was empowered to hear the appeal. Thus, however disposed he might be to try the merits he could not do so, for the forms of the bill tied him down to the very letter of it, and he must first determine the forms before he could go into the merits. And this was the protection which was given in lieu of one that really was effectual. In many parishes the Protestant inhabitants felt these rates to be so unjust upon the Catholics, that they took the payment of them on themselves, under the impression that they had the power of refusing to let the Catholics be taxed: but then even this was not allowed; for the Bishop, by his monition, could make the whole of the parish pay for what was necessary for the celebration of divine Service. A Protestant clergyman had thus full control over Catholic property, and the Bishops had control over the property of the Protestants, a power which the people of England would never consent to have vested in their Bishops. Formerly the taxes were only levied in the Easter week; but now they were levied whenever the monition came down. Another grievance was, that if the churchwardens became trespassers, they were not, under this Act, liable to any punishment—they might violate both forms and law with perfect impunity, for in the event of a verdict against them, the parish was to be rated to pay the damages and costs, so that the party bringing the action for a wrong inflicted upon himself, had to pay a portion of those very damages which he had recovered against the trespassers. Thus the churchwarden was liable if wrong, but when liable he comes on the parish to hold him harmless. This was the most perfect impunity to the offender, while, if the party appealing failed to succeed, he was visited with treble costs. He would venture to say, that no Act had been ever introduced into that House so utterly unworthy as this of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he hoped that right hon. Gentleman would take the subject into his consideration in order that it might be amended, or at least that the power of taxation which it gave might be limited. An attempt had been made by the right hon. Gentleman, when in Ireland, to limit it, and he held in his band the letter which he wrote for that purpose, in which he specified certain things—such as white bread and wine for communion, the windows repaired, a chest for alms, a decent surplice, &c.; but in that letter the right hon. Gentleman had not attempted to say that these were the only things to be provided. The consequence was, that the letter was treated with contempt, and the vestry clerks treated it with scorn. He did not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of being the author either of the Act or of the System. He knew that the former was prepared in the law-stalls of the Irish government, and that the right hon. Gentleman was only its Sponsor in that House; but still he was responsible, His argument resolved itself into this. In England, the Protestants are not bound to build their own churches; in Ireland, the Catholics are compelled to build them for the Protestants. In England, all classes vote for the parish assessments. In Ireland they do not. With respect to the repair of churches, a similar difference exists between the laws of the two countries. He had formerly applied to the House to enable Catholics to vote at parish vestries. He now applied to relieve the Protestants from being rated to build churches by vestry. It was true that his application went to relieve the Catholics also, for its object was to restore the common law, which would remedy all the evils complained of, leaving all those rates in force which ought to subsist, and taking away all those which ought never to have existed. Were the clergy of Ireland so over-worked and underpaid, that they should object to what was agreed to by the clergy of England? Had they too much work and no pay? No one could answer in the affirmative; and he, for all these reasons, trusted that these monstrous oppressions would be done away with, and the law of Ireland placed, in these matters, on the same footing as the law of England. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.

said, he was quite unprepared to enter into a full discussion of the subject, as he had expected the discussion on the Chancery bill was to be the only business of the evening. He would not attempt to follow the hon. Member through all the points which he had touched on, but confine himself chiefly to that point which gave vestries the power of assessing rates for the celebration of divine worship. And here he would repeat what he had said all along, that it was necessary to make an alteration on that head. The hon. Member had made an allusion to a letter which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had addressed to certain authorities; and he must say, that the allusion had not been made quite fairly; because, in that letter, it was distinctly stated that the subject occupied the attention of Government, and that it was anxious to make some alteration. The hon. Member complained that the law was different in England and Ireland. He readily admitted the fact, but he would not recur to the cause, because he thought it would be a wiser course now to forbear from alluding to distinctions, which he wished to see at an end. He would, therefore, give the hon. Gentleman all the advantage of silence—if advantage it could be called—rather than enter into details which might remove the veil from these causes of difference. The hon. Gentleman complained of the power of the Bishop, and seemed anxious to have the law assimilated in both countries; but he could tell the hon. Gentleman that the same right was vested in an ecclesiastical tribunal in England; and, had the law of the two countries been assimilated, the hon. Member, most probably, would have been the first to complain of it: but, whatever might be said by the hon. Member, he had no hesitation in asserting that the Act he had mentioned was a great amendment of the former law, and that all the grievances pointed out by the honourable Gentleman existed before the introduction of the law of which he so much complained. Respecting the Vestry Act, he would only say, that he intended to introduce a bill to remedy some of its inconveniences. The hon. Member said it would be better to let the churches go to ruin than have recourse to such offensive measures. He could tell the hon. Member, if his object was to let the churches go to ruin, he could not take a more effectual method than by taking away the power of appeal to the Quarter Sessions. He must add, that the hon. Gentleman himself was the sole cause of the introduction of that clause into the bill, which gave to assistant barristers the power they at present possess; and he had no doubt, that on reflection he would admit the fact. Respecting the mode of appeal which the honorable Member had complained of, he would only ask whether any person should be allowed to appeal without assigning the causes of appeal, and whether there was any ground of complaint against the clause which required the appellant to sign his name, even though he could not write? It was well known that a cross affixed to the name, written by another person, was equivalent. The securities, he was sure every impartial person would admit, were necessary, in order to prevent vexatious and frivolous Opposition. He recollected well the method which the hon. Member himself proposed for the purpose of avoiding payment—it was to refuse to pay, when the churchwardens would not go to the expense of enforcing payment; and, in order to avoid such a practice, the clause had been introduced. Before, therefore, he could consent to the Motion he must see some more solid arguments advanced in favour of it; at all events he should resist it at present, in order to see the effects of the bill on the subject which his noble friend had under consideration. For this reason he opposed the Motion.

concurred in several of the observations made by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, consequently differed from the hon. member for Clare in some of the points which he had laid down. It was necessary, therefore, that he should state briefly in what he differed. If the cases of abuse alluded to by the hon. Gentleman existed previously to the Act, it certainly was unfair to impute these abuses to it; because, as they existed before the Act, there was no ground for saying that they were occasioned by it. Notwithstanding the Act, however, it was quite clear, from documents which he had moved for, that great abuses still existed. On speaking of the subject of reform in these matters on a former occasion, he had said that it was better that the subject should be brought forward by a member of the Established Church than by a Roman Catholic, and better that the subject should be taken up by Government, than left to any individual Member; but at the same time, he had stated that, if any hon. Member—the member for Waterford for instance—should bring forward a motion, he would vote with him. The Government then, as now, did nothing but make pro- mises. From these refusals and delays resulted the present Motion. The consequence was, that petition after petition had been transmitted to the Irish Members—asperity had been excited in every parish in Ireland; and the only consolation they could now give their constituents was, that Government Said it had the subject under consideration. He admitted that Government had a wish to correct abuses; but at the same time, when he recollected that since 1826 or 1827, when the letter referred to was written, nothing had been done. He could only say, that he and other Members from Ireland would not discharge their duty to their constituents if they did not take every opportunity of enforcing on Government the necessity of commencing without delay a System of reform. The hon. member for Clare thought that Catholics and Protestants should have the same power of voting at vestries. He had all along objected to this, and objected to it still, because, though there might be no danger in time to come, it was not advisable or proper to make such a change at present. With regard to the power of appeal, he would only say that he did not see what advantage would accrue from abolishing it, and he would never give his consent to an appeal without requiring security for the payment of the expenses, because it would only open a door for abuses and unnecessary delay. While he stated this, he at the same time admitted that nothing could be so absurd as a power of appeal which was so restricted, and so bound by difficulties, as to be of no use. The appeal which he wanted was one which would afford a fair chance of correcting the evils complained of. No more, it seemed, was now to be given than was given in 1827 by the right hon. Gentleman's own letter. However he might be exposed to imputation and attack in Ireland—and no one was, unfortunately, more exposed to imputation than Irish Members who honestly did their duty, and did so for its own sake—he would move an Amendment on the Motion of the hon. and learned member for Clare. He would therefore move for "leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Act 7 Geo. 4th, c. 72, for regulating Vestries," and, with respect even to that amendment, he should be ready to abandon it in favour of the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Gower), if he would undertake to bring forward a measure for the purpose.

was of opinion, that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a satisfactory answer to the Statements of the hon. member for Clare. The hon. Gentleman had compared the Church-rates to a poll-tax, and he complained that people belonging to one religion were called upon to pay for the support of another. He (Sir R. Inglis) would contend that these rates formed a tax upon land, which every man paid according to his ability, and which fell equally upon all classes. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said elsewhere, upon a former occasion, that the church rates constituted an evil in Ireland which were equalled in magnitude by no other evil in that country. He (Sir R. Inglis), in returning to that Statement, in a discussion on this subject last Session, had remarked that the evils of Ireland could not, in that case, be by any means overwhelming, and he brought forward a variety of returns to shew that the burthen of church-rates was extremely light in Ireland. To some of those returns he was able at the present moment to refer the House. The hon. Baronet here read returns from four parishes in the diocese of Armagh, by which it appeared, that in one parish, 3d., an acre constituted the lowest, and 6d. the highest amount of church-rate; in a second, that 3d. was the lowest, and 5d. the highest; and that in an union consisting of 6,292 acres, the total amount of church-rates, upon an average of twelve years, did not exceed 9d. per acre. He referred also to parishes in the diocese of Clogher, where the highest rate was 3d., and the lowest ¾d. per acre. He could not therefore consider church-rates in Ireland to be so great an evil as they were described to be by the hon. and learned member for Clare. He argued that the church-rates in Ireland did not fall upon the Catholics, the Dissenters, or the Protestants, as such specifically, but that they fell upon them in their character of tenants. He was opposed to the principle of committing the administration of money which was intended for ecclesiastical purposes to laymen; but though he was opposed to that principle, he was not for disturbing the present law, and he should therefore give his vote against the motion of the hon. member for Clare.

did not think that there was any weight in the objections which the hon. and learned member for Clare had urged against the principle or practice of the existing law. Allusion had been made to the difference which prevailed as to the building of churches in England and Ireland, and he (Lord Gower) must say, that, in that respect the Church of Ireland was placed in an unfair position. There was a constant cry raised in that country against the improper consolidation of parishes, and for the dissolution of unions, and where those suggestions were complied with, it was necessary for the Church to provide places in those newly erected parishes for the public worship. The hon. and learned Member had referred to former periods of Irish history; but he (Lord Gower) should, following the example of his right hon. friend beside him, abstain from entering upon such topics, and he trusted that the time was not distant when such topics would be excluded from discussions in that House. He was not able to understand the necessity of that portion of the Motion of the hon. Member which regarded the repairs of the chancel of the church. He did not think that the Operation of the 14th George 1st, c. 14, which only confirmed the common law on that subject, had been disturbed by any of the subsequent Acts which had been passed. He had no hesitation in assuring the hon. Gentlemen who took a great interest in this subject, that the objections which present themselves to the provisions of this law had not been forgotten, but were under the consideration of the Government, to the end that a measure for their amendment might be, he would not say carried next Session, but at all events, in such a State as to be submitted for the opinion of the House. He concurred with the hon. and learned member for Clare in thinking that all ambiguity should be removed respecting the articles to be supplied for the Performance of divine worship, and he was also of opinion that au amendment might be introduced to facilitate the process of appeal under the Act. He spoke merely his individual opinion when he said that the power of appeal was too much impeded, and that a more satisfactory mode might be adopted, and one which would, at the same time, combine equal security. Further satisfaction than this he did not feel himself bound to give at present, either to the hon. and learned member for Clare, or the hon. member for Limerick.

called, the attention, of the country to this fact, that Ministers were obliged to admit that there were various clauses in the existing law which produced irritation in Ireland. They had declared, both in the last and in the present Session, that they were most anxious to remove from the people of Ireland every source of irritation. Instead, therefore, of opposing the present Motion, they ought to be glad to seize it as an opportunity of conciliating any irritation which the present Vestry Acts might excite, and of removing any hostile feelings which might exist in the breasts of the Roman Catholic inhabitants of that country, against the Established Church. He defended the Motion, and expressed a hope that if Ministers would not accede to that Motion, they would themselves originate some measure which would give satisfaction at once to the House and to the country.

was afraid, that he should never be able to bring in a bill upon this subject, so framed as to give satisfaction to the hon. member for Aberdeen. He thought that the whole question now under discussion resolved itself simply into this—is it right that provision should be made for the due Performance of divine worship in every parish in Ireland? If it were, how ought that provision to be made? He contended that it should be by parochial assessment. The hon. Member would have it otherwise. Was the hon. Member then prepared to provide for the proper payment of the Church of Ireland out of his own funds, as well as for the proper payment of the Church to which he now contributed?

said, that he was not. He wished the parishioners to be allowed to tax themselves.

said, that the answer of the hon. member for Aberdeen was just the answer which he had expected to receive from him. The hon. Member was therefore an advocate of parochial assessments, but of parochial assessments formed upon such a System as must be destructive to the Established Church of Ireland. To admit 1,000 Catholics to be on a level with twelve Protestants in parishes where the population was so unequally divided between the two religions, would be to make the Church establishment of Ireland a mere mockery. He thought that there ought to be a specification by law of the matters deemed essential to the maintenance of divine Service, and that the vestry should not be empowered to disburse the funds of the parish on any but such matters; but he was not prepared to introduce a bill with such specification during the present Session. The hon. Member asked, why not? He would ask in return, whether Ministers were now able to get a fair hearing for the business which was already before the House, and which was absolutely necessary for the public Service? He admitted that it was the right of that and every other hon. Member to speak upon and discuss every subject that came before the House. The right he would not dispute; but when the hon. Member and others thought fit to exercise that right as they did, how was public business to go on? The hon. Gentleman might, no doubt, say he was a Member of the Legislature, and had a right to do so; but if there were twenty other Members who would exercise their right to the same extent, so far from being enabled to pass any bill, the House could never get one to a first reading. He, therefore, without con-testing the hon. member for Aberdeen's right, or presuming to say that the hon. Gentleman ever made use of any unnecessary argumentation in his reasoning, still felt that while such course was pursued, they could never get to the end of their business. When the hon. Member occupied the time of the House on an average for four or five hours every night, it was rather hard that he should be the person to turn round and become the accuser of the Government for delay. He was not willing to add to the business of the present Session, for he was sorry to find that there was not now sufficient time to despatch what was already before the House. For his own part he was often employed seventeen or eighteen hours a day. In that House he often spent ten hours, in addition to seven or eight spent in the discharge of his official duties, and he fairly owned, that he was thus left with too little time for the proper consideration of public business. Under these circumstances it would not be right to press such a bill as that on the consideration of the House. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by expressing his Opposition to the Motion.

could not concur with the right hon. Baronet in his attack upon the hon. member for Aberdeen. For himself, since he had had a seat in that House, he had day by day been more convinced of the high merits of that hon. Member, who, in Houses with a full attendance, and in Houses with a thin attendance, alike persevered in the object he had in view, and had done so much toward procuring some diminution of the burthens of the people, and towards obtaining that which was absolutely necessary for the purposes of economy and reform—namely, a more correct mode of stating the Estimates. With regard to the Question itself, he should vote for the measure proposed by Mr. O'Connell. He must say, that he viewed with disgust the System, by which people who differed from them in religion were obliged to provide the sacred elements for the Performance of worship not their own.

had not intended to make any attack on the hon. member for Aberdeen, but referred to the hon. Member's practice with a view of showing, that if others followed the same course, there would be no opportunity to get through business.

replied: with respect to the hon. member for Limerick, he observed, that although that hon. Gentleman was satisfied with the Vestry Act, and the number of officers legalised under it, he could not agree in such views. His wish was, that the Churches in England and Ireland should be put on the same footing; and, if the Roman Catholics in England, who bore about the same proportion to the rest of the population, that the Protestants in Ireland did to the Roman Catholics and Dissenters, had the same power here, as the Protestants had in Ireland, he should despise the English Protestant who did not feel that the exercise of such a power was a gross and palpable injustice. He would persevere in his Motion, and he was sorry that the hon. member for Limerick, whose Amendment he altogether disclaimed, did not agree with him; but, as principle and reason were with him, he would take the sense of the House on his Motion.

rose as to the explanation of a fact. The hon. member for Clare had stated that he (Mr. Rice) was perfectly satisfied with the Vestry Act, and that would go forth upon the hon Member's authority. But when he had proposed an amendment for the purpose of showing his dissatisfaction with this Act, it was too bad that such an assertion as that made by the hon. and learned Gentleman should be sent forth, The hon. Gentleman further said, that he was satisfied that the tax should fall on the many, while the wish he felt and had given utterance to was, that it should fall on the landlords, who were in Ireland generally Protestants, and to whom he therefore wished to give the power of taxing and assessing themselves.

had never said the hon. member for Limerick was satisfied; and he could not say so, because the hon. Gentleman had proposed an amendment; but he thought that he appeared satisfied to leave the law to be amended by the Government, and that idea he would not retract.

said, that the right hon. Secretary had observed there was some difficulty in knowing how to vote on this occasion. He felt that difficulty, and he thought that the plan of his hon. friend, the member for Limerick, would be the best to follow; but he could also vote for that of the hon. and learned member for Clare. He should have been very glad if the right hon. Gentleman had held out any hope that during the present Session some measure of an amendment would be introduced, for if that were the case, he would not vote at all. But as the right hon. Gentleman had not done so, he was ready to vote for either, or for both of the motions before the House.

The House rejected the Amendment, and divided on Mr. O'Connell's Motion, Ayes 17; Noes 141—Majority 124.

commenced by regretting that so much time having been employed in discussing the Irish Vestries' bill, he was compelled to bring forward his Motion at such a late period of the evening. The Bill to which he objected, proposed the appointment of a fourth Judge in the Courts of Chancery. He complained that it had been introduced after Parliament had been sitting for four months; but he knew that in fact this measure, combined with the bills for altering the Welsh Judicature, formed so crude a mass, that it was not fit for the attention of the House at an earlier period. Indeed, for himself, he thought it was a half-built ship, which ought not to have been launched at all in the present Session. Down, however, had come Lord Lyndhurst's Bill from the House of Lords, and up started at once two other bills to amend it. He was most decidedly opposed to his Lordship's project, and being so he preserved his consistency; for what he now said there, he had often said in West-minister-hall. He believed that a fourth Judge was not necessary, and he considered that the measure which proposed his appointment was one of the most noxious, pestilent, and mischievous, that had ever been introduced into Parliament He objected to this Bill, because it was intended simply for the personal convenience of the Lord Chancellor. It was not a measure of permanent Operation; for it was not imperative on the Crown to re-appoint this Judge. It was therefore a sort of Job; it was destined only for the convenience of an individual, and could not be justified by causes of a solid and enduring nature. He asserted it was a shifting thing; and when the Lord Chancellor called for it, he begged to ask him whether it was because he would not do his duty, or because he could not do his duty? He pressed for an answer to this question, and an answer must be given before they could, with any regard to character or consistency, attempt to proceed. The proposition, accordingly, which he had that night to submit, was in the shape of a Resolution:—

"That it is the duty of this House, before it gives its sanction to the appointment of a further Judge in the Court of Chancery, to ascertain, by the examination of witnesses, and other inquiries, whether a case of necessity exists for such appointment."

Thus he pressed it upon the House, that this fourth Judge should not be appointed until they were satisfied, by evidence at the bar, that this new office of Jurisdiction was necessary. And how was it the case actually stood? In 1813, the Vice-chancellor's bill was passed. Till then, there were only two Judges in the Court of Chancery;—a third being so added, they went on till 1830. It was to be remarked too, that the Lord Chancellor had also the assistance of a Deputy-speaker in the House of Lords. But now, in 1830, a certain class of projectors said, this was not enough—they should have a fourth court. He, however, asserted that a fourth court was not necessary, and in this assertion he was supported by the authority of the Master of the Rolls, who, not once, but repeatedly, had expressed his opinion, and endeavoured to make the projectors give up that bill. The Vice-chancellor had done the same thing. [hear.] If the Solicitor-general, by crying hear! hear! meant to say it was not so, he begged, in reply, to State it was. He knew it might be urged, that because, in his examination before the Chancery Commission, Vice-chancellor Shadwell had observed, three angels could not do the duty of the Court of Chancery, it was quite impossible that he could express a contrary opinion at that moment. But it should be remembered that the Vice-chancellor's metaphor applied to a particular period, when there was a great arrear—one which it was doubted could ever be got over. But now it was different; Vice-chancellor Shadwell was a gentleman in whom there was no back-sliding or tergiversation—a quality not belonging to all men. He trusted, therefore, that he should have no nisi prius allusions to the metaphor. Two out of three of the Judges of the Court of Chancery were then opposed to this appointment; two of three to whom there could be no injustice in applying the doctrines of liberty and equality, for certainly Lord Lyndhurst could not claim a higher scale for adhering to his opinions, or for his veracity or pretensions, than could Sir Lancelot Shadwell or Sir John Leach. His Lordship might be equal to them, but he was not more than equal; his solitary opinion, therefore, could not overbalance those of the other two. All men must believe those Judges perfectly equal; all men under the canopy of the British Constitution would give them equal and co-ordinate credit. He thought the House would not pay such attention to any individual authority. He thought the House would not so legislate, and therefore it would not assent to Lord Lyndhurst's project. He had also, in addition to the Vice-chancellor and the Master of the Rolls, another witness to call—the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He would abstract the hon. member for Weymouth of 1828 from the Solicitor General of 1830. In 1838, the hon. member for Weymouth declared that, "the plan proposed by the hon. member for Durham, for amending the practice of the Court of Chancery, would cut up our solid foundations and revolutionize the Court of Chancery." He took this from the document they usually consulted—"Hansard's Parliamentary Debates."—Now his moderate language was, that the change was most necessary. He had taken the sting out of the metaphorical accusation of the Solicitor General. In the speech which he was quoting, the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that 1022 causes had been disposed of in the Court of Chancery during the year 1827, and he stated, that the reason why there was not more was, that there were two new Vice-chancellors in that year, and that this circumstance occasioned delay, since it required some time to make them masters of their business. In this same 1828, too, he re-marked that the Master of the Rolls had disposed of 540 cases. The Solicitor General was therefore his third witness. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposed the hon. member for Durham's motion, because no case of necessity could be made out, and because the Vice-chancellor had not, in consequence of his recent appointment, acquired a sufficient facility of decision. He had also another witness, known to many hon. Members of that House—Mr. Bell. This gentleman was entirely opposed to the change, and desired him to state that opinion. And further, he believed there was not at the Bar one individual who, if the question were put to him in an abstract shape, would not say that a fourth Judge was unnecessary, if the Lord Chancellor would or could perform his duty. Another witness on his side was the hon. member for Wootten Bassett, who made a very able speech, for which he received Lord Lyndhurst's thanks. The hon. Member shook his head; not, of course, because he had received, but because he had not received the Lord Chancellor's thanks. He hoped then that he should have that hon. Member's able assistance to prevent the Lord Chancellor from being thrown into the predicament of doing nothing himself, and having a journeyman to assist him. The right hon. Baronet, too, had declared that the multiplication of Judges was an evil. This was in 1828, and then the right hon. Secretary argued the change could not be supported by the plea of necessity, on which ground it should alone take place. The right hon. Gentleman said, he had not then the papers before him, to show that the necessity existed in 1828. He asked what new light had broken in on him. He called on the hon. member for Wootten Bassett to support him. His thanks, it was true, unlike those of the Lord Chancellor, were fraught with no patronage—they came altogether unfruitful; but if he would afford him his able assistance, he should have his thanks and praise for his consistency, and that was no mean compliment for any man to receive. He called on the hon. Member and the right hon. Baronet, either to support him, or to show the data which they had procured to prove the measure should be now adopted which they had repudiated in 1828. There were 300 Bankrupt Petitions in arrear in 1828. It would be perfectly natural to inquire what was the present arrear of bankrupt petitions—there was not one in the Vice-chancellor's paper. In the Lord Chancellor's paper there was an arrear of twenty-nine; he did not complain of that number; there might exist abundant reasons for there being an arrear of twenty-nine petitions, but there was no arrear in the Vice-chancellor's Court. On the 19th of February, he moved for a return of the arrears of bankrupt petitions, and the answer to that motion was, that there was, at the time of making the return, no arrear. The Vice-chancellor, with great credit to himself, and extraordinary advantage to the parties interested, disposed of the whole of them. He did not like arithmetical logicians—bad cases were generally cloaked in arithmetical calculations, but he would just state a plain case in a plain manner. In Hilary Term, 1830, the various matters, causes, petitions, exceptions, further directions, &c, &c. set down for hearing or to be spoken to, in the whole amounted to 1,061. Now, was the arrear in the Court of Chancery swelling or contracting? From Hilary Term, 1830, to Easter Term, there was a decrease of 348 of the total matters pending—leaving at that time the amount of arrear 713: 348 had been wiped off by decisions; and not only that, but the Bankrupt List so diminished, that the Lord Chancellor had only twenty-nine remaining, and the Vice-chancellor none at all; and the time of that Judge was occupied constantly in hearing and adjudi- cating, so that the business of the Court had been freed from any thing bearing even the appearance of arrear. The Solicitor General stated in 1828, that 1,000 causes had been disposed of: the same might be expected to be done in the present year, the more especially as the bankruptcy was gone, and therefore the entire attention of the Judges could be given to the existing arrear of 713 causes; and he did not hesitate to affirm, that if the three Judges did not get through the arrear within that time, or if every one of them did not perform his aliquot part of the duty, then he would say that that individual would not, or could not, perform his duty. He made this broad Statement of the condition of the Court, without troubling the House too much with figures; but he believed and knew he was right. He thought then that he stated enough to maintain his Resolution—to maintain the broad principle for which he contended. He had no special predilection for any particular form of words; but he would assert that the House ought not to legislate in the dark—ought not to legislate in the teeth of the known opinion of the Bar, in Opposition to the known opinion of two of the Judges of that Court—that was all he contended for—he did not contend, that a committee ought to be formed, but that the House ought not to decide without evidence. Even supposing it could be shown that the new Judge could do no harm—still the absence of a necessity for his appointment was decisive against the proposed measure. To adopt the language of the right hon. Secretary opposite, he would object to the multiplication of Judges as one of the greatest evils that could attach to the administration of justice. He begged of the House to look a little at the consequences. If a new Judge were appointed in Chancery, the Lord Chancellor would never come into Court, for he might well say that the Legislature had given him permission to be absent, and little reproach would attach to him for availing himself of the Services of the new officer—he knew not by what name he was to be called—whether the Orderly of the Lord Chancellor, or by some other appellation—the existing nomenclature of the Courts of Equity was exhausted, and it would, of course, be necessary to find out a new name for him; and, no doubt, a competent term would be discovered by which to designate that high officer. Three men, not of high attainments, but of ordinary abilities and diligence, were competent to discharge the judicial business of the Court of Chancery, and who could quarrel with the Lord Chancellor if he availed himself of the license which the proposed measure afforded him? Upon grounds, then, such as these, he would press upon the House the adoption of his Resolution. In every step he took in this argument, he found himself fortified by the opinions of all who were the most competent to form a sound opinion upon a question of that nature, that this unrobing, this unfrocking of the Lord Chancellor, was the most unwise step that could be taken in the present State of the Court of Chancery. On the question then under consideration, he might say he had Sir Samuel Romilly with him, who, in the discussions which took place respecting the appointment of the Vice-chancellor, contended that no such officer was necessary, and that his appointment would lead to the Lord Chancellor's degenerating from a legal into a political character, without the learning, the experience, or the talents necessary for discharging the duties of his high Station. If at that time a third Judge was not required, and if Sir Samuel Romilly was right, and great weight ought to be attached to his opinion, how true it must be that a fourth Judge was now unnecessary, and therefore mischievous. At an early period of our history it had been the practice for the Lord Chancellor, on his appointment, to deliver an inauguration speech, setting forth his high sense of the duties that had devolved upon him, and detailing the various improvements which he might intend to introduce in the Constitution of the Court, and the remedies which he might propose for the redress of grievances, and the reform of abuses; and Sir Samuel Romilly, referring to the speech of Lord Bacon, which was preserved, and to the Speeches of others, subsequently, imagined the case of some Shaftesbury—some hackneyed intriguer—some debating politician—hackneyed in debate, and hackneyed on both sides of questions—hackneyed here, and hackneyed there—the ready tool of any party—the possibility of such men attaining to high places—though not now in them—the telescopic eye of Romilly foresaw; and he, as well upon that occasion as upon others, repudiated the appointment of a third Judge. Ought not, then, the Parliament of the present day, à fortiori, to repudiate the appointment of a fourth? Having now laid before the House the material grounds on which he proposed to rest his Resolutions, he should not enter into any more minute details—he would not, with Sir Samuel Romilly, contend that a Lord Chancellor ought to reside at the law-end of the town. He would not quarrel with him for not living in Boswell-court, or Bedford-row, or Chancery-lane, or other places that smelt of the Court of Chancery—he was not quite so straitlaced as that; but he would maintain that the Lord Chancellor ought to have something left for him to do. When the Vice-chancellor's bill was under consideration, in the year 1818, Sir John Leach was of opinion that the third Judge was not required. In that he (Sir C. Wetherell) differed from him. Sir John Leach was of opinion that the Master of the Rolls might, by a judicious alteration in his Court, be enabled to render the appointment of a third Judge unnecessary. Thus every authority that could be found was arrayed against the appointment of a fourth Judge. He was thus fortified with the opinions of these eminent men, and the mischief which they predicted may result; he did not say "will," but "may," if the measure be adopted. But this was not all. He asserted, as he had done in 1828, that when a Judge laboriously applied himself to attack the arrears in a resolute manner, they would soon melt away—

"Dimidium facti qui bene cæpit habet;"

and as soon as the attempt was made, the victory was won; though he did not deny that Sir L. Shadwell deserved great credit for getting rid of the arrears. And what had Sir John Leach done? He had agreed to sit every day, and he believed that that mode of sitting, and the regularity of managing business, he devoting his undivided attention to it, had materially reduced the arrears. He assured the House that it was his belief that, as the Rolls Court was now administered, it was equivalent to half a new Court; so that we had now three Courts and a half. Under these circumstances, he could not think that the Court of Chancery was overloaded. The appointment of another Judge would take away the Lord Chancellor's functions. No one could then reproach him with not doing his duty; he would say, "I have no duty to do." He would not be attacked as Lord Eldon had been, for taking papers home with him, for he would have no papers to take. Where he would sit he could not tell; but if he came down, he would find a Court without Barristers, and without business; and, like a great character of antiquity, he would be—

"Vacuâ rex solus in aulâ."

But he (Sir C. Wetherell) might be told of appeals. The ratio of appeals was about four in 100; but this number would be increased by the appointment of a new Judge, for there would be appeals from him too, as well as the Vice-chancellor and the Master of the Rolls. It might be Said, as indeed it had been said, that the Chancellor would no longer have to hear original causes; the hearing of these he supposed would be put off on the Chancellor's Jack Rugby—or Orderly, or whatever other appellation this new anonymous Judge was to be invested with. But then Gentlemen would see that the Chancellor ought to be a man of greater learning and of more correct judgment than the inferior Judges whose decrees he was to control and correct. Now he should like to know how a Chancellor living a life of judicial idleness was to obtain these qualifications. A Chancellor so situated might have been bred in a Court of Law, and might carry with him into his new office a great deal of common-law learning, and of nisi prius ingenuity, (he was not speaking of the present Lord Chancellor, he was merely putting a case that might happen), but if he had no Court to practice in, no Court in which he could learn his new business, he not only never could be a proper Judge of appeals, but he would be lower in learning, and knowledge, and experience, than any one of the Judges, whose decrees he was called upon to revise. He said, then, that it was a farce, that it was a mockery, that it was a delusion, to call that man an effective Judge of appeal who was not comparable in learning to the inferior Judges, and who was ten times more liable to error than those whose errors he was called upon to control. Look at the case of Lord Thurlow, a man of great common law learning, and of vast powers, but not of the most industrious habits,—and admit that Lord Lyndhurst, or any future Chancellor, was equal to my Lord Thurlow in ability. Now, he had been told by a gentleman who had been a Welsh Judge, —but a gentleman against whom none of the common objections to Welsh Judges could be made,—he had been told, by Mr. Justice Lloyd, that strong and vigorous as Lord Thurlow's talents were, many persons doubted whether, not withstanding his eminent parts, he would be able to perform the duties of Chancellor, and thought that Lord Loughborough would have been a better person for the office. This eminent person, however, of whom such doubts were entertained, managed, in a very short time, indeed, though wholly unacquainted with Equity when he was appointed Chancellor, to make himself completely master, not only of the highest branches of the new science, but even of the minutest points of the practice of the Court. This any one who had perused Lord Thurlow's judgments, and was able to understand them, must admit to be true; and it was notorious that the same learned Judge, after having held the Seals for eight or ten years, left the Court, he would not say with as high a reputation as Lord Hardwicke, who held the seals for twenty years, but certainly with as high a reputation as any Chancellor of modern times. And how did this happen? Why, Lord Thurlow had no Vice-chancellor, no Jack Rugby, no anonymous Judge to perform his duties for him; he was, therefore, obliged to rouse himself to diligence and exertion, and in a very short Space of time, labour and discipline made him an Equity Judge, though on coming into office he was totally ignorant of the science of Equity, and had contracted habits which, to say the least of them, were not habits of industry. Take again Lord King, who was also from the common-law bar, but who, by the same exertion, left the Court with the credit of being a good Chancellor, though his reputation was not so great as that of others who had filled the same office. So it had been with Lord Camden. In fact, a man of talent and judgment would soon administer the newly acquired office, as well as if he had been bred in it all his life; but this could only be effected by labour and discipline, and not by suffering the Chancellor to lead a life of judicial idleness. On these grounds, therefore, he opposed this Bill, which, as he had before observed, had nothing to do—no connexion—with the two bills of his hon. and learned friend, the Solicitor General, and which, therefore, he again cautioned the House against mixing up with that which had come down from the other House. He considered himself now as if he were voting on the bill of 1828, only with this difference,—that then it was a problem whether the arrears could be got under. That problem was now solved—the arrears had been got under; and if a new Judge were unnecessary in 1828, another fourth Judge was certainly unnecessary in 1830. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution stated at the opening of his Address.

said, that this was a question of very great importance; a question, namely, whether they should agree to a measure for the facilitating the administration of Justice in the Court of Chancery,—a court which had been the subject of so many complaints, and of so much animadversion. Such a subject he had hoped, and did still hope, would be approached as it ought to be, with evenness of temper and with calm and sober consideration. He thought he had some right to complain—though he did not feel very anxious to exercise that right—of the course which had been adopted by his hon. and learned friend. He had a measure to bring forward; it was his duty to State to the House the nature of it, and the reasons upon which it had been recommended; but his learned friend, by the motion and speech he had just made, had anticipated the discussion, and arraigned in the most vehement terms a proposition of which the House had not yet heard a Single syllable. His hon. and learned friend had described this measure as a Job; he had called it a pestilent, a noxious, and a mischievous measure; and because no name was given to a Judge who was not yet appointed, his hon. and learned friend thought it necessary to supply that defect, and to dub the judge "Jack Rugby," and the "Lord Chancellor's Orderly," and he knew not what else besides. If he were right in supposing that this subject was one of importance, and that it ought to be approached with calmness and consideration, he could not congratulate his hon. and learned friend upon the jokes he had made, and the ribaldry he had brought to bear upon so grave a matter. If his hon. and learned friend intended by these means to show that the measure was a bad one, he thought his hon. and learned friend had failed; but if the object of his hon. and learned friend had only been to excite the laughter of hon. Members, no one could deny that his hon. and learned friend had completely succeeded. But the Motion of his hon. and learned friend was quite as extraordinary as the speech by which it had been introduced. His hon. and learned friend had told them that it was a thing quite notorious that another Judge in the Court of Chancery was not necessary, and yet the Motion of his hon. and learned friend was, that the House should examine evidence as to the fact whether such appointment was or was not necessary. His hon. and learned friend had spoken of a letter of the Master of the Rolls. He had not seen that letter, and therefore could say nothing about it. The Master of the Rolls was doubtless a very competent judge upon all matters connected with the Court of Chancery; but at the same time it might happen that that learned person was too sanguine in his views of the means by which the business of the Court could be got under. The House, however, would have an opportunity of judging of that by the Statement which he should presently submit. His honorable and learned friend, too, had said that the Vice-chancellor had taken all the pains he could, to stop the introduction of this Bill. Now he asserted, on the contrary, that the Vice-chancellor, at the beginning of the year, had told the Lord Chancellor that this Bill was necessary; and, moreover, that the Lord Chancellor never knew that the Vice-chancellor had altered his opinion on the subject, until he was told of it in another place. He should be sorry to say any thing that might be displeasing to that learned Judge, for whom he entertained a very great regard, and he only stated this fact in order to show that the Vice-chancellor could not have taken any pains to stop the introduction of this Bill, and that, consequently, his hon. and learned friend must be mistaken in what he had said on this subject. He did not wish to interpret strictly the expression of that learned Judge—"that three angels could not get through the business of the Court of Chancery." If the expression did not mean that some more than human power was necessary, it certainly could not mean any thing less than that there should be more than the present number of persons to transact the business of the Court. For his own part, he had no wish to retract any thing he had said in 1828; but at that time he had only just entered the House, and the manner in which he had been received by the Gentlemen opposite had so embarrassed him, that he was scarcely able to proceed. It was no wonder, then, if, under such circumstances, he had been indistinctly heard and misunderstood,—however accurately, generally speaking, what fell from Members in that House was recorded elsewhere. He recollected perfectly well that he did use the word "revolutionize;" but he certainly did not say that the appointment of another Judge in the Court of Chancery was a revolutionary measure. He had used the word "revolutionize," in reference to the proposition of some Gentlemen opposite, that we should have a new code of laws like the Code Napoleon; and this he had said, would revolutionize the country. It was true, also, that at that time he was opposed to the appointment of another Judge. He had stated, that to multiply the number of Judges was an evil; he thought so still, and nothing but necessity could reconcile him to such an appointment. The House would judge if there did exist that necessity. The measure now came forward coupled with other measures for the improvement of the administration of justice, and this gave a new character to the proposition. He thought now, as he had thought then, that the increase of Judges was a great evil; but he knew that it was absolutely required for the due administration of justice, and on that ground he thought that the proposed measure ought to be favourably received by the House. This was not an opinion that he had formed on the instant; for, last Session, as all the Bar knew, he was of opinion that such a step was necessary, and he would venture to say, that 99 out of every 100 of that Bar were of the same opinion; therefore, how his learned friend had come to the conclusion that not one of that Bar was in favour of the appointment of a new Judge, he could not conceive. The next witness that his learned friend had called in behalf of his Motion was Mr. Bell. Every one must have a very high opinion of the talents and attainments of that gentleman, but, at the same time, it was to be remembered that he had retired from the Bar for some time, and, therefore, was not quite so competent to judge of its present state. His learned friend had next relied on what had been stated by the hon. member for Wootten Bassett, but the opinion expressed by that learned Gentleman had decidedly been, that another Judge was necessary; and, with respect to the right hon. Secretary, he knew that he felt as he (the Solicitor-General) did; they both looked upon the appointment of a new Judge as a great evil, but in this case unavoidable. His hon. and learned friend had referred to the opinions of Sir S. Romilly and of the present Master of the Rolls on the bill of 1813; and had called upon the house to act upon those opinions now. He, however, begged the House to recollect that his hon. and learned friend was, in 1813, a Member of that House; that his hon. and learned friend listened to those opinions, and that those opinions not only failed to convince his hon. and learned friend, but that he had actually voted against Sir S. Romilly and the Master of the Rolls on the occasion alluded to. Nay, further, all the predictions contained in the Speeches of Sir S. Romilly and the Master of the Rolls, respecting the mischievous consequences that would result from the appointment of a Vice-chancellor, had turned out to be erroneous; but his hon. and learned friend seemed to have forgotten that fact, and he now re-echoed those predictions, applying them to the present Bill. Might not the result be the same in both cases? His hon. and learned friend turned a deaf ear to those predictions in 1813, because he thought there was a necessity for the appointment of a Vice-chancellor; and seeing, or thinking he saw, a necessity for the appointment of another Judge now, his hon. and learned friend could not blame him if he followed his example, and placed no reliance upon similar predictions on the present occasion, though his hon. and learned friend had adopted and made them his own. Having said thus much with respect to the arguments that had been adduced by his learned friend, he would now take the liberty of calling the attention of the House to what was really the State of the case with respect to the Court of Chancery. For about two centuries this Court had been continually the object of discussion in the House of Commons; and bills had frequently been introduced into that House for the purpose of getting rid of the delays that had always existed in the Court. How was it that members in these days recommended the same course that had been recommended formely? Was it that the lawyers, in those days, resisted any alteration; or was it that those in power would not acknowledge the faults that existed? But whatever was the cause, it was indisputable that the Court was nearly in the same Situation as now. That was a lesson which ought not to be lost on the House; and if Government could make out a case to show that assistance was necessary, he thought that what he had stated should influence the House, not to reject the proposal. Lord Chancellors had always made a rule to boast of what they would do in the way of improvement; but he did not find that much had in that way been effected. Lord Bacon, in his inaugural oration which had been alluded to, had set them the example; but though he made promises which, if they had been kept up, would have cleared away all arrears, he did not perform anything. In 1620, the State of this Court was in such a position, that it could not be said to have any bearing on the business of the present day; for perhaps the House would hardly credit that Sir Edward Coke had stated, that in one year there were 35,000 bills filed; and though Sir F. Fane had stated that there were only 16,000 subpoenas, this might very well be, for at that time it was the practice to issue subpoenas without bills being filed, which must have rendered the Court an intolerable nuisance. At present there were never more than 2,500 bills filed in a year, and no subpænas were issued unless bills were filed. In former times the unlimited Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery was the root of the evil. He had met with some curious cases in the reign of Henry 6th, which would illustrate this. There was one bill filed by an attorney, praying that the defendant might be restrained by oath from pursuing the plaintiff with witch-craft. There was another in which it was prayed, that the defendant should be restrained from outraging the plaintiff in consequence of the latter following the doctrines of Wickliffe; and a third, which had allusion to violence practised on a maid servant, and which he need not more fully particularize. When the Jurisdiction of the Court became more limited, the complaints did not, however, cease, and it was a remarkable fact, that as early as the year 1620, a bill was introduced into the House of Commons, for the appointment of two assistant Judges for the Court of Chancery. During the Commonwealth, it was actually provided that six judges should assist that Court in the hearing of appeals; and one of the ordinances of Cromwell was to the effect that no man's case should wait an instant for hearing, when it was ready; but the present System of the Court was, to hurry a man on to the hearing, and when he was ready for that, he found that the Court was so choaked up with other business, that he was obliged to wait for his opportunity. The regulations of this Court, however, as to business, had certainly received some improvement; for Whitelock stated, that on those points, even down to his time, there was no fixed law. Again, a bill was broughtin by Lord Nottingham, the founder of modern Equity, for the improvement of the Court of Chancery; but it was lost. Lord Somers, subsequently endeavoured to accomplish the same object by similar means, but he too failed. For nearly two centuries there had been a constant endeavour to legislate for this Court, and always without effect; and for this reason, that in looking at the evil, no sufficient consideration was given to the natural remedy—that of giving the necessary assistance to despatch the business. By the Bill now before the House, however, great relief would be afforded, for time would be given to the judges, which at present they had not, to settle the terms of their decrees. It had often happened to him to hear a Judge of that Court pronounce his decree in a cause, but before he could settle the terms in which it was to be given, another cause was called on, and the terms of the decree were to be arranged at some future time. It had often happened to himself, when engaged in a cause, that he had not time to endorse the terms of the decree on his brief before he was called on in the cause; and the result of this was, that Solicitors and Agents were afterwards obliged to attend before the officer of the Court to ascertain what were the exact terms of the judgement, which, besides creating vexatious delay, led the suitors to wanton and extravagant expense. A remedy for this would be afforded in the additional assistance to be given by this Bill. An endeavour to remedy the evils complained of in this respect was a favourite plan in the Commonwealth, and every lawyer who was acquainted with the practice of the Court must be aware of the great import- ance of giving full time to the Judges of the Court to draw up their decrees correctly. The great importance of having sufficient aid to get through the business of the Court would be at once admitted, when it was stated that there were at the present moment not less than 40,000,000l. of money in the Court—the property of suitors. He must not be understood, however, as saying that the whole of this was in litigation. A considerable portion of it was paid into the Court by parties who thought it was in very safe keeping when there; and many did it as the most secure way of keeping it for their children and others committed to their care. He would mention one amongst many cases that could be cited. A learned friend of his, to whose children a property had been left, thought that he could secure it for them in no better way than by placing it in Chancery, and for this purpose he filed a bill, and paid the money into Court, to be paid out to them when they became of age. In this way many bills were filed which were not intended for a hearing. The number of bills filed in former times were said to be 35,000 in a year, but now they did not exceed 2,400, which certainly was quite enough. It was true that many of the causes entered did not get as rapidly through as causes entered in the Courts of Law, but the delay arose from the nature of the causes themselves, and the evidence by which they were to be supported. In causes where this was not the case, the proceedings were as rapid as in the other Courts. At times four or five-and-twenty were disposed of in a day; but some causes occupied the Court for many days together. There were two of this description some time ago,—one before the Lord Chancellor, and another before the Vice-chancellor. One of these lasted seven days, and the other still longer; yet he could State that not one hour of that time was wasted—but the nature of the evidence—the variety of deeds and Settlements—the long detail of family arrangements and agreements, which were to be examined and sifted in detail, rendered such a length of time in hearing the cause unavoidable. These matters were the work of years before they came into Court, and the Court had to unravel them alt before it could pronounce a decision. One case lately before the Lord Chancellor—that of Fuller against. Willis which was a case of mismanagement dur- ing a minority—was of this description, and lasted many days: but the tediousness of proceeding in such cases was not to be attributed to the Court. No man could by any possibility abridge it; and when this was so, could it be a matter of surprise that an arrear should accrue? When it was seen how some of those cases branched out, the conviction must follow, that there was not force enough in the Court to get through the business before it. When the vast increase of the business in the Court of late years,—to come down from the more remote periods of which he had been speaking,—was considered, the surprise should be, not that so much was left in arrear, but that, with the force there was in those Courts, so much should have been disposed of. Every Government, for a long time past, had been disposed to apply some remedy, but none of them had applied that which was most required—that of giving additional assistance in the Court. Let the House consider what the increase of business had been. A little more than a Century ago the union took place with Scotland, which was, before, not under the Jurisdiction of the House of Lords; and that, at a more recent period, was followed by the union with Ireland, by these two circumstances, the number of appeals to the House of Lords had been greatly increased. To this, must be added the great increase of business and wealth in the country, with the various modes of settling estates and disposing of property, giving rise to a variety of litigation, and explaining the cause of the great delays and arrear of business of which the public complained. Appeals were now multiplied from Scotland, in addition to the increase of those in England. The consequence was, that the attendance of the Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords, for the purpose of hearing appeals, had necessarily diminished the time he could bestow upon the business of the Court of Chancery, yet there was no Court where delays in the progress of a suit were more injurious to the parties. In the course of a cause reference was made to the Master upon some points. The cause of course was stopped till the Master made his report; but then, when the report was ready, the paper was so crowded with other business, that twelve months often elapsed before the further hearing of the case could be obtained. This alone would be a sufficient reason for additional force in the Court. On account of the increase in the number of appeals, the Lord Chancellor was occupied for five or six hours a day in attending to them in the House of Lords; and this must necessarily delay the Chancery business, for no man could be in two places at once; and he had not heard any one say that the Lord Chancellor ought not to preside in appeals as well as in Chancery. The hon. and learned Member then referred to the business in the House of Lords, to show that the progress there had been slow at all times. In 1751, there were eight appeals lodged and only two determined; in 1753, the number of appeals was twelve, and nine determined: In Lord Thurlow's time, in 1778, there were thirty-five appeals, and twenty determined; in 1779, there were fifty appeals, and seventeen determined. There was no greater evil than thus to have the Court of Appeal blocked up, as it made parties who were in the wrong, appeal for the very purpose of delay. One great advantage of the previous arrangements he meant the appointment of a Vice-chancellor was, that appeals were now heard in a much shorter time than formerly. The present Lord Chancellor was hearing as appeal cases, those that had been tried last Session, or even during the present Session. This was a satisfaction to those who had a good cause. Formerly they were discouraged by the probable delay of twenty years from appealing; but now, when they stood a chance of having an appeal decided in a few months, they did not hesitate to appeal. It had been his own lot formerly, in business, very frequently to advise parties not to appeal, on the ground that there was no chance of getting a hearing for fifteen or twenty years. The following he stated as the general view of the matter:—

The hon. and learned Member went on to show, that there had been in all the Courts of Equity a great increase of business. The number of bills filed, he observed, in Lord Hardwicke's time was said to be as great as at present;—that might be, but the business was not the same as now;—and Lord Hardwicke had to give less attention to appeals in the House of Lords than was required from the Chancellor at present. In 1745, the number of bills filed, was 2,064; in 1829, it was 2,178; but the business in Court connected with them was much more heavy. The hon. and learned Gentleman contrasted the number of causes, exceptions, rehearings, pleas, and motions, heard in ten years, from 1745 to 1755, with the number heard in a similar period in the time of Lord Eldon, beginning with 1806, and showed that in all there had been a vast increase. In the motions alone there had been an increase in the latter period, as compared with the former, of from 37,880 to 57,063; and many of these motions were equal to causes; for parties anxious to obtain the opinion of that noble and learned Lord, frequently put the important points of their cases into the shape of motions, by which the decision in the cause was in a great degree anticipated. He did not say that this was the best course that could have been pursued, but the noble and learned Lord saw the necessity of the case, and yielded to it. He next proceeded to detail a similar increase of business in the Rolls' Court. Adverting to the creation of the office of Vice-chancellor, the hon. and learned Gentleman observed, that it was not at first intended for assistance in the despatch of Chancery business, but to enable the Lord Chancellor to pay greater attention to the business of appeals. Any one who had paid any attention to the pamphlets and Speeches of that day, would see that the predictions as to that office had not been fulfilled. All the great men—such as Sir Samuel Romilly, Lord Redesdale, and Mr. Canning—who had spoken or written on the subject of creating that new Judge, had reasoned erroneously. Not one of them had at all foreseen what had actually happened. They were all wrong, which was, in his view, a good reason not to place much faith in those who opposed the present Bill, on reasons similar to those which were then urged. It was said that the Vice-chancellor would be the chief Judge in Chancery, and that the office of Chancellor would be reduced to a mere political office. One great vice in that bill was, to make the Vice-chancellor dependent on the Lord Chancellor. There was a difference between being inferior in degree and dependent. This would be avoided in the Bill on the Table, and the new Judge, as well as the Vice-chancellor, would be completely independent of the Lord Chancellor. Since the appointment of the Vice-chancellor, some delay had been occasioned by his illness; but the illness of a Judge must be calculated upon, and provision should be made to have such a force in court as would prevent any injury to the public business by it, which was one great object of the Bill on the Table. The number of bankrupt petitions which had been heard by the Vice-chancellor from the time of his appointment to the end of 1829 amounted to 5,404, besides 60 appeals; so that there was manifestly a considerable gain to the public. From the year 1813 to 1821, the Vice-chancellor had heard 2,428 causes, 1,865 exceptions and further directions, and 510 pleas and demurrers; and in 1829 alone, he heard not less than 120 motions. Drawing the natural inference from these and other facts, with which it was unnecessary to trouble the House, he submitted that it was made sufficiently apparent that the Lord Chancellor would have been altogether overwhelmed by the perpetual accumulation of business, had not the Vice-chancellor been appointed to assist him. By way of a set-off against that business, there had been in eight years, from the year 1813 to 1821,227 re-hearings of appeals, making an average of 28 yearly, including re-hearings by the Master of the Rolls, and the Lord Chancellor himself. It ought to be borne in mind, that no observations had been made with reference to the measure now proposed which did not equally apply to that of 1813, and that no objections were suggested on the present occasion which might not be considered mere repetitions of those that had been then urged against the appointment of the Vice-chancellor. He therefore trusted, that the House, if it should be convinced of the necessity of the change in question, would not be led away by the arguments which had been already abundantly refuted by the very consequences of the measure against which they were first directed in 1813. If the House would place any reliance on him, he could assure it that another Judge was as necessary now as it was when the Vice-chancellor was created. He knew that all these details were very dry, but there were no other means of ascertaining the results, and he found his apology for trespassing so long on the House in the fact that the Legislature could perform no more important duty than to provide for the administration of justice. That was the first and the chief duty of the Legislature. When the Courts were bad, the people were made discontented, and he did not know a more ready method to make the people discontented than for the Government not to provide them with good tribunals, where justice should be speedily and readily administered. The hon. and learned Member then entered into further details, to show that the present Lord Chancellor had heard and decided a great number of appeals in the House of Lords. The House, in considering the nature of the measure now before it, should recollect that this was the Bill of last year, and that it was the result of the labours of the Commission appointed to inquire into the State of the Courts of Equity. The hon. and learned Gentleman had declared that the arrears of the Court were greatly diminished. Now, what was the real State of the case? In the year when the present Lord Chancellor came into office, the number of original causes set down for hearing, in different stages, were 776, and of appeals there were 113. In the year 1828, there were 784, and 69 appeals. In the year 1829, they had in-creased to 818, and there were 95 appeals; and in the year 1830, at Hilary term, they were 933, with 84 appeals, 382 pleas, and 462 causes in different stages. So that the business of the Court had not diminished, but increased; and this was further illustrated by the fact, that at the time when the Vice-chancellor was appointed, the arrears before the Court were only 218. He was convinced, indeed, that the more the facilities for the despatch of the business of the Court were increased, the greater would be the amount of that business; and he was sure, that if the new Judge were appointed, the number of causes annually brought under the consideration of a court of Equity would receive a very considerable addition. He thought it, indeed, a proposition wholly void of truth, that because the business of the Court might be momentarily decreased, therefore no new Judge should be appointed. There were many periods in the history of the Court of Chancery, where not a Single cause remained for hearing; but he did not think that such a despatch of the business of the Court was calculated either to satisfy the suitor, or raise the character of the Equity Jurisdiction. He knew, and had frequently deplored it, that the observations which were every day made by the Members of that House with respect to the practice of the Court of Chancery, had very much lessened the favourable opinion of the character of its Judges, and abated the reverence with which their decisions should be regarded. He had observed this frequently, and it was with him a cogent reason for the adoption of a measure like the present, which would remove some of the causes of complaint, and allow the Judges to assure their just and proper Station in the opinions of the public. He knew that the greatest exertions had been made by all the Judges of the Court to get rid of the arrears of business. In bankruptcy, in particular, the Vice-chancellor had laboured unceasingly, until not one petition, he believed, now remained un-disposed of. That most learned Judge deserved infinite credit for the manner in which he had got rid of the task imposed on him. But how had he done it? Why, by devoting that time which, as holidays, were wisely set apart for obtaining information, and recruiting the bodily and mental powers—by devoting every hour that could be thus snatched from the time allotted for health or recreation to the despatch of the business in bankruptcy. He was convinced that great mischief, however, had been produced in other branches of Equity, by pushing and goading on the business of the Courts, and he believed no greater blessing could be conferred on the suitors in Equity than the appointment of an additional Judge. Now, turning to the subject of the Welsh Jurisdiction, he might say that the business of the Court of Equity would be increased by about fifty causes by the new arrangements. It was Said at first, indeed intended, that the Welsh business in Equity should be transacted in the Exchequer; but a noble Lord (Clive, we believe) having presented a petition, claiming for the Welsh the power of prosecuting their causes in a Court of Equity, it was determined not to deny the privilege which they desired, although so many others were anxious to avoid its exercise. It was intended, therefore, to allow the Welsh causes to be determined in Chancery, and this would make an accession of fifty to the general causes of the year. He might say here that it was not sufficient for the proper administration of justice that causes were determined rightly and speedily, they must also be determined to the satisfaction of the contending parties; and it should always be recollected, as Bacon had wisely laid it down, that nothing was more mischievous than for a Judge to draw on his head for Instruction rather than to follow the ordinary rules of law. In the King's Bench, where the hon. member for Knaresborough generally practised, these rules were well understood, and invariably followed; and he repeated, he knew no greater evil than the existence of any State of things which should compel the Judges in Equity to follow a different course. When, however, the Bill was brought into force, if, as he fondly anticipated it would be, it was intended to divide the Court of Exchequer, and to make that Court, with all its present officers and machinery, a grave Court of Common Law—when this was effected, and a new Judge appointed in Equity, he hoped the accumulation of arrears in either of the branches of law would be prevented for ever, and the recommendation of the commissioners, of which this Bill was one of the results, be rendered really beneficial to the country. Altogether the Lord Chancellor sat 200 days in a year—50 of these were given to appeals—50 to the House of Lords—35 to lunacy and other matters of that description, and 65 to general business. Now the new Judge, if appointed, would also sit 200 days; but allowing deductions for peculiar duties, he would have 175 days for the despatch of general business. It was intended to propose that the new Judge, as well as the Vice-chancellor and the Master of the Rolls, should be an independent Judge; but he begged distinctly to express his objection to make the Lord Chancellor a Judge solely in appeal. He considered it, on the contrary, a great benefit to the suitor that the Judge in Appeal should also be engaged in general business, and after giving the subject the most mature deliberation, he was disposed to propose, not only that the Lord Chancellor should continue a Judge in appeal as well as in general business, but that he should also take with him in appeal two of the three Judges: the one excluded being the Judge who originally heard the cause. By thus constituting a kind of Exchequer Chamber for appeal, he hoped to put an end to many vexatious and frivolous ap- peals brought under the present System, and at the same time very much to diminish the number of appeals to the House of Lords; for he would allow the suitor to appeal either to the Lord Chancellor and the Judges sitting in this kind of Exchequer Chamber, or to that House, but not in any case to both. This was his plan, and he thought it well worth consideration. After adverting to the State of appeals in the House of Lords, and proving that they had been reduced, including Irish, English, and Scotch appeals, from 95 to 81, since the appointment of Lord Wynford to preside there in the absence of the Chancellor, the hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded to answer the objections taken by the learned Gentleman (Sir C. Wetherell) to the new bill respecting the offices of Registrar and Masters in Chancery. The learned Gentleman had called those bills unnecessary; but he begged to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman, that unless they cleared away the impediments which these bills were intended to remove, by altering the condition of the officers of the Court, there would be no use in appointing a new Judge. Unless the minor parts of the Court were better adapted for the despatch of business, all alteration of the higher would be labour thrown away. And here he begged to say, that he was authorised by the Lord Chancellor to declare, that he had no desire to increase his patronage in the appointment of Registrars. His Lordship was perfectly willing to abandon all his claims on that point, and leave the two new Registrars, whose Services were considered absolutely necessary for the despatch of the business of the Court, to be appointed by the Judges of their respective Courts. This addition to the number of Registrars, it should be recollected, was also one of the recommendations of the Law Commissioners. It had been recommended that Barristers should be substituted for Registrars. But if the House, as he hoped, would allow the Bill to go into a committee, he would there show why, in his opinion, that proposition ought not to be adopted. With respect to Masters, it was intended to get rid of copy-money, and to Substitute fees; with a view to the rapid discharge of business. As an individual, he thanked the House for the attention with which they had listened to him, but the subject was one which, he owned, demanded their most serious attention. Nothing could be more important than to increase the facilities for the dispensing of justice. It was his firm belief that the Bills on the Table would greatly facilitate that object, as connected with the Court of Chancery; and a greater boon could not be conferred on the country.

said, that as it was impossible at that hour to continue the debate beneficially, he would move as an Amendment to the original Motion, that the further consideration of the Question be adjourned to Tuesday.

After a short conversation the Amendment was agreed to.

Wood having obtained leave to bring in a Bill to prevent the spreading of Canine Madness, brought in the Bill, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Tuesday.