presented a Petition, signed by twenty-two clergymen of the Deanery of Rochester, complaining that many of their Protestant fellow subjects serving in the army abroad, were obliged to attend at the superstitious processions of Roman Catholic countries in which they were stationed, and praying that the same indulgence which was extended to Roman Catholic soldiers, of not being obliged to attend at any place of worship but their own, might also be extended to Protestant soldiers. Nothing could be more reasonable, he said, than the prayer of the petition, and that compulsion had been used was known by the case of the two officers who had been dismissed the service for refusing to comply with orders to attend processions which they regarded as idolatrous. He knew also of a young officer who had died in consequence of exposure to the heat of the sun, while attending a Catholic procession. He hoped that some regulation would be adopted to put an end to the practice.

said, that no violence was done to the feelings of soldiers, for the attendance was confined merely to military duty. He deprecated the discussion of such questions at home, for they would tend to excite invidious distinctions on account of religion amongst soldiers abroad, amongst whom at present, he was happy to say, no such distinctions existed. In all our foreign possessions, such as the East Indies, it was quite necessary to give way to the prejudices of the religious feelings of the natives of those countries, as far as mere military matters were concerned. The only effect of raising such questions would be, to expose the discipline of the army to hazard, and to destroy that harmony as to religious opinions which existed in it.

contended, that it was a violation of the rights of conscience to oblige any British soldiers to attend at those superstitious ceremonies. On the part of the army, he deprecated the practice of requiring the attendance of British soldiers on such occasions; and he could assure the Ministers that if the practice he deprecated were enforced, the people of England would speak in behalf of their fellow-subjects, with a voice and in a manner that would not be agreeable.

was as great a friend to religious freedom as the hon. member for Dover, but he could not concur with him in thinking that the respect paid by British soldiers to the religious worship of other people was a violation of their conscience. They only performed a military duty, in obedience to the wishes of their commanding officers, whom they had sworn to obey, and who, if they gave them any improper orders, were amenable to a proper tribunal. He thought there would be an end at once to discipline in our army, if soldiers and officers were permitted to make objections to firing a gun as they were directed. Persons who had such very tender con- sciences were wholly unfit for the army, and had better remain out of it. If a man objected to fire a blank cartridge to-day, lest he should be supposed to join in some religious ceremony which he disapproved, he might object to fire a shotted cartridge the next day, lest he should take away the life of a fellow-creature, and that was more of a religious question than the other. But what would be thought of an officer or soldier who should make such an objection? Such notions were, in his opinion, excessively absurd, and those who entertained them were unfit for the army; but in justice to the army he must say, he never heard of any such objections amongst them.

said, the hon. member for Dover must have been strangely misinformed when he made complaints of this kind on the part of British officers or soldiers. He had been many years in the army, and he had never heard any complaints made by the soldiers or officers; and he agreed with his right hon. and gallant friend, that the introduction of such questions might have a very injurious tendency.

said, the subject would never have been heard of but for the gross act of injustice done to the two officers he had mentioned.

denied that there was any such thing as compulsion to any officer or soldier to attend those religious ceremonies.

said, he should be able to prove, by moving for the orders given to officers relating to this subject, that compulsion was used. Was it not absurd and superstitious to oblige British soldiers to attend a procession to do honour to the relics of St. Spiridion, carried about in a sedan-chair? His hon. friend (Sir R. Wilson) disapproved of any harsh terms applied to these ceremonies; but his hon. friend himself had sworn, and so had every Member in the House, at that Table, that some of the ceremonies of the Roman Catholic Church were "idolatrous."

said, the Members swearing it, could not prove it so; but it might show the great impolicy of the oath, and the necessity of repealing it. He agreed with his hon. and gallant friend, that officers who made objections to firing salutes when directed, no matter for what, were unfit for the army. If the extraordinary doctrines broached in Parliament were to become prevalent among the soldiers, there would be at once an end of all military discipline.

said, there had been some instances of compulsion some years ago, and orders were sent out by government to prevent it.

said, that the principle of subordination required a soldier's obedience to the commands of his superior officer.

Petition to be printed.

brought in a Bill for establishing Courts of Local Jurisdiction to take cognizance of certain cases therein specified. The Bill was read a first time. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in proceeding to move that it be read a second time, said, he should trespass only for a few moments on the attention of the House, while he gave a brief explanation of the nature and object of the measure which he had thus introduced. It was intended to confine its operation, in the first instance, to the counties of Kent, Durham, and Northumberland; but the provisions of the Bill were all general in their character, and the arrangements were so contrived, that the introduction of a single clause, only, would render the measure susceptible of general application, so that it was equally adapted, and would, he hoped, be ultimately extended to all the counties in England. It had been his object to afford all suitors in courts of law cheap, convenient, and expeditious justice, by bringing the administration of it home to their own doors, and he had little doubt that he should thereby confer a most important benefit on the community. In the system which he proposed, there were included six branches of judicature,—three compulsory, and three voluntary. The first comprehended all actions of debt to the amount of 100l., and of tort to that of 50l. The torts to which he alluded were slander, assault, running down of vessels, false imprisonment, and all such cases where 50l. might be sued for in compensation. He had besides laid down a system of pleading to be employed in these Courts which would be calculated to avoid the various faults incidental to modern pleading, which it had been his object two years ago to explain to the House. Uncertainty and prolixity would, he hoped, be unknown to the system which he had devised; and the plan adopted would have the further recommendation of cheapness to the parties. A set of the forms provided for this purpose would be found in schedules prepared for the inspection of those who might desire further information as to the details. There were also various means appointed to empower the Court to exercise a discretional authority, in order to keep the pleaders to conciseness, clearness, and simplicity; instead of the present practice of falsehood, wilful mis-statement, and technical mystification. He would enable parties, when so minded, to dispense with a jury; but the acting Judge should likewise have the power to call in a jury if the facts appeared to him to be such as to render their assistance necessary. Doubtful points of law, occurring in any case tried in these Courts, might also be reserved for the decision of the Judge of Assize. A second subject of jurisdiction was comprised in the small-debt recovery clauses, which was rather an attempt to improve the present Courts for recovery of such debts. The Local Courts he proposed were to have jurisdiction in all cases by plaint to the value of 5l. Another branch of the compulsory jurisdiction was that which related to legacies. He knew that on this head there existed a great deal of what some might denominate—but he did not—prejudice, in the minds of those who felt jealous of the possible infringement on the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts. He begged, however, the profession would look at the whole scope of his attempt to improve the law in this respect with candour, and without alarm. It was not intended to interfere in the distribution of the property of the deceased, except in cases where it was admitted there were assets unadministered in the hands of the executor or administrator. The grievance now was, that the executor might say to the claimant, "you may go on to your purpose,"—such was the phrase in that Court; well knowing that for a legacy or claim of 50l. or 100l. no man would attempt to go on to his purpose in that Court. By this Bill it was arranged that, six months after notice of such claim to the executor, redress should be open in these Courts to a claimant; and also, in cases of a similar nature, after twelve months had expired subsequent to the death of the testator or intestate, a form of pleading in the cases had been subjoined—namely, that the party was not executor; that he had no free funds unadministered in his hands, or that, having such free funds, he was apprehensive of their being taken out of his hands by other claimants on them. If he could not substantiate some such plea in his defence, a remedy was to be opened in these Courts. Of the three other jurisdictions he should merely say, the first was a prorogation, by consent, of the jurisdiction of the Judge; the second was the expedient of rendering the whole matter in dispute subject to a trial by the ordinary Judge of the Court; the third and last was the mode of deciding causes by a voluntary reference; and to this was to be added a provision for enabling a suitor, in case any one had raised a claim, or even if he were apprehensive that any one might raise a claim against him hereafter, to cite such claimant, or possible claimant, against him into these Courts, and compel him to establish such adverse claim, or be barred for ever. With respect to the system of Reconcilement, he now spoke with more confidence than he had done formerly; and since he had last addressed the House, he had received a good deal of encouragement to propose the establishment of Courts of Reconcilement. When he moved for leave to bring in the Bill, he had stated that doubts existed among the French lawyers as to the utility of these Courts; but none existed among the Flemish and Dutch lawyers. Since then, he had received a most valuable statement from a Member of that House, relative to the Danish and Hamburgh Courts of this description. Of 50,000 cases brought before the Courts of Reconcilement in those countries, two-thirds or three-fourths were settled, and not one shilling expended, and none of the parties had ever darkened the doors of a Court of Justice or Equity. Thousands of cases were settled by these Courts, which before were carried before the ordinary tribunals, in which the number of cases fell from 10,000 some hundreds to 3,000 some hundreds in the year. These were the principal points of the Bill, which he hoped might be allowed to go through the other stage, and into a committee, pro forma, as it was only in a committee that such a bill, the value of which depended on its details, could be well understood. He should also take the liberty to lay before the House an abstract of the whole Bill, in order that those Gentlemen who were not lawyers, and might not be aware of the technical bearings of each provision, might easily make themselves masters of the details, and he would venture to say, that when the measure was taken into consideration, it would be found deserving; the approbation of the House.

did not rise to oppose the Bill, but being a Representative of one of the three counties to which the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to limit it in the first instance, he felt himself bound to say a few words in order to guard himself against it being supposed that he was to be pledged, by now allowing the Bill to be read a first time, to any support of the measure.

explained, that the hon. Member would be pledged to nothing, and would have, he hoped, many opportunities for examining and opposing the Bill if the hon. Baronet thought that necessary, as he wished for nothing more than that it might be frequently discussed. He only begged leave to observe, that he had paid the greatest attention to the details, and he hoped, therefore, that hon. Members would not suppose, that an objection which might strike them had not previously occurred to him, and been met by other considerations.

In answer to a question from the Solicitor General,

explained, that it was most likely that the Bill would not pass this Session: he should wish that it should now be well considered, and then it might stand over till after the long vacation, if ever the long vacation were likely to come; but he was most anxious that the Bill should be well considered.

Bill to be read a second time tomorrow.

reminded the House of the arrangement which had been made for going into public business at half-past five o'clock, and observed, that he hoped it would be adhered to in future, however it might be infringed upon to-day.

objected to such an understanding, as the time which would be thus allotted to the presentation of petitions was too short to admit of Members doing justice to their constituents. He had himself been intrusted with several petitions relative to the West-Indian interest, which would require a longer time than the right hon. Secretary proposed.

presented a Petition from the overlookers and operative-spinners of Manchester, praying for the enactment of a law to secure to workmen the full amount of their wages in money. The hon. Member hoped that some day would be fixed for the discussion of the Truck-system, to which this petition referred. It was a measure of vast importance, and ought to be discussed and settled, or given up, as the uncertainty created by its present state was a grievous injury. He hoped to see it, and the false principle on which it rested, given up.

recommended that an early day should be fixed for the discussion, on account of the anxiety which was felt on the subject, throughout the manufacturing districts.

acknowledged the importance of the subject, but observed, that Mondays and Fridays were the only days under the control of Government, and those days had been already so encroached upon by extraneous matter, that he never remembered a Session in which votes of supply were suffered to get so much into arrear. Ministers had no power to interfere; the adoption of such an arrangement as he had proposed entirely depending on the general feeling of the House.

also stated, that the whole country was looking with anxiety to this Bill. Many persons were waiting in town for it, and whatever Members might think of the importance of particular measures, there was no one which it was of so much consequence to settle as this.

Petition laid on the Table.

presented a Petition from the West-India Merchants and Planters of the City of Bristol, complaining of the increased duty of 6d. per gallon proposed to be levied on Rum. The West-India interest was in a state of depression, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acknowledged by proposing to give that interest some relief; and the petitioners complained that after their hopes had been excited by his promises, he had turned round and subjected them to higher duties than before. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would explain the circumstance which made him turn round and refuse the West-India interest the relief it expected. The right hon. Gentleman anticipated that there would be a deficiency of 300,000l. in the revenue; and by the measure he had formerly brought before the House, be expected to cover 200,000l. of that; but the duty he now proposed to raise on spirits would yield him 649,000l. By substituting this new plan for his old one, that right hon. Gentleman would raise 153,000l. more than he required. And what did that right hon. Gentleman mean to do with this surplus sum. To him it appeared likely that the same great interest which had made the Chancellor of the Exchequer give up his former project might also compel him to forego his plan for assimilating the Stamp Duties in England and Ireland, and he wanted this money to be prepared for that contingency. But whatever might be the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was not to be borne, that Government should change its plans in this manner. The Government ought to be steady and consistent in its conduct. To have these continued alterations and plans of alterations submitted to Parliament was neither equitable nor just. At present rum was almost excluded from two-thirds of the British empire, though the restrictions imposed by the Mother Country on the commerce of the West-Indies could only be tolerated by giving them access to the whole of the home market. In Scotland and Ireland the proportion of corn spirits consumed was as 297 to two of rum. That was very near a prohibition. Such changes as had been alluded to were very wrong; they trifled with these great interests of the State which ought not to be trifled with. It would be better to live under any Government than one that was continually changing, and that brought forward plans which it had not the courage or the power to carry into effect.

Petition laid on the Table.

said, he did not mean to take up the time of the House by making a long speech on the Motion he meant to submit. He would merely ask for leave to bring in the Bill, and should take the discussion on the second reading. His object was, in the words of his notice, "to remove doubts as to British-born Jews holding landed property." The Bill did not, he begged it might be borne in mind, originate from the Jews themselves, but from men of birth, educa- tion, and wealth, who, like himself, lamented the uncertainty of legal opinions on the subject. He was aware that the opinions of the high law men at present was, that the Jews might hold landed property, like other British subjects; but though that was the present dictum of lawyers, it did not follow that it would be the opinion of their successors. He had himself been in treaty for the purchase of a landed property some years ago, and took the opinion of Sir S. Romilly, and the result was, that he was dissuaded from the purchase because that great lawyer had given it as his opinion that Jews had no right to hold landed property like British subjects. It was time that the question should be set at rest, and that the law should be clearly defined. It was but just, that the Jews should be admitted to all the advantages of the constitution compatible with its safety. He for one would so admit them, excepting to seats in Parliament, and on the bench as judges. Indeed, he was convinced that had the Jews been admitted forty or fifty years ago to the advantages of the constitution, to the extent he had just specified, many of them would since have emigrated towards the Christian religion. The hon. Gentleman concluded with moving for leave to bring in his Bill.

would vote against the hon. Gentleman's Motion; because, under existing circumstances, to which he need not more particularly allude, and considering the state of the public business, he felt he should not be doing his duty to the body whose cause he had a few weeks ago unsuccessfully advocated, if he permitted their claims to be again discussed this Session. Either, as the matter at present stood, the whole of their claims should be granted, or none at all; he should not consent to any fragmental compromise, like that proposed by the hon. Gentleman.

Motion negatived without a division.

rose to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the conduct of the New Church Commissioners with reference to the parish of St. Luke. The hon. Member went into a detailed account of the churches at present open for Divine Service in St. Lukes, and contended, that as the parish church had accommodation for 1,200 persons, and the chapel of St. Barnabas for above 2,000 persons, and as the whole of the parishioners were to a man adverse to the erection of another church, the Commissioners were not authorized by Act of Parliament to tax the people for the support of an additional church. The parish, too, had at the present moment a debt of 15,000l. and its poor-rates were 25,000l. a-year, at the very moment the Commissioners wished to increase the burthens of the impoverished population by a new church, when the old ones were not more than half filled. The hon. Member adverted to the opposition which the Rector and Curate had shown to the wishes of the parishioners; and observed that they had gone so far in exercising the power they supposed they possessed, as to prevent the parish clerk from reading the vestry notices, and the consequence was, that the parishioners had been compelled to prosecute him for omitting to perform the acts enjoined expressly by the Legislature. He also observed that the curate (Mr. Rice) had at one time, when the vestry met to consider the question of the admission of their paupers into the almshouses, gone so far as to enter the church on a Tuesday, at a few minutes before twelve o'clock, and without any previous notice to commence reading of the Liturgy from beginning to end, in order to disturb the discussions of the vestry. This was done for the annoyance of the parishioners, and under the supposition that they were met to discuss the question of the erection of a new church. The vestry had accordingly been compelled to separate, and left the curate and his clerk to go through the service. He considered such conduct most indecent, and calculated to destroy all reverence for the sacred character. The real question before the House was, whether they would permit the Commissioners to erect a church where they pleased, and contrary to the express wishes of all the inhabitants; and he now therefore moved, that the petition he had presented on the eighth of this month be referred to a Select Committee.

opposed the Motion, and contended, that in a parish like St. Luke's, where there were 50,000 inhabitants, and where, as the hon. Member admitted, there was not accommodation for more than 4,000 persons, the commissioners were perfectly justified in applying the funds placed at their disposal by Parlia- ment, to erect an additional church. For that reason, and because he knew the Commissioners to be men of high character and station, who would not lend themselves to any act such as that imputed to them by the hon. member for Aberdeen, he should move a negative to the Motion.

said, that one of the greatest objections he found to the conduct of the Commissioners was, the choice of the place for the erection of the church. They had chosen for its site the poorest and remotest corner of the parish, while, if they had placed it in the vicinity of Fins-bury-square, there was every probability of its obtaining tenants for the pews, and proving really serviceable. He had attended the churches, and he found that the parish church was totally deserted, while the chapel of St. Barnabas was tolerably well attended. He also found that the morning service, when the Rector (Mr. Lovell) officiated, was almost wholly deserted, while the evening service, when the parishioners had their own evening Lecturer, was very well attended. He thought, therefore, taking into consideration the poverty of the parish, and the number of churches already existing, that the new one might be dispensed with.

thought, that the fact of the inhabitants preferring one preacher to another was not evidence of there being no necessity for a new church, but quite the contrary. The Commissioners, in the present case, were acting under powers confided to them by Parliament; and he was confident, if the House entertained a Motion for inquiring into the manner in which they exercised the discretion reposed in them, that the Table would soon be crowded with petitions from other parishes with the same object.

observed, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite contended that there was a very large population in the parish of St. Luke's, and that the parish church was incapable of holding it. But the fact was, that the greater part of the parishioners were Dissenters, and went to other places of worship than the church. The parish church was never half full. They could not fill the churches already built, and yet they were building others. Were the Church Commissioners above all control? Were they to be the cause of inflicting taxes on the people at their own discretion, and not to be respon- sibles for their conduct? The petitioners stated, and he believed the statement, first, that the new church was absolutely unnecessary; and secondly, that they could not afford to pay the rate levied upon them. It should be recollected, that there were many Meeting-houses of various descriptions, and a great many Dissenters in the parish; a circumstance which contributed to render further church accommodation unnecessary. The petitioners complained of a public grievance; and all they asked for was, a short, simple inquiry, and that the House would hear what they had to state.

readily allowed that the Commissioners were as respectable a body of men as any in the kingdom, but that would not deter him from remarking on their conduct. The fact was, that they did not possess that kind of knowledge which prevented their being betrayed into errors and jobs. They had, in many cases, been most grossly imposed upon. Churches had been built by their direction where they were not at all wanted. There were many cases within his knowledge of churches having been built in order to bring the adjacent land into greater repute. In his opinion the Motion did not go far enough. It ought not to be confined to the parish of Saint Luke's, but ought to extend to the whole kingdom. He had had complaints of several churches having been unnecessarily built in various parts of the country; namely, at Manchester, Chorley, Preston, Leeds, Sheffield, Tewkesbury, and Studley. In the last instance, the church was built at the distance of a mile and a half from the village, the inhabitants of which it professed to accommodate. By the Act, the churches ought to be not only built, but furnished with all the requisites for performing divine service. Yet that was in many cases not done; and notwithstanding the opinion given professionally by a learned civilian, a Member of that House, and whose opinion all must respect, that practice had been persevered in. The money was originally granted with the understanding that no expense whatever was to fall on the parishes. The hon. member for Middlesex had said, that the Dissenters had not objected to the application of this million and a half to the building of churches. If, however, they had known how the money was to be employed, not only the Dissenters, but ninety-nine out of every hundred men in the country would have objected to it. He understood that that million and a half was not yet wholly expended. It was his earnest recommendation to the Commissioners, instead of looking about for fresh places in which to expend the remainder, to employ it in finishing the churches which they had left unfinished. He wished that some hon. Member would move to repeal all the Acts on the subject, and so get rid of the commission altogether. The Bill on the Table inferred the perpetuity of the commission. It was his unequivocal opinion, however, that the moment they had expended the million and a half, their functions would cease, and that they had no right to draw a single farthing more from the public purse. If the Commissioners were not afraid of the result of an inquiry, why were they averse to it? Other important public bodies were subject to inquiry, and why should not the Church Commissioners?

said, that, as by virtue of his office, he was one of the Commissioners in question, although he had had nothing to do with the particular case under consideration, he begged to be allowed to say a few words. The money was granted to these Commissioners for the express purpose of building churches in those places in which, to the best of their judgment, those churches were requisite. It was impossible that the Commissioners could be influenced by any motive but an anxiety to make the funds intrusted to them as available as possible to the purpose for which they were granted; namely, the giving to the poorer classes of the people the means of attending divine service, where at present those means were denied them. He verily believed he spoke the truth when he declared that, although in some instances the Commissioners might have been deceived, yet that they had most anxiously, and without bias of any kind, devoted themselves to the fulfilment of their duty. It was a duty of a very difficult character. They had received the most earnest application from all parts of the kingdom. What was it their duty to do? Not to attend to the urgency of the application alone, but to inquire into what parishes there were the greatest number of the poorer classes in the greatest want of church accommodation. Now the parish of St. Luke's had a population of 50,000 persons. It was true that there might be many Roman Catholics and many Dissenters; but still there remained a large portion of the population desirous, but unable, to obtain accommodation in the parish church, owing less to the size of the church than to the want of free seats. It unfortunately happened, that at St. Luke's, as at many other churches, the pews had fallen into the hands of individuals, and there was no law to open them to the public. In the very parish in which the House was sitting, the church had not above 100 free seats. He was decidedly of opinion, that no case had been made out for inquiry. With respect to the professional opinion of his, to which the hon. member for Preston applied, it was certainly the fault, not of the law, not of the Commissioners, but of the parishes themselves, when they were subjected to the expenses alluded to. All the expense to which they ought to be subjected was the annual repair. He would tell the hon. member for Preston, that as far as the Commissioners themselves were concerned, they would be most happy to have their conduct investigated, either by a committee of the House, or by the House itself. He was satisfied it would be found, upon examination, that they had had to encounter greater difficulties than any man could have originally conceived.

made a short reply. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, and the hon. member for Oxford, had expressed their disinclination to drag this august and illustrious body before the House of Commons. Would they say then that there was any body of persons, having the charge of public money, who were above the reach of inquiry? He was satisfied that the House of Commons would not consult its own dignity, and that of the Commissioners, if they refused to inquire. What was the use of building churches where they were not wanted—where the churches already built were not half filled? In his opinion, the commission should have been composed of two or three men of business. He was not to be told that because the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Lord Chancellor, and the Speaker of the House of Commons were Commissioners, that they ought not to be called to account for their conduct. In his opinion they were bound to give an explanation of their proceedings, and to submit to an inquiry.

The House then divided—For the Motion 14; Against it 64—Majority 50.

rose to bring forward a Motion for the production of papers and documents connected with the charges preferred by Mr. Wentworth, of New South Wales, against General Darling, the Governor of that colony. He observed that the charges which had been, in this instance, preferred by Mr. Wentworth against General Darling were of a most grave and serious nature, and a short detail of them, he was sure, would satisfy the House that all documents, illustrative and explanatory of the transaction with which those charges were connected, ought to be laid before Parliament by his Majesty's Government. In the month of November, 1826, General Darling altered the sentence of two soldiers who had been convicted at the Quarter Sessions there of a felony, and sentenced to seven years transportation, and instead of allowing them to undergo that punishment, he issued a regimental order, directing that they should be worked in chains in the public roads for the period of seven years; that they should be stripped of their uniforms, and dressed in felons' clothes; and that they should be worked in chain gangs, after being drummed publicly on parade out of the garrison, as rogues. That order was carried into execution; the chains were put upon the two men, whose names were Sudds and Thompson, on parade, and they were brought in that condition back to gaol. In a few days after, one of the unfortunate men, Sudds, died, in consequence, it was said, of the sufferings which he endured in the prison, being at the time in a state of bad health; and a statement of the transaction having been forwarded to this country, he had then felt it his duty to move for the production of such documents as were in the possession of his Majesty's Government respecting the transaction. That Motion he brought forward the session before last, and previous to his bringing it forward, his opinion, founded upon the documents which had been submitted to him, was, that General Darling had no legal right to adopt the proceeding which he was represented to have done in this instance, and that he was not justified in subjecting these unfortunate men to an additional punishment, in consequence of which one of them had died. That appeared to him to be the state of the case, and that was his opinion with regard to it, when he moved, at the period he had mentioned, for those documents, which, he must say, were granted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in a manner that did him much honour. Upon that occasion, the right hon. Gentleman said, that he thought the House of Commons had a perfect right to the production of any documents with regard to any charge which might be preferred against any governor of any of our islands, or colonial possessions. That declaration did the highest honour to the right hon. Gentleman, and he (Mr. Stewart) had reason to know that, since it had been made, it was followed by good effects in more than one of our colonies. The documents for which he (Mr. Stewart) then moved, consisted of copies of the General Order issued by General Darling, stating the grounds upon which he commuted the sentence of these men, and the manner in which he did so; also of copies or extracts of the despatches of General Darling to the Colonial Secretary, and the despatches of the Government here to General Darling on the subject. The latter documents he was anxious to obtain, with a view to ascertain whether any and what opinion had been expressed by his Majesty's Government with regard to this matter. The documents, however, which were subsequently laid before the House, consisted only of extracts of two letters from General Darling on the subject, and there were no copies produced of the answers from the Colonial-office to those letters, by which the opinion of Government could be ascertained. Looking, at the time, at those two documents, taken by themselves, he would admit that it did then seem to him that General Darling had been legally justified in the course which he had adopted, and he was then of opinion that, though the fate of the unfortunate man, Sudds, was to be lamented, General Darling, in commuting his punish- ment, did not intend to subject him to any punishment that should endanger his life. That was his opinion, formed from the documents then produced, and he accordingly did not at that time found any further proceedings upon them. About ten months ago, however, he received a letter on the subject from Mr. Wentworth, a barrister in New South Wales, enclosing a copy of a letter, which he had forwarded to the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Colonies, dated the 1st of March, 1829, and which had been transmitted through General Darling himself, containing most grave and serious charges against that officer. It was necessary for him to mention a fact, by way of answer to what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman in reference to this subject on a former night; namely, that it would be unfair to found any proceeding upon those papers in the case of the governor of a distant colony, who was not able at once to answer the charges preferred against him, and who probably would not have an opportunity of answering them until the lapse of two years. But the charges to which he referred, had been forwarded by Mr. Wentworth, through General Darling himself, to the Colonial-office, and were in the possession of his Majesty's Government ten months ago, as, he was sure, the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge. He (Mr. Stewart) could not therefore be considered as bringing this subject forward prematurely, or without due notice having been given to the accused party, of the nature of the charges preferred against him. When they were transmitted through General Darling, no doubt they were accompanied by explanations from the Governor himself, which it was desirable to see. If the letter of Mr. Wentworth was forwarded by General Darling, without his offering any explanation of his conduct with regard to the transaction to which that letter had reference, the House would put its own construction upon that fact; but, to him, it would seem to be an acknowledgment of guilt. So strong was the present case, that he thought he should be almost justified in calling upon the House to address the Crown to remove General Darling from his situation. He should, however, content himself now with moving for the production of copies of the charges which had been preferred against General Darling, together with whatever explanations he might have forwarded, or which might have been received from him at any time upon the subject. The view which he had formerly taken, had been founded upon the only documents then produced—namely, the two letters of General Darling; and he then thought that General Darling was legally justified in the course which he had adopted: he thought so in consequence of a clause in the Act of the Legislative Council in New South Wales, which, taken singly by itself, appeared to him to give to the governor the power which he exercised in this instance, and that was the only portion of the Act which the governor transmitted home at that time. He had, however, been induced, from the documents which he now held in his hand, to take a completely different view of this case. The clause in question was the sixth, but taking the whole of the Act together, he was of opinion that General Darling possessed no right to interfere with the sentence which had been passed upon these men by the Quarter Sessions in New South Wales, and that his interference, in this instance, was absolutely and entirely illegal. What were the consequences to which that interference led? It was stated in the documents which had induced him to bring forward his former motion in reference to this matter, that the chains put upon those unfortunate men were of an unusually heavy construction; that they were not long enough to allow them to stretch themselves at full length, and that there were spikes in the iron collars which prevented them from lying easy in any position. In one of the letters of General Darling which had been laid before Parliament, he stated that the chains were of an unusually light construction, that their weight amounted only to 13lb. 12oz., and that they were not calculated to subject the persons upon whom they might be put to any extraordinary pain. He (Mr. Stewart) must say, that he relied at the time upon the truth of that statement; but it was refuted by the documents which he now held in his hand, wherein it was stated, that the weight of the chains amounted to 30lb. or 40lb.; that they were of such a construction as to subject these unfortunate men to dreadful torture, such as could not be endured; that iron spikes extended from the iron collar, which was rivetted round the neck, and prevented the individual wearing it from turn- ing over on either side; that it was impossible these men, while thus chained, could stretch themselves at full length, and in short, that they were subjected to the greatest possible torture. Those facts he stated upon the authority of an officer, Captain Robinson, who had inspected those chains, had tried them on his own body, and had come to the conclusions which he (Mr. Stewart) had just stated with respect to them. Captain Robinson did not weigh the chains, but he had them on in the presence of Lieutenant Christie and others, and in reply to a question from them he said he considered the weight of the chains to be about 30lb. or 40lb. That Lieutenant Christie was now in England; he had been promoted since that time, and he (Mr. Stewart) understood he was ready to come forward to speak to the truth of that statement, either at the bar of that House, or any where else that he might be called upon to do so. It appeared then that the interference of General Darling, in this instance, had been illegal, and that the punishment to which he had subjected these men amounted to an aggravated degree of torture. He begged leave to revert to the mode in which that punishment had been inflicted. He held in his hand a statement of what took place after the chains had been put on those unfortunate men. They were taken from the barracks, where the chains were put on them, back to the gaol, until an opportunity should arise for sending them to work on the public roads. Sudds, it appeared, had been previously alarmingly ill, and it was sworn by Thompson, who had been confined with him, that after his return to the prison his illness rapidly increased until the period of his death, which occurred five or six days after the infliction of the punishment. That took place on the 22d of November, and he died on the 27th of that month. He should now call the attention of the House to the statement of Thompson, the fellow prisoner of Sudds, as to what occurred while that unfortunate man remained in the prison, previous to his death. This statement was extracted from an examination of Thompson, taken on the 23d of April, 1827, in the presence of Alexander M'Leay, Esq., Colonial Secretary; William Henry Moore, Esq., Acting Attorney-General; and William Charles Wentworth, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. In that examination, Thompson says—"The night of the day of our punishment, Sudds was so ill that we were obliged to get a candle about eight o'clock from Wilson, the under gaoler, in order to keep a light during the night. I gave him some tea which I had purchased. About ten o'clock he was getting very ill. I requested a fellow-prisoner to get up and look at him, thinking he was dying. The fellow-prisoner, whose name I do not know, did look at him, and said he was not dying, but he did not think he would live long. I then asked Sudds if he had any friends to whom he would wish to write. He said he had a wife and child in Gloucester, and begged that if he did not get better by the next night, I would read some pious book to him; adding, that 'they had put him in them irons until they had killed him.' Shortly after this I fell asleep, another man having undertaken to sit up with him; I think the name of this man was Moreton; his father is a potter on the Brickfield-hill; he was in the gaol for an assault on his mother. At eight o'clock the next morning, being Thursday, the 23rd, Sudds was taken into the hospital, and I took him some tea, and a little bit of fish, which I think is all he eat till he died. This I think because I had his gaol-rations afterwards. His irons were taken off about twelve o'clock on Thursday, when the doctor came his rounds. I inquired of the attendant in the hospital (whose name was Thompson) how Sudds was on Thursday evening? He said he was a little better. On Friday morning I went to see him, he was in such a state that he did not answer my questions or appear to know me. I squeezed his hand, but he made no return, and appeared to be insensible. I saw him again on Saturday, I heard he had been delirious, and had got out of bed on Friday night; but after twelve o'clock on Saturday, he never spake; and about three o'clock on Sunday, the 26th of November, he was removed to the general hospital, being carried on the shoulders of two men down the steps of the gaol to the entrance, and from thence carried in a small cart, as I was informed, to the Hospital. I was told that he expired about six o'clock on Monday morning." Here they had the dying declaration of this unfortunate man, Sudds, "that they had put him in them irons until they had killed him." He was carried from the gaol to the hospital in a dying state, when he had ceased to speak, and the object, it was stated, of thus removing him, was to prevent a coroner's inquest from being held on his body, which would have been held on it if he had died in the gaol. He believed that it was suggested after his burial, that his body should be disinterred for the purpose of having a coroner's inquest held upon it, but that suggestion was not complied with. Thompson, whose statement he had just quoted, was now also in England. He (Mr. Stewart) believed he had arrived a few days ago at Chatham, and he could be examined as to the truth of that statement. He had then brought the facts of the case before the House; they involved a grave and serious charge against General Darling, and there were two persons now in England—Lieutenant Christie and this man Thompson—who could be examined as to the truth or falsehood of that charge. He thought the House would be of opinion that it was due to public justice, to the colony of New South Wales, and even to General Darling himself, to institute an inquiry into the charges. He thought he had made out a case for an inquiry on the part of the House. That the Government thought these charges required investigation was plain from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, to a question put by him (Mr. Stewart) some months ago on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman then stated, that the case had been referred to the Attorney General; and on a subsequent occasion, that learned Gentleman said, that the case was under the consideration of himself and his learned colleague, the Solicitor General, for their opinion. He (Mr. Stewart) had not heard that they had since given any opinion upon it. General Darling had himself, in an answer to an address presented to him by the inhabitants of the colony, in reference to this transaction, stated that this impeachment of his conduct was founded upon a gross and base calumny. But if that were the case, how could it be established without inquiry? It was therefore the interest of General Darling, if he possessed the means of substantiating that statement, to have an inquiry instituted. The hon. Member concluded by moving for "a copy of the Letter of William Charles Wentworth, Esq., Barrister, dated 1st of March, 1829, addressed to Sir George Murray, and transmitted through General Darling, together with such documents as General Darling sent with it, in order to explain that Letter, and also copies of all Letters which had been received from General Darling on the subject, and of all letters which had been transmitted by his Majesty's Government to him in reference to it."

felt, that he had some reason to complain that the hon. Gentleman had not given a more specific notice of his Motion, as he (Sir George Murray) would in that case have been prepared to state whether it were proper or not that the papers for which he moved should be laid before the House; at the same time he did not rise to oppose the Motion of the hon. Member. He would not object to the production of such documents as he (Sir George Murray) might find, upon examination, to be fit, and proper, and necessary to be produced for the elucidation of this case, and the facts connected with it. In taking that course he did not mean to pledge himself to the production of the specific documents for which the hon. Member had moved, as he was not able to say at present whether all those documents were such as should be submitted to the House. This case was the subject of a Motion which the hon. Member had brought forward in July, 1828, when he moved for certain papers, which were produced. The case had been then briefly discussed. The fact was, that it had been a practice with the soldiers in New South Wales to maim themselves, or to commit some felony, by which they succeeded in getting discharged from the service. These two individuals in this instance had committed a felony with that view, and the Governor thought it necessary to make an example in their case, in order to check such a spirit amongst the soldiery. They were sentenced by the Quarter Sessions to be transported for seven years, and the Governor commuted that sentence by ordering, as he was empowered by an Act of the Legislative Council to do, that they should be employed at hard labour on the roads in the colony for that period, and that they should be compelled to work in irons. To render the example still more forcible and impressive, he had stripped off their dress on parade, in the presence of the regiment, and had the irons then put on them. When Sudds returned to prison he became ill, and his irons were in consequence removed. It was said that he had been ill before they were put on; but he was not on the sick list, and if he had been affected with previous illness, the Governor was not acquainted with it. He was removed from the gaol to the hospital in consequence of his illness, and that was made a matter of charge by those who wished to place the Governor's conduct in the worst point of view, as if he were removed there to prevent an inquest from being held upon him; but he had been only removed to the hospital in conformity with the usual practice in cases of the kind. His death had been imputed to the irons which had been put upon him. He (Sir George Murray) would read an extract from "The Australian "newspaper, in refutation of that charge. That paper having advanced that charge in the first instance, and having spoken of the great weight of the irons, &c., the next day the editor, in an article referring to a letter from Mr. M'Leay, which he published in reply to his statement, acknowledged he had been in error in attributing to the Governor a departure in this instance from those feelings of humanity by which his conduct had been uniformly characterised; and he further stated, that he never meant to impute to the Governor an intention of producing the death of this individual by the punishment that had been inflicted on him. In the letter which Mr. Wentworth had written to him, he referred to a previous letter addressed by him to the Secretary of State, in December, 1826, on the subject, and in which he stated that the case was one which called for the removal of General Darling, and yet he allowed it to remain unnoticed up to the date of his other letter in March, 1829. He (Sir George Murray) believed that very inflamed and exaggerated statements had been made with regard to this case. To confirm this, he read various extracts from the pamphlet of Mr. Wentworth, commenting upon them, and shewing that they were of an inflammatory and exaggerated description. He controverted the doctrine laid down by Mr. Wentworth, that the conduct of General Darling, in commuting the punishment inflicted on Sudds by the criminal court, into hard labour on the roads, was contrary to law, and showed that General Darling had not put Sudds into chains of such a description as Mr. Wentworth described. He concluded by expressing a hope that he had stated sufficient to show that he had no other desire than to bring under the notice of the House the whole of this transaction. He requested hon. Members however, not to form any opinion respecting General Darling's conduct until they had seen the documents which he should produce, giving a description of the whole of this transaction.

thought, that there were several circumstances connected with the conduct of General Darling, since he had been Governor of the colony, which required to be minutely and strictly investigated. For instance, four prosecutions of the Press for libel on four consecutive days, and the parties charged of this offence, tried by military juries, nominated by the Governor, was a circumstance which required examination. He had before brought another case under the notice of the House, and made a motion for papers, which were refused by the right hon. Secretary; and in that case it was stated, that both Judges and the Counsel declared there was nothing in the publication amounting to libel, and still there was a conviction. The last accounts from the colony announced that Governor Darling had issued an Order in Council, proclaiming that the punishment of banishment should be inflicted upon any one who should publish any thing tending to bring the Governor, or any official persons into contempt. The situation, therefore, of this colony required the most vigilant attention of the House of Commons, more especially when the almost unlimited power possessed by the Governor was taken into consideration. On his own shewing, the conduct of General Darling appeared indefensible, because he had imposed an additional punishment on a man already convicted of felony. He denied that the Governor had the power of commuting punishment in this manner; undoubtedly he had the power of mitigating a sentence after conviction, and to send a convict to the chain-gang; but he had no right whatever to increase the weight of the usual chains, and if, by so acting, the death of a man had been occasioned, the law would consider him to have been guilty of murder. In the other case it should be recollected, that the man was no longer a soldier, but a felon. As to the weight of the irons, the ordinary weight used was only about four pounds; and this was heavy enough; but in this case, it was admitted that the irons weighed thir- teen pounds twelve ounces, thus putting on an additional weight of upwards of nine pounds. The irons were also of an unusual and torturing description, exposing the wearer to suffocation, and being provided with spikes, projecting from it before and behind, to prevent the wearer from lying down. If by such treatment an offender met his death, of it there was no justification whatever. The man, however, actually died in three or four days after he was ironed in this way. Relief, it was said, had been given by sending him to the hospital from the prison; but that avoided the coroner's inquest. If he had died in gaol, there must have been an inquest, and as it was, the Governor might have caused one to be held if he thought it advisable. Then Mr. M'Leay wrote, that the chains worn by Sudds were to be seen at the gaol; but that was a mistake; for the chains to be seen were those worn by Thompson, who was also obliged to be sent to the hospital; Sudds died, and Thompson was near dying; and under what circumstances? It appeared that the shame and degradation of the punishment killed Sudds, and could he have been a hardened offender if shame killed him? Certainly not. But if the Governor had a right to accumulate punishment upon him, had he any right to increase his chains? And here he would ask, did not Mr. Wentworth offer to prove, that the irons shewn were not those usually worn by Sudds, that those placed upon him weighed twenty-eight pounds; and that Captain Dumaresque went to the road-gang where Sudds was, and took them off. But this was not the only instance in which General Darling had gone further than he ought, for there was one case of an unfortunate Irishman, mentioned in the newspapers, and which, if untrue, was a gross libel. That man was accused of perjury, committed in a voluntary affidavit; and he was convicted by a magistrate, and sentenced to be transported to a penal colony. He had his case removed by certiorari; the Attorney General was consulted, and when appealed to, he said, that there was no ground for the sentence, and the man was discharged. Notwithstanding this, however, he was seized by order of the Governor, and by his mandate alone sent off to a penal colony, although he had 100l. in the Saving Bank, not one shilling of which could he give his wife. Need he also mention the case of Lookaye, who was tried and sent to a penal colony, although his term of transportation was nearly expired; and who having his hopes of return home thus cut off, put an end to his life. When cases of this kind were numerous, was it asking too much, that the House of Commons should institute an inquiry into all the circumstances of the colony, connected with the administration of General Darling. Such was the case stated by Mr. Wentworth; and he would not venture to put his name to the pamphlet, if the general sense of the colony did not bear out his statement. Even supposing the Governor not to be guilty of the crimes charged against him, still there was evidently such a want of management in him, that he was not the most proper person to hold such a situation. His persecutions against the newspapers proved this; but at present he would only say that it was admitted that Sudds had been put in irons three times the usual weight, and on that ground alone inquiry ought to be instituted.

observed, that as his right hon. friend had stated his perfect readiness to produce all the papers that were necessary for the discussion of this subject, the hon. and learned Member ought not to have entered into a tirade upon the conduct of General Darling with respect to Sudds' case, and with respect also to the press of the colony. He trusted that the hon. and learned Member and the House in general would wait till the papers were on the Table, and, above all, that no hon. Member would think of saying anything in prejudice of the conduct of General Darling merely on the authority of newspapers and pamphlets. Nor did the propriety of reserve on this subject at the present moment depend entirely on the circumstance that these charges against General Darling were chiefly to be found in newspapers. He knew that many of them would be said to be justified by the statements made in the pamphlet published by Mr. Wentworth; and it had been already said that that gentleman was too respectable to have made the statements he had put forth unless he had some good ground for believing them to be true. He would not deny the respectability of Mr. Wentworth; but he believed, that when the papers were laid on the Table of the House, he should be able to convince every hon. Member who took the trouble of examining them, that many of that gentleman's statements were founded in mistake. As a proof of this he might mention the alleged concealment of the chains that had been put upon Sudds, and the estimated weight of those chains, on both of which points he was convinced the House would agree with him that the statements hitherto made had been quite erroneous. With respect, also, to the illness of Sudds, he should be able to show that the Governor knew nothing of that illness till the man died; besides which he might observe, that there could hardly be anything more preposterous than the idea that the Governor had had the man transferred from the gaol to the hospital, in order to conceal the perpetration of a murder. He thought the hon. Mover would find it expedient to modify his motion, and he had no doubt that it would be found that the whole justice of the case would be attained by the production of such papers as the right hon. Secretary for the colonies might deem it fit to lay upon the Table of the House.

said, that after what had fallen from the Attorney General, he felt called upon to assert that the statements of Mr. Wentworth were deserving of very considerable attention, on account of the great respectability and high character of that gentleman. Mr. Wentworth was a Barrister of great practice, enjoying much more of the confidence of the inhabitants of the colony than the Governor. Mr. Wentworth came forward boldly with charges against the Governor, on account of which he wished the Governor to be called home, in order that he might be tried here for acts which could not be investigated there, but which amounted, or appeared to amount by implication, to a charge of murder. That was all the part which Mr. Wentworth had taken. It was possible, he hoped, it would ultimately appear, that these charges were ill-founded; but if the innocence of the Governor were so clear, there was something extraordinary in his conduct, he having persecuted the press for what it had stated upon the subject. The press and that House were the only guardians of the colonists from the tyranny of Local Governments. The Governor of this colony had actually put an end to the papers in it, and within the last forty-eight hours papers had arrived in this country with black edges, and, as they expressed it, in deep mourning "for the death and burial of the press of New South Wales." The hon. Member referred to a clause of a Local Act, by which a person, upon a second conviction, might be banished from the island; and he observed that though banishment from Botany Bay might here sound very ludicrous, it might be a heavy punishment to an individual who had settled there, and who was suddenly turned out of the colony at the caprice of the Governor.

wished to say a very few words upon this subject. When a motion was made for the production of papers relative to the conduct of General Darling, the hon. and learned Member opposite took the opportunity to advance certain charges, upon mere newspaper authority, which went in a very serious manner to criminate that gallant officer. Surely nothing could be more unjust or improper than this. The hon. and learned Member took it for granted that the conduct of General Darling had been illegal. Now, there were two questions for consideration. First, was his conduct illegal? Secondly, was it improper? The hon. and learned Member would admit that it was not illegal in General Darling to prosecute the man, and the jury found him guilty of felony; that he was guilty there could be no doubt, and therefore neither the Governor nor jury could be blamed on that score. The question then was, as to the right or power of the Governor to commute the punishment. But the hon. and learned Member knew that that depended upon the nature and construction of the Act of Parliament, to which allusion had been made. Upon his interpretation of that Act the hon. and learned Member contended that the Governor had no right to commute the sentence of the Court. That, however, was a question fairly open to doubt; and, therefore, if the Governor came to a conclusion in favour of the prisoner, it was impossible that any man could arraign his conduct. The act of the Governor was a bona fide act, dictated by very different feelings and motives, from those attributed to him in the pamphlet alluded to, and from which some extracts had been read. He did not wish to see heavy punishments or unnecessary restrictions imposed upon the conductors of the press, either in this country or in the Colonies; but when such a pamphlet as that which Mr. Wentworth had ventured to publish, and to send over to this country, containing charges in the highest degree criminatory of the conduct of General Darling were sent forth, it was quite time to take some measures to curb a licentiousness, which, if permitted, would inevitably bring the conduct and character of all public officers in that country into hatred and contempt. That pamphlet was as libellous a publication as ever issued from the press in any colony. That, however, was not the time to go into a justification of the conduct of General Darling; but when the papers were laid before the House, he was sure that the House would be convinced that General Darling had done nothing either illegal or improper.

said, that this discussion was not altogether useless. The House had not a more important duty to perform, than that of watching the conduct of governors of colonies. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman was willing to produce the papers connected with these transactions, so as to enable the House to judge of the truth of the charges brought against General Darling—charges which called loudly for speedy and accurate investigation.

stated, that as the right hon. Gentleman had promised that these papers should be immediately laid upon the Table of the House, he would not press the matter further; but would, to meet the suggestion made on the other side, alter his motion to this form:—"For copies or extracts of communications received from General Darling, relative to the transactions in question."

said, that if the hon. and learned Member would withdraw his Motion, he would give his assurance to produce all such Documents as might seem necessary for the elucidation of the question. He had no desire to withhold any information upon that matter from the House.

Mr. Stewart withdrew his Motion.

made a few observations upon the hardships imposed upon Merchant Seamen, by the laws which obliged them to contribute 6d. per month out of their hard-earned wages for the support of Greenwich Hospital—none of the benefits of which belonged to them; and moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the Acts of William 3rd and 20 George 2nd, c. 38, relating to the Merchant Seamen's Fund.

seconded the Motion, and stated his opinion that the merchant seamen already suffered extreme distress, and that they ought not to have any unnecessary burthen imposed upon them. They would be very glad to receive the relief now proposed.

said, the right hon. Baronet must not wonder if he was not prepared to concur with the present Motion. The effect of it would be, to deprive on the one hand, the hospital of the benefit it now derived from the fund thus raised; and, on the other, the merchant seamen of the advantage they now enjoyed from the capacity for admission there, after a short service in the navy. He did not think that such a change ought to be made without a grave consideration of the effect it would produce. If upon a full consideration of the whole case the Legislature should think fit to exclude from the hospital those who had not been, for a length of time, in the actual service of the State, that would be a different question; but, as long as the merchant seamen had the advantage they possessed under the present law, he did not think it either unjust or improper to continue their obligation to make this small pecuniary payment for the enjoyment of such an advantage. He believed that though some seamen might find fault with the present law, yet that the complaint was not so general as to call for the immediate interference of Parliament, and he therefore trusted that, for the present, the Motion would be withdrawn.

supported the suggestion to withdraw the Motion at this moment; but, at the same time, he must say, that the present laws imposed a great hardship on the body of merchant seamen, as all were obliged to subscribe, while it was impossible that all could ever be entitled to enter the Hospital, and receive the benefit of that institution. Besides this, they contributed 6d. more per month to another fund, and by these two modes of contribution, 1s. per month was taken from their scanty wages. Their case certainly deserved consideration.

observed, that these seamen, though they did subscribe to the support of the Hospital, were not entitled to any benefit from it merely as seamen, but only as seamen who had been for a certain time in the public service. But there was another objection to the continuance of this fund in its present state, and that was, that it was too expensively collected. The cost of its collection amounted to a sum varying from eighteen to twenty per cent.

said, it was not quite true that these men had the right of being admitted only as having served some time in the Navy—they were often admitted as old seamen in distress; and cases of admission for such causes were every day occurring. He doubted whether the giving up the contribution of the sixpences would be popular, if it were accompanied, as it must be, with a loss of the right to enter the Hospital without having previously served fourteen years in the Navy.

said, that at present he should rest satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and would take the opportunity of reviving the subject in this or another Session, if circumstances should render it necessary. He consented at this moment to withdraw his Motion.

submitted to the House that this was not a fit and proper time to continue the discussion of this most important subject. It was past ten o'clock, and he did not think a full discussion could be afforded to the subject within the space of time that the House could this night conveniently devote to it. He should have had great hesitation in stating what he now did to the House, but that he saw there was a large supply of matter for their discussion; so that he had no doubt the time of the House could be well disposed of in its consideration. Among the rest, there was the important subject of the Sale of Beer Bill, which he thought might well be discussed to-night. He wished to enter his protest against going on at that moment with so important a subject as the Equity Jurisdiction. He was sure that, at that hour, the House was not capable of doing justice to it; and he was convinced that, by going on, it would save no time whatever.

had been fully prepared to go into the discussion of the Sale of Beer Bill to night: but he had, at the earnest desire of Gentlemen opposite, fixed that discussion for Monday, in order to allow the debate on the Court of Chancery to be proceeded with to-night.

The Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate read.

said, the lateness of the hour was felt by him, and he should therefore endeavour to address the House as briefly as possible; there were, however, some points to which he thought it necessary to call attention. In the first place, he begged to state that he should vote for the learned member for Plymp-ton's Motion; though, in so doing, he could not concur in a great portion of what had fallen from that learned Gentleman. In one point, in particular, he must differ from him; he meant as to the motive which had induced the learned Lord to bring this measure forward; for he could not agree that any other motive had induced the Lord Chancellor to bring his Bill into the other House, but that of relieving the suitors of the Court of Chancery. Indeed, as he looked at it, this measure would relieve the two other Equity Judges, but with respect to the appeals, which chiefly concerned the Lord Chancellor, it would be of no service to him. But the House had not only to be satisfied of the purity of the motive of the learned Lord, but also of the necessity that there was for a fourth Judge, before they could concur in the measure. He would not say that there was no such necessity, but at all events there was no information before the House to induce it to say, that it ought to agree to the appointment of a new Judge. The learned member for Plympton had rested his argument against the appointment on two grounds:—The first was, the Returns before the House, and the other was, the declared opinion of the two Equity Judges, and other competent persons. These Returns certainly did show that there were arrears; but though they had been accumulating for the last three years, during the last four months, such efforts had been made, as showed that the Judges were equal to the despatch of the causes before them. In 1827 there had been 576 causes on the first day of Hilary Term; and in 1830, at the same period, the number was 928; but at the first Seal before Easter Term that number was reduced, by the exertions of the Judges, to 655. The accumulation, therefore, had decreased 273. This reduction had been chiefly caused by the exertion of the Master of the Rolls, who now sat simultaneously with the other Judges, by which he had been enabled to get through an enormous quantity of business. On the first day of Hilary Term the number of causes before the Chancellor and Vice-chancellor were 466, which, by the first Seal before Easter Term, were reduced to 323; and the number at the same period before the Master of the Rolls was 462, which, by the like time, was reduced to 332. The question, then, which the House had to consider was, whether the means of the Court were adequate to the reduction of the arrears; and if this were the case, they were certainly bound to object to the appointment of a new Judge. But if the manner in which they had been going on for the last month and a half was to be taken as a criterion, the present means were certainly quite equal to the business. If, however, they were not equal to the work—and this, he would confess, had been his opinion till he had seen the calculations which he had just stated to the House—it was absolutely necessary that the fourth Judge should be appointed. So much had this formerly been his opinion, that in the Debate in February, 1828, he had stated that nothing could reduce the arrears of the Court of Chancery, and enable the Judges to despatch the business brought before them, so as to clear the way from day to day, but the appointment of this fourth judicial functionary. But the learned member for Plympton had also relied on the evidences of the Vice-chancellor and the Master of the Rolls; and he had stated—what he (Mr. Ferguson) believed had never been attempted to be controverted—that the Master of the Rolls had never affected to conceal his opinion that there was no necessity for a fourth Judge. The learned Gentleman had also stated that the Vice-chancellor did not think such an appointment necessary. Sir Launcelot Shadwell had certainly given evidence before the Chancery Commission in favour of the appointment of a fourth Judge; and Mr. Bell had also expressed the same opinion at that time; but both of these learned persons had since seen grounds for altering their opinion, which probably had arisen from the result of those Returns, the contents of which he had just stated to the House. But the fact of their having five years ago held this opinion, and having subsequently on such evidence changed it, was to him the strongest proof that no new Judge was necessary. Mr. Bell, in a recent publication, had positively stated that there was no such necessity; and certainly some weight was due to his opinion. But at all events the Vice-chancellor and the Master of the Rolls were the best possible witnesses in this case; for on them it was, that the labour chiefly fell. On these grounds he was of opinion that the House ought to inquire and have evidence, particularly as to the last three months, before it sanctioned the appointment of a fourth Judge. When he had formerly supported the appointment of a fourth Judge, he had not supported that alone, but had urged the necessity of accompanying that measure with such a system as should remove the abuses of the Court of Chancery, and accelerate the despatch of its business; and without such an accompaniment he would never, under any circumstances, give his consent to the proposal. The Equity Commission, which had been appointed five years ago, and which, for two years, had continued to give its best attention to this subject, had furnished a report which contained many excellent recommendations, and he certainly was bound to express his surprise that some of those recommendations not been acted upon in the present Bill. Before anything, however, was decided on this subject, he wanted to see the Master of the Rolls in full operation, and the Vice-chancellor continuing his exertions in the manner of the last two or three months; and then, if next Session it should appear that what had taken place was the mere spirit of the moment, and that the Court was again getting into arrear, he should be the first to say that a fourth Judge ought to be appointed. The learned member for Plympton had contended, that this measure would take the Chancellor out of his Court; but it might be remembered, that this had been the very argument used in the debate upon the Vice-chancellor's bill, and yet no such thing had come to pass. The fault that he found had already been committed, which was the appointment of another Judge of Appeal; the consequence of which was, that they could not even finally hope for uniformity of opinion; and he could inform the House that the appointment of a second Judge of Appeal had given great dissatisfaction in that part of the country to which he belonged, for it was there felt that they had a right to have the judgment of the highest Law- officer of the Crown. He was, therefore, perhaps, willing to admit that the appointment of a fourth Judge might prevent the Lord Chancellor doing the same business as now in original causes; but he was disposed to contend—though he knew that the position would meet with opposition—that this circumstance would not make the Chancellor a bit the worse Judge of Appeal. [hear, hear!] Those who in mockery cheered that opinion did not appear to have considered that the Chancellor had, as a Judge of Appeal, to dispense Scotch law as well as English law; and this being the case, it was evident, that it was not essentially necessary for him to hear the original cause. Indeed it appeared to him to be preposterous that the Judge in the original cause should be the Judge in the Appeal also; for this, after all, was really the case. Let a foreign lawyer be taken to the House of Lords, and he would be perfectly astonished. There, instead of the 400 Judges whom he might have expected to find, he would only see the Lord Chancellor, with two other Peers, who acted in rotation; so that one day the learned Lord might be supported by an Irish Bishop and a Scotch Lord, and another by two young men of fashion, from St. James's-street. And what when the judgment was pre-nounced? Why the foreigner would say, "Oh, I heard all this in the Court below; the same judgment, in the same words, delivered by the same person." Let him not after this be told that appeals were few in number; no wonder that they should be so, when this was the case. If he knew that the Judge, only in a private conversation, had expressed an opinion against his cause, should he not be a fool and a driveller to saddle himself with the costs to have that unfavourable judgment only the more irrevocably confirmed? But let the same foreigner be taken the next day to the House of Lords, and there he would hear a Scotch Appeal: of course it would be expected that the presiding Judge was a man learned in the law of the land whence the Appeal came; but what was the fact? He was, on the contrary, a man that actually knew nothing at all about the matter he undertook to determine; of course, in saying this, he was not alluding to any particular Chancellor, but to English Chancellors generally; and the consequence, therefore, was, that the most elaborate and painful decisions of the Scotch Judges had been unwisely overturned. This certainly was a most grievous state of things; and he should, therefore, be glad to see the day when a person really learned in the Scotch law was appointed to assist the Lord Chancellor in such decisions, and prevent his forming opinions directly in the teeth of the law of Scotland. As to the system of the Privy Council, it was indisputably bad, and required immediate alteration. It was known that the Master of the Rolls was not bound to attend. He was neither more nor less when he sat in the Privy Council than a voluntary Judge, who, when he thought proper, might employ his unoccupied time in that Court, before which the most important matters were decided. He saw them in some instances decided by that voluntary Judge, assisted by the Ex-governor of a colony, and by, perhaps, a stray Lord of the Admiralty. It was, he conceived, absolutely necessary to the due administration of justice in this country, that an efficient and proper Court of Appeal should be established—a High Court of Justice, composed of the most eminent among the Chief Judges, and containing also persons acquainted with colonial affairs. In the formation of such a Court, there was much which might advantageously be borrowed from a neighbouring country; he meant France, in the judicial institutions of which there was much worthy of our imitation. To effect the alterations which he conceived to be necessary in the administration of justice in this country, it would be requisite that the House of Lords should divest itself of its appellate jurisdiction. He would not say—but Sir Matthew Hale had said—that that jurisdiction was in its origin usurped. No doubt, whenever that jurisdiction was to be got rid of, it could not be by a bill originating in the House of Commons. Their Lordships, whatever modification of it might take place, must originate the measure themselves. Whether it was a Committee of the House of Lords, or the House of Lords itself, there could be no doubt that some modification of the system was demanded, let that modification be what they pleased. It had been suggested, and it was a suggestion not much to be objected to, that there might be an appeal in Chancery, not to the Lord Chancellor himself, but to him jointly with the two other Judges; at the same time that he thought there ought to be no appeal from the Lord Chancellor to the subordinate Judges. An arrangement of that sort would be an improvement; but he was opposed to any intermediate appeal. He would desire to see anything of that kind cut off altogether. He further wished to see the Vice-chancellor rendered an independent Judge; at present he was subordinate, and possessed, comparatively, no authority. He could decide nothing but what the Lord Chancellor sent to him. If the Bill passed, and he very much doubted whether it would pass, they ought to make the Vice-chancellor independent, and put him in the same situation as the other two Judges. The hon. and learned Gentleman then adverted to the great and beneficial expedition which the present Vice-chancellor exercised in respect of the great accumulation of causes in his Court; and really such was that expedition, and so well were the causes disposed of, that he did not despair of seeing the whole arrear dissipated; and if it should again begin to accumulate, of which he saw no probability, means might be taken for remedying the evil when it really existed. Of the little probability that such an event would take place, the House could judge from the fact, that only three causes were entered on the Vice-chancellor's paper since it was cleared. He next proceeded to bear testimony to the valuable labour of his hon. friend, the member for Durham, in the cause of Chancery Reform, and he hoped that hon. Member would see that reform accomplished for which he had so long and so meritoriously laboured—that reform, by which delay would be put an end to, and expense diminished—that reform, by which it might be rendered worth a suitor's while to go into Chancery for 500l. It was well known that no man of prudence would now go into Chancery for that sum. Though, under existing circumstances, he was opposed to the proposition, yet if arrears should again accumulate, he would rather agree to a fourth Judge than permit the continuance of so enormous an evil as the state of the Court of Chancery constituted some time since.

would not so far abuse the indulgence of the House as to enter upon the discussion of any topics excepting those to which the Motion before the House necessarily gave rise. He believed that all history justified the assertion, that the Court of Chancery was remarkable for the accumulation of arrears; it was indisput- able that, from the earliest records, arrears were accumulating, and accumulations of arrears, with very slight exceptions, had distinguished the course of that Court for many centuries past. It would not be necessary for him to go back to very remote history for the purpose of showing that now the interference of the Legislature was required. It must be known to most of the learned Gentlemen who heard him, that, at the beginning of the present century, the appeals before the Lords had increased to such an extent] that the Lord Chancellor could not keep them under. He was entitled, upon the authority of Lord Eldon, to state that, before the Union with Ireland, the appeals from the Court of Chancery in England, from the Court of Exchequer, and from the Courts of Common Law, were very few; but the moment the Union between this country and Ireland took place, they were deluged with appeals from the sister country; and such was their length, complexity and importance, that he might state, as a fair specimen of the whole of those appeals, that one of them was more difficult of decision than twenty English appeals. Again, after the revision of the Court of Session, the amount of Scotch appeals was prodigiously increased. In order to make apparent to the House the vast increase of business in the Court of Chancery, he begged to call the attention of the House to these facts. In the three years immediately antecedent to the Irish Union, the number of bills filed in the Court of Chancery was 4,021. In the years 1810, 11, and 12, they amounted to 5,699. The Vice-chancellor was then appointed; and in 1814, 15 and 16, with three Judges, the various matters set down for hearing, bankruptcy petitions, lunacy cases and causes, amounted to 2,478; and in the last three years to 3,589. In the first-mentioned period the bankruptcy and lunacy cases amounted to 2,323; in the last three years, to 3,183—beingan advance of 860. At the time the Vice-chancellor was appointed, the appeals before the Lords amounted to 124; they were now 202, being an advance of 78; not less than three-fourths of the whole amount of business. It had been contended, on the other side, that the arrears were rapidly diminishing, because the amount of arrear at the present moment was less than it was at last Hilary Term; but though the number of cases in arrear now rose only to 655, it was important to observe, that at the beginning of Easter Term, in the last year, they only came to 588. At the period of the year to which he referred, there was an almost uninterrupted sitting of four months, with scarcely a holiday; and that fact was, of itself, abundantly sufficient to account for the state of the business; but by no means to furnish an argument against the appointment of the fourth Equity Judge. The hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Plympton, had referred to an opinion he had formerly expressed upon the subject of the appointment of a fourth Judge. Now, his opinion, he was perfectly aware, was a matter of no moment, nor should he have adverted to it for any other purpose than that of vindicating his own consistency. He denied altogether that the language he made use of, on the occasion referred to, at all warranted the inference that either then or at any time he was opposed to the appointment of a fourth Judge in Equity, but he did feel that it was his duty, though holding the situation of Counsel to the Admiralty, to vote against those with whom he was generally in the habit of acting. He made a distinction between the officer of the Government, and the Representative of Wootton Basset, and separated himself from those friends, now near him, with whom he had been in the habit of previously voting. Passing from this brief defence of his own conduct, to the question more immediately under discussion, he observed, that, whatever might be thought, à priori, of the appointment of the third Judge (alluding to the time when the Vice-chancellor was appointed), there could be no doubt that the result fully justified the measure; and now he would put it to the House, if it became necessary to appoint a third Judge in the year 1813, how much more necessary was a fourth Judge when the business generally of the Court of Chancery had increased one-half, and when the bankruptcy and lunacy cases had been augmented one-third? Besides that, the nature of the cases should be borne in mind; it was not alone a reference to the figures of the hon. Gentleman, but a consideration of the character of the business, that should influence the decision of the House. The business of the Court of Chancery was every day becoming more and more complex. In illustration of this, he made a comparative statement of the business in some periods and at present; in the year 1740, the amount of money lodged in the name of the Accountant-general of the Court of Chancery was 1,290,000l. In the year 1812 it amounted to 34,000,000l., and at the time he was speaking, it was between 39,000,000l. and 40,000,000l., to say nothing of the difficulty and complexity introduced by our varied foreign and colonial relations, and by the amount of our public debt; both by our prosperity, and by our embarrassment, the amount and nature of the business in the Court of Chancery was increased. The whole of the proceedings in the Court of Chancery had of late years materially increased; recurrence was much more frequently had of late than formerly to the practice of obtaining injunctions to prevent waste, as well as injunctions for other purposes. It was not an exaggeration then to assert, that from all those causes the business of the Court of Chancery had increased threefold. The consequences of such increase, causing delay in deciding all causes were most ruinous to the interests of the country and most destructive to anything deserving the name of justice. Amongst the various consequences arising from that condition of the Equity business was this—that the delay in the Court of the Master of the Rolls amounted to three terms, and that in the Vice-chancellor's to six terms. Thus, if a cause were set down for hearing in Hilary Term, in the present year, in the Vice-chancellor's Court, it would not be adjudicated till the June twelvemonth following; and if set down in the Rolls' Court in Michaelmas, it would not be heard till the next Trinity Term; and as there were in each case three adjudications, four years and a half must elapse before justice could be done, except in the very shortest and simplest cases, let the necessity for the doing of that justice be ever so urgent. So fully aware were the generality of litigants of the impossibility of their obtaining an adjudication of their causes at an earlier period than the time he mentioned, that they in a great number of cases shaped their proceedings in such a manner as to obtain the opinion of the Judge by whom it was to be tried, on the general merits of the question, long antecedently to the period at which it would come on in the regular course of events—thus infinite delay, expense, and vexation, were created. The business of the Court of Chancery was hourly in Creasing, both from the altered condition of society and from the gradual changes in the nature of the proceedings of that Court. Parties to suits were becoming more numerous than they had been, and always more numerous than in a Court of Common Law; and every case of death or bankruptcy demanded a commencement of the proceedings de novo. For that delay of justice, he hesitated not to say that Parliament was responsible to the country. It had been said, that the effect of this measure would be to increase the number of appeals, and he admitted that the number of appeals must be in proportion to the number of causes originally heard; but to urge that as an argument against the present Bill, was as absurd as to say that the merchants of this country should not take advantage of any new channels of trade that might be opened, because the number of losses at Lloyd's must increase in proportion. After observing that the Vice-chancellor deserved infinite credit for the extraordinary exertions he had used to expedite the business of his Court, he warned the House not always to rely on similar exertion. That learned Judge had given many hours and even weeks that were not due to the public, to get rid of the arrears. He, however, had the advantage of a good constitution, unimpaired by disease, and unbroken by age. But what that learned Judge had done could not be done permanently, or by future Judges. Great praise was undoubtedly due to him for the zeal, diligence, and talents with which he had discharged the duties of his high situation, so as to effect such an extraordinary reduction in the number of causes before that Court over which he so ably presided; but did it therefore follow that other Judges, or that his successors, should in the same manner devote themselves, and give up all rest and leisure for their duty. Other Judges might not be so active nor so young, nor capable of performing their duty in the same manner. There was another consideration of some weight. It was far from being admitted, even in that House, and still further from being admitted by persons in the profession, that it was for the advantage of suitors, or of the public, that the whole time of the Judges should be occupied in laborious attention to their judicial duty, without rest or relaxation at suitable periods, so as to relieve the mind and repair the body from the fatigue of excessive application. The whole of these considerations too were applicable to the case of barristers practising in those Courts. It was not the duty of the Bar in Court alone the House ought to consider. Out of Court, the barrister in practice was continually employed in preparing pleadings and oral arguments. It was not for the benefit of the suitor, and it was certainly degrading to the profession, when the barrister had no time to refresh his mind. To keep the profession liberal in nature as well as in name, some time must be allowed to the barrister for relaxation; and therefore, however laudable the exertions of the learned Judge who had been alluded to, those exertions could only have a momentary effect on the general business of the Court. There was only one other particular to which he would call the attention of the House. In the choice of the measure which the House ought to adopt, there were obviously two courses, between which the House must choose: the one safe, to say the least of it—the other insecure. If the House adopted the former, and agreed to the Bill now proposed by his hon. and learned friend, he sincerely believed that no man would hereafter have to reproach himself with giving his assent to a measure which could not be considered as an inroad on the Constitution, or a burthen on the country. If, on the contrary, the House decided upon adopting the latter course, and resolved to reject the Bill, it must be prepared for the natural consequence, and expect to hear that the delays in hearing causes were vexatious and multiplied—that judgments were deferred until the death of the parties interested made them comparatively valueless, that expense was uselessly incurred, justice indefinitely delayed—and it must expect to hear of much public disappointment; and, as a consequence, of much private despair.

Sir, as this measure is so immediately connected with that Court in which I have the honour to practise, and as I have given the subject some attention, I trust the House will permit me to offer to its consideration the result of my experience and observation in the course of that practice. My hon. and learned friend, the member for Wootton Bassett, seems to be labouring under a misapprehension. If my hon. and learned friend would on this, as on the former occasion he has alluded to, abstract his character of Under Secretary of State from his character of a Represent- ative of the people in the House of Commons, I am sure I should be able to convince him that the argument on which he proceeds is altogether unfounded. A great deal of my learned friend's argument in favour of the Bill proceeded on the assumption that every cause which was set down would take a year and a half before it was heard, and then that it must be heard twice on further directions, and that on each occasion there would be an equally long delay. Now, Sir, some of the original causes now standing for hearing, may have been set down for eighteen months; but by far the greater number of causes have been set down for a much shorter period. Then as to the delay in hearing causes on further directions. There is not a single—yes, there are five causes now waiting in the Vice-chancellor's Court, to be heard on further directions, and they have been set down for about one month, and not for a year and a half; and these five causes will probably not take up a day in the hearing. We must, therefore, subtract about three years from my hon. friend's supposed delay of four years and a half; and taking three from four years, may perhaps alter his opinion on this question. But it is not on such grounds, "Sir, that I have formed my opinion that this Bill, at least in its present state, ought not to pass into a law. A great deal has been said in the course of the debate on this Bill with respect to the opinions of the Judges of the Court, and it has been declared in another place that the Vice-chancellor was averse to the appointment of the new Judge. It is right, in my opinion, to state, and I do so from authority, that the Vice-chancellor's opinion was not called for, nor was it given in public, or intended to be made use of. Every hon. Member who has referred to this subject appears to have laboured under the same mistake. The Vice-chancellor merely said, in private conversation, that as the Master of the Rolls had consented to sit in the morning, and had disposed of so much more business than he had ever done before, it might be well worth while to ascertain what impression could be made on the arrears of business by the united labours of three Judges, before it was determined to incur the expense of a fourth. This was the opinion stated by the Vice-chancellor; but, as I said before, it was an opinion given in a private conversation, and not intended for publica- tion. The Vice-chancellor did not know, and could not conjecture, that it was intended to make use of this opinion as an argument against the present Bill. But, Sir, as far as I am concerned, I am most desirous to discuss this question without any reference to the opinions of the Judges. This, perhaps, will not be wondered at, standing in the delicate situation of practising before the Lord Chancellor, before the Vice-chancellor, and also before the Master of the Rolls. The opinions of the Judges, then, I have put out of the question, and I have founded my opinion upon facts, of which facts I have used every endeavour to inform myself; and have come to the deliberate opinion, that the Bill in question ought not, at least in its present state, to pass into a law. I should conceive, Sir, from the course which this debate has taken, that the House was under the impression, that the hearing of a cause disposed of it. No such thing. It first goes into the Registrar's Office, and then into the Master's Office; and it is in those offices that the delay takes place, for which it is the duty of the House to provide a remedy. In my opinion, the Bills now before the House will not remove the evils complained of in the Court of Chancery, because they apply no effectual remedy to the abuses in the Master's and Registrar's Offices, where the principal causes of delay exist. It is said, that the Bill now under immediate consideration will expedite the hearing of causes; but what good will that do, if we only send a greater number of causes to the Registrar's Office, and afterwards to the office of the Master, where the principal delays take place? If it shall appear that the Registrar's Office is now so choked up with business that it is impossible to get through it with despatch, and if the business in the Master's Office has accumulated so, that it cannot be got through, what relief is it to the suitor, that his cause should be sent to these offices nine months, or even eighteen months, before it now arrives there? If all that you do is to send the case, after it is heard, to offices incompetent to master the business now before them, and therefore utterly incapable of getting through an increase of business, I say you confer no real benefit on the public. Unless you provide means to enable those offices, not only to master the business that is before them but to get rid of the new business, you make no real progress. Sir, it is known that this measure is coupled with two other bills, one for authorising the appointment of additional Registrars, and the other to improve the practice of the Master's Office. This Bill, however, for the appointment of the new Judge, which ought to have succeeded the others, has passed through the other House, and now only awaits the assent of this House, to have the stamp affixed to it, and to be brought into immediate operation, while the two other bills, which, to be useful, should have preceded this, are just laid on the Table, with very little chance of their being carried into effect during the present Session. They have to pass through the ordeal of the other House after they have got through this; and before they are perfected, will probably have amendments made in them, both here and in the other House, so that it is nearly impossible, I should think, that they can pass into laws during the present Session. Now, Sir, supposing that these bills do pass, let us examine what they propose to effect. With a view to ascertain whether they are fitted to lead to despatch in the business of the Court of Chancery I will shortly call the attention of my hon. and learned friend, and of the House, to the nature of the alterations which these bills are calculated to effect. And, first, as to the Registrars' Bill. I may here state, that the Chancery Commissioners certified that, in order to secure the despatch of the present amount of business, two new Registrars should be appointed. Now, the Bill only proposes that there should be two new Registrars, the number which the Commissioners certified was necessary, without taking into consideration the additional business which must be created in the Registrar's Office by the appointment of a new Equity Judge. I will now call the attention of the House to the regulations which the Bill proposes to make with regard to the Registrar's Office. What does it first propose? Why, that two new Registrars should be appointed, and that they should be barristers, men totally unacquainted with the duties of the office; and next, that the whole system of paying the Registrars and their clerks by fees, should be abolished. Without stopping to inquire into the propriety of placing men, ignorant of the business of the office, to learn it from those over whose heads they have been raised, I may observe, that the abolition of the system of fees would produce an effect the very opposite of that intended. It is well known that there is frequently a great pressure of business in the Registrar's Office, particularly before the long vacation; a pressure so great, that the Registrars work, not for eight or ten, but fourteen hours a day. Now, if the fees which form the stimulant to, and the reward for, this additional labour, are abolished, and fixed salaries paid, the Registrars will work for the office hours, and no more, and the business of the suitors will be retarded in proportion to the time cut off from that during which the Registrars have hitherto laboured. At present, the more orders they get through, the more emolument they derive; but when this inducement is taken away, how they will get through the amount of business now existing in that office, together with the additional business which must be the consequence of a new Judge being appointed, without other, and most important regulations for the despatch of business being introduced into that office, I am at a loss to conjecture. If I found the provision of this Bill shortening the useless labours of the Registrar's Office; if provisions were made for getting rid of the vexatious length of orders; if the long recitals were got rid of; if the Registrars had only to embody the orders of the Court, and not to cram them with long recitals, which are totally unnecessary, and prove mere burthens to the practitioner and the suitor; and a period for delivering out the orders were fixed, then indeed, possibly ten times the business now done in the Registrar's Office might be sent there. In this Bill, as it seems to me, there is no provision against the length of recitals, which is the principal evil; it would rather appear that it was intended to perpetuate that evil.

.—I can assure my hon. and learned friend that he is mistaken.

I rejoice to hear from my hon. and learned friend, the Solicitor General, that I am mistaken in this supposition. If it be the intention of my hon. and learned friend to get rid of this evil, then one of the great obstacles to an effectual remedy of the defects and abuses existing in that office will be removed. If my hon. friend should introduce such a reform in the Registrar's Office, he will be long remembered as a benefactor to the suitors of the Court of Chancery. Sir, there are so many observations which press upon me, that I am afraid I shall trespass too long on the attention of the House. It does appear to me, however, that appointing two barristers to act as Registrars, concurrently with the present Registrars, will operate as an insuperable obstacle to the despatch of business in that office. By this regulation the clerks in the office will be disappointed; they will find other persons brought in, to occupy places which they had looked to for many an anxious year. It may be right that barristers should be appointed; but yet I hope it will be considered, how those barristers are to learn the duties of the office, when the persons who are to teach them are the very persons whom they have supplanted. I have merely thrown this out for consideration. I will not now commit myself, by saying whether the Registrars should be barristers or any other class of persons. I am only anxious that nothing should be done, with an intention to expedite business, which will have the effect of retarding it. The consequence of any ineffectual measure being now proposed will be, that the public will come to the conclusion that the Legislature is either unwilling or incompetent to afford them any effectual relief. I proceed, Sir, to another source of delay, the Master's Office:—and here I am compelled to say, that the bill relating to the Master's Office is, as it appears to me, nearly as deficient as that relating to the Registrar's. I had hoped that it would be declared that such a charge as 925l. for copies of the particulars on the sale of a single estate, should never hereafter be exacted. I had hoped, that the whole system of taking fees for copies in these offices would be abolished. An amendment of that kind would tend much to expedite business, and it would, at the same time, place the solicitor a little more within the control of the Master. This bill declares that the Masters shall no longer be permitted to receive profit from copies; but copy money is still to be paid. My deliberate opinion is, that it is impossible, without an entire alteration of system, to prevent the fees from amounting, as they now do, to what may be called a denial of justice. There should be no fees for copies at all. The solicitors, should be at liberty to hand over copies to their opponents, and then the Master would be an effectual check on the solicitor, for he would have no interest himself in the length of copies or proceedings. According to the now existing system, both the solicitor and the Master partake of the profit of copies of lengthened proceedings. In the course of my own experience, I have known cases so expensive in the Master's Office, that I have myself been compelled to apply to the Court for an advance of funds, which might or might not belong to the party applying for them, in order to go on with the suit; and if that has happened to be denied, the suit has slept till the solicitor, or some benevolent friend, has advanced the money required to pay for such copies. Copy money ought to be altogether abolished. This, Sir, is one of the greatest and most vexatious causes of delay. As I said before, it is not the delay between the setting down and the hearing of a cause, but it is the delay in the Master's Office which is the great evil, and there is no effectual provision in this bill to remedy that evil. If the bill contained a provision to secure the regular attendance of the Master; if, above all, it required the Master to sit in public; if it gave the Masters power to decide on one class of matters, and appointed accountants to dispose of the rest, not, as at present, sending every cause to the Master; if the Master himself were bound to hear the causes referred to him according to lists, and not, as now, to depute them to a clerk; then I should have some hope of the delays being got rid of; not that I object to the clerks, if made responsible officers, for many of the clerks would be well worthy of the trust; but what I do object to is, that the clerk should do the business, the fees for which are received by the Master: and if the gratuities the clerk now receives are taken away, what security have we that the business will be done at all. If I found these evils remedied, and that the business of the Master's Office was properly distributed; if I found that the Master was, in this bill, compelled to attend from ten till four, like other Judges; if I found that the causes were followed up consecutively in their offices, instead of being, as at present, heard perhaps for an hour one day, and then an hour another, half of that hour being each day occupied with a discussion as to the precise point at which they left off, and the other half wasted in unavailing inquiry, each party succeeded by another, whose time is spent much in the same manner; I repeat, if there were a hope of getting rid of these abuses; if there were a hope of compelling the Master to stick to one cause, until he got through it, like other Judges; if these things were done, and the Master's time rendered really serviceable to the suitor, then if the arrear of business should continue, I might withdraw my dissent to the appointment of a new Judge; but at the present moment, and without an effectual remedy for these abuses being provided, I cannot conceive that the appointment of a new Judge, to send an additional number of causes to offices already encumbered, and so defective in their constitution, will prove of any advantage to the Court or to the public. If the only good to be anticipated be, to facilitate the hearing of causes, it will amount to very little: because, though there may no longer be a delay of a year and a half between the setting down of a cause and its original hearing, yet there may be an additional delay of years in the subsequent proceedings in the cause. There is also a subject connected with the Master's Office to which I wish to call the attention of my hon. and learned friend. It is impossible for him, or for any other individual with whom this Bill could have originated, to know the details of the Master's Office. Taking the number of Masters at ten, and supposing them in turn to do the business of the public office, there is a waste of the service of one, by the time lost by the Master who sits in rotation in the public office: on such occasions the Master is attended by a clerk, who in effect does all the business. The Master, as I understand, sits passively in the office doing nothing. I see no reason why the officer who files an answer or affidavit should not be allowed to administer the oath instead of the answer or affidavit being carried from one office to another, as it now is. The Masters' Offices are often at a perfect stand-still because, in term, Counsel are obliged to attend at Westminster, and of course cannot attend the Master. Now I should suggest that the duty of the public office should be abolished, by which the services of a Master might be beneficially saved to the public, and the Master, whose time is thus saved, might be employed in the evenings in disposing of matters requiring the attendance of Coun- sel. Sir, there are numerous other considerations relating to these and the other offices, for there is scarcely an office connected with the Courts of Equity which might not be amended with regard both to an increase of efficiency and a decrease of expense. I trust, however, that my hon. and learned friend, in whose good intentions I have the highest confidence, may be induced to bring forward some further measures which will embrace the requisite improvements in the other offices. I shall, therefore, dismiss for the present the consideration of the necessary reforms in the other offices of the Court. I beg leave to state, however, that if some effectual and comprehensive measures are not soon adopted, unknown and humble an individual as I am in this House, I shall endeavour myself to submit some measure for the removal of the difficulties in the way of the attainment of justice, that shall, in my judgment, be left untouched by the measures now before the House. Sir, I have endeavoured to explain that the Bill under discussion, namely, that for a new Judge, though it may prevent delay in the earlier stage of the cause, cannot materially benefit the suitors or the public, unless the other two bills are passed, and their provisions are made effectual for the despatch of business in the offices of the Registrars and Masters. It is, upon this ground, that I am compelled to vote with my hon. and learned friend, the member for Plympton. The question is, shall this Bill be permitted to pass this House when it will only require the stamp to be affixed to it, to make it a law, or shall it be postponed till the other bills are rendered effectual, without which it will be perfectly inefficient, and which latter bills have yet to pass through all their stages both in this House and the other. In my opinion, we ought not, Sir, to allow this Bill to pass without the others, and without being quite certain that the others will be made to answer the purposes for which they are intended. I shall, therefore, vote for the Motion of my hon. friend the member for Plympton.

said, as he was a member of the Bar, practising in the Court of Chancery, he should consider it a dereliction of duty, were he to give a silent vote on a question so important to the interests of the country, and so intimately connected with the profession to which he belonged. He had considered the mea- sure, proposing the appointment of an additional Judge in the Court of Chancery in all its bearings; and had come to a fixed conviction, that such an appointment was unnecessary. He had made the most minute and searching inquiries amongst all the branches of the legal profession, and there was almost an unanimous opinion that a new Judge was not required. His Majesty's Counsel practising in the Court of Chancery, with one or two exceptions at the most, thought such an appointment unnecessary; and so did all the most eminent solicitors in town and country. He coincided in the sentiments so eloquently expressed by the present Master of the Rolls, in his speech in the year 1813, on the appointment of the Vice-chancellor. The high office of Lord Chancellor was primarily judicial, and secondarily, political. That appointment had reversed this order. The Lord Chancellor had become more of a politician than a Judge. That great lawyer and statesman, Sir Samuel Romilly, declared in that debate, that after a few successions of Vice-chancellors there would be no more men found to discharge the high office of Lord Chancellor in the manner it had hitherto been discharged by so many illustrious men. The country would never again see such men as Somers, Camden, and Hardwicke. In this too, he coincided. In former times it was not the custom of Lord Chancellors to attend Cabinet Councils; and the introduction of that custom had done much to obstruct and delay the despatch of business in the Court of Chancery. It was recorded of Lord Hardwicke, that he used to send an answer, when summoned to the Cabinet, that he could not attend, being engaged in the discharge of his high judicial duties. Every one acquainted with the Court of Chancery must be aware how often the present Lord Chancellor stopped the business of his Court by saying that he was obliged to go elsewhere. At the early period of his appointment, Lord Eldon seldom attended Cabinet Councils—Lord Eldon whose equal as an Equity Judge he never expected to see again, betrayed no tendency to that indecision for which he afterwards became so remarkable, until the administration of Mr. Perceval, when his attendance at Cabinet Councils became frequent. It was then that he first began to talk of carrying papers home, and of deciding on a case at a more convenient season, which season never came. The reason of this was obvious: his mind was occupied with other subjects. He gave up his attention to politics, and therefore could not employ it in determining with expedition the complicated questions in his Court. It would be most beneficial to the country if the attention of a Lord Chancellor were more directed to judicial duties than to those of the Cabinet. If the Lord Chancellor was never to attend Cabinet Councils but when cases of international law, or the internal administration of justice were to be debated, the duties of his own Court would be more efficiently discharged. But those high and important duties were now frequently suspended by the Lord Chancellor being engaged in Downing-street to consider our foreign relations. Upon the whole, knowing that the conviction of the profession was, that a new Judge in Equity was unnecessary, he wished to bring the testimony of that profession to the consideration of the House, and, consequently, he should give his vote for the Motion of the member for Plympton.

proposed, when so many other Members were anxious to deliver their opinions, that the further debate should be adjourned.

concurred in this suggestion, and added, that the debate would have been just as near its conclusion, if his suggestion earlier in the evening had been attended to. The discussion hitherto had been of such a dry nature as to make him quite long for a little beer. The Beer Bill might have been fixed for to-night but for this question.

hoped that some early and convenient day would be appointed for renewing the subject.

said, that every body, he would venture to say, expected that the discussion would have come on to-night at an early hour. Who could have expected that the early part of the evening would have been occupied as it had been? In discussing the question concerning the Real Property of the Jews,—a case of a parish vestry,—and a motion for papers respecting New South Wales, a motion, be it remembered, that was not resisted,—they had spent the whole of the evening. In those three subjects might be included all their business of that day. If Gentlemen would make lengthy speeches upon subjects which did not call for them, and if they would prefer their own notices to public business, however important, the same state of things must continue, and the House would go on in the same course day after day. He really did not know what day to fix for the adjourned debate on this question, unless they took Wednesday, [cries of "No, No,"] which he was reluctant to do, but he saw no alternative.

objected to that day for obvious reasons, which it might be irregular to state.

Further debate on Tuesday.