presented a Petition from Louis Denis Lehent Delavallee, of France, who had been a resident of Port Louis, where he practised as an advocate, stating that he had been falsely charged with writing a placard, tending to excite the black population against the white. Upon this charge he was brought to trial, and notwithstanding that he was fully acquitted, the governor at the Mauritius (Sir Charles Colville), banished him from that colony, at the moment when he was endeavouring to obtain redress, and bring to punishment those who had falsely accused him. He was passed from one Island to another, and kept in a state of great distress and privation, during a period of seven months. At length he was permitted to return to Europe, and he now claimed that redress to which he conceived the injury he had sustained entitled him.

said, though entitled to some consideration, both as a foreigner and one claiming the protection of the House, yet, when it was known that he demanded indemnity to the amount of 20,000l., they must feel that such a sum was more than could be expected to be granted to mere feelings of humanity. He should have no objection to agree to giving the petitioner such a sum as would enable him to return to his native country, provided it was not to be considered in the nature of a bribe to procure his silence respecting the Colonial Authorities.

The Petition to lie on the Table.

presented a Petition from the Attornies practising in the Superior Courts of Law at Westminster, and the Solicitors practising in the Court of Chancery. It was signed by no fewer than 250 members of that important branch of the profession, including all the more eminent practitioners resident in the metropolis. They complained of the impediments which they had to encounter in the conduct of their business, from the extreme want of accommodation in the Court of King's Bench, the favorite resort of suitors. They stated, that not more than twenty Attorneys could be accommodated at one time; that they did not possess that ready access to Counsel which the interests of their clients demanded; and that very great injury to them and to the public arose from those circumstances. He further added, that there was very imperfect ac- commodation for the Bar, and almost none at all for the public, or for Law Students.

The Attorney General supported the prayer of the petition, and bore testimony to the want of accommodation.

Mr. Ewart, Mr. Warburton, the Solicitor General, and several hon. Members concurred in the necessity of having considerable alterations made, or of having a new Court erected.

defended the Government from any imputations of having caused the inconvenience complained of. The matter, however, was deserving of consideration, and should be inquired into.

inquired whether the negotiations at present in progress between our Government and the United States, respecting the intercourse with the Canadas had been brought to a conclusion?

said, that negotiations were yet pending, they not having been brought to a final conclusion.

inquired if it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to afford the public the convenience they so much desired; namely, an opening from Carlton-house-place into St. James's Park?

had a most satisfactory answer to give the hon. Member. He had received his Majesty's command to have plans made out for the passage, and as soon as they were completed it should be opened.

thanked his Majesty's Government for their concession in this instance to the popular wish.

said, his Majesty's Government took no credit to themselves for this concession. It was the spontaneous act of his Majesty himself, unsuggested by any of his Ministers.

said, that as that was the last time he should have an opportunity of speaking, during that Session, on the subject of the Supplies, he wished then to say a few words. He had found that it was really in the power of the people of England to send a majority to that House, independent of the Boroughmongers and the Administration. The counties, if they did their duty, had the right and the power to complain of taxation, for they were independent, and could return eighty Members to Parliament, all of whom ought to vote for their constituents, and not back the Ministers; but instead of eighty there were only fifteen who pursued this line of conduct. From Wales there were twenty-three Members returned by the popular voice; In England sixty-four Members were elected by the freemen of boroughs, who, if they acted honourably, would choose independent Members; fifty-three Members were returned by scot and lot. In their case, it appeared, there could not well be a more extensive suffrage; and, therefore, if they returned honest and independent men, the greatest benefits might be effected for the country. He found, too, that twenty-seven Members were returned by freemen, who were also householders, and who, if not corrupt, would elect honest Members. Besides, there were sixteen Members returned by resident freemen, and six by pot-wallopers. In Ireland there were seventy-five Members who might be returned independent of all Government or private influence, thus making a total of 369 Members, who were in a condition, if they were honest men, to do their duty, and support all measures of real economy. He contended accordingly, that if at the next election the electors would only do their duty, they would get a House of Commons pledged to revise the financial arrangements of the country; and were they to set seriously to work, he had no doubt they could reduce the public expenditure from fifty-four to forty-four millions annually. And as to the Government, if it did its duty, it would have no reason to be afraid of a House so constituted. He had himself seen, during the Session, that on many occasions Ministers were trammelled when they themselves brought forward good measures, by threats of boroughmongers, who sent down their six or eight Members to counteract the designs of the Administration. This had occurred in the case of the Beer bill, and several other measures, in which Government was in great danger of being left in a minority. For this he considered there were two causes—1st, That Government was controlled by the boroughmongers; 2ndly, That the people of England sold themselves to some third party, who, in return, "old them to the Government. It had been said, that no honest man could be Minister of this great empire; but he hoped the time had arrived when it was no longer necessary that a Minister should be a rogue. He expressed, perhaps, too favourable an opinion of the House of Commons in saying this; but the fact was, that they who complained of taxation, and the malversation of Ministers, had their remedy in their own hands if they only chose to do their duty. And if hereafter they did not do their duty, they would be undeserving of pity. Adverting to Scotland, he stated, that out of the forty-five returned, there were only five independent Members; but if that country had the semblance of a free representation, instead of five or six, there would be forty independent Members. And he hoped that when the noble Duke at the head of the Government felt himself stung, as he was on all sides, by the Aristocracy, he would decide upon the expediency of giving increased power to the people, from whom he could alone expect support. This principle might be most beneficially extended to Scotland, for what was now the state of her representation where did they find her Members but backing Ministers for whatever they could get from the Treasury, and never regarding measures, but simply the quarter from which they emanated? Again, as to the Irish Members, they were just as bad. Whenever any important question was brought forward, they were either out of the way or backing Ministers. He hoped that the useless employments which now enabled Ministers to swell their majorities, would be discontinued. He trusted that after this day his Majesty and his Majesty's Ministers would only adopt measures calculated to meet the wants of the people. If the Ministers would but do that, they would have an easy line of conduct to pursue—they would no longer be in doubt whether they should be in a majority or minority—a matter on which, upon many occasions in this Session, he had been unable to form an opinion until the event took place. In him that inability had only excited curiosity, but in the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and especially in the leader of the House of Com- mons, a doubt must have given rise to very different feelings. He advised that right hon. Gentleman, for the prevention of the recurrence of such scenes, to throw himself back on the people. He hoped, that the people themselves would demand an account of the stewardship of many of their Members, and especially of the Representatives of counties. He hoped and trusted, too, that all of them would be called to account, and that those who had not well conducted themselves would be visited for their misconduct, so as to be a lesson to those who might succeed them. He expected better times, when many of those difficulties which now surrounded us, and of those gloomy anticipations which now oppressed us, would be removed, to give way to brighter and better prospects. He trusted, too, that the situations of the Ministry would be well filled. There were many good men now among them, but better there might be, and better he hoped to see. For instance, the right hon. Gentleman had had on his single shoulders the whole burthen of parliamentary duty for some time past. He hoped that the different parts of the business of the House would be carried on more effectively than they had been, so that they might never again see a bill three times reported, and then abandoned, whether that bill related to the reform of the laws or to the duties levied by the Customs. For himself he was a friend to the removal of monopolies, which, in his opinion, checked the exertions and wasted the industry of the country. Without such an oppression on the energy of the country, he believed that it was sufficiently able to meet all contingencies—that is, all proper contingencies. Be hoped that in the new Parliament, things would be better for the people, and that they would reap the benefits of the change; and finally, he desired to see that the constituents, judging by the past of the merits of their respective Representatives, would, in future, only intrust their interests to those whose former good conduct had given the best pledge of the propriety of their future behaviour.

had listened with the utmost attention to the recipe given by the hon. Member for securing those large and overwhelming majorities by which he seemed to think the Government ought to be supported. The hon. Member had truly stated, that the Government often laboured under difficulties in bringing forward many of those measures by which the public interest was to be promoted. There were individual interests which were often opposed, and but too powerfully, to such measures. Notwithstanding the exhortations of the hon. Gentleman, he believed it would be found, that constituents were always ready to assert their particular interests, and that as they looked to that interest their Representatives consulted their own by obeying the wishes of those who sent them there. The Government had often, during the present Session, proposed measures, the adoption of which they supposed would promote the public interest—the Sale of Beer bill was one of the instances he might select. Conceiving it desirable to destroy a monopoly in a necessary article of life, the Government had brought forward that measure, but it did happen that there were hon. Gentlemen who, though they declared that they agreed with the principle of the bill, yet met the bill itself with a most decided opposition. Such hon. Gentlemen laid it down as a general principle, that individual interest ought always to be sacrificed to the public welfare; but when the principle was to be applied to themselves, they manifested a strange dislike to its operation. They declared at one time that they would give their unhesitating support to any measure for the public benefit, but then they felt some nicely scrupulous doubts as to what measures were likely to be for the public benefit. This was a practical instance of the difficulty of disregarding those vested rights which in argument were passed over, but which in practice it was often necessary to attend to, as the observance of them would conciliate a powerful body; hon. Gentlemen, with respect to such rights, looked to the poll, and giving their support to vested interests, thus maintained monopolies. The hon. Member, however, forgetting all these things, had taken the opportunity, on the eve of a General Election, of issuing his exhortations to the constituency. He seemed to be relieved from all anxiety as to his own return, and manifested more interest than an individual generally showed at such a period for the event of the General Election. He had no doubt that the hon. Member was actuated by a sincere desire to promote what, in his opinion, was the cause of public interest; and he hoped to see the hon. Member in the next Parlia- ment swelling that large majority by which in his opinion, the Government ought to be supported.

was afraid that the supposition of the hon. Member, as to the power of the electors in this country returning a majority to Parliament, if their Representatives were fairly chosen, was not well founded. Persons, for instance, who were returned by non-resident freemen could not be independent, since they must provide for the conveyance of those electors, whose indigence did not enable them to come to the poll. He believed, indeed, that he might defy the hon. Member to show, that even if the electors did their duty, that House would fairly represent the opinions of the country.

The clause agreed to, and the House resumed,

moved, "that 4,500l. instead of 5,000l. should be the yearly salary of the new Puisne Judges." The reason why he proposed this was, that 5,5002., the present salary of the Puisne Judges, was, with justice, considered extravagant; and since that arrangement was made, an unanimous Address had been presented by that House to the Crown, praying that there should be a reduction of the salaries of officers in every department, according to the increase in the value of money. Considering that increase, he thought that the sum of 4,500l. was quite salary enough for a Judge, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would not think that he had acted unfairly in alluding to the Address of the House, nor in taking it as one of the grounds on which he supported his Motion.

observed, that his Majesty's Government, in considering the salaries of the Judges, thought that the public service would be best consulted by reducing them from 5,500l. to 5,000l. a year. This the Government did spontaneously, and although it was met by the difficulty of having to retrace its steps, yet it was done for the good of the public; and if the Government had thought 4,500l. would have been more advantageous than 5,000l. with reference to the public service, it would have brought forward a proposal to that effect. The public had an interest in the perfect administration of justice, of infinitely greater consequence than the trifling difference of 3,000l. or 4,000l. a year. The dignity and integrity of the Bench was of such vast importance, that such a salary must be given as would induce eminent men to abandon their practice at the Bar. He was of opinion, that 4,500l. a year, considered with reference to the emoluments derived from extensive practice at the Bar, could not be considered more than an adequate inducement to a gentleman to abandon that practice. He doubted much whether such a reduction as the hon. Member proposed, would be productive of good, and, even if that were certain, he should doubt the propriety of the mode now suggested of effecting it: for it was proposed that three new Judges should be appointed, and these three Judges were to have salaries lower than all the others. This would mark the new appointment with a kind of inferiority, which would be productive of bad consequences. The Government proposed, that of all future Judges the salary should be 5,000l. a year; and if there had not been vested interests to contend with, they would have proposed at once to reduce the salaries of the Judges to that amount. Certain vested interests, however, stood in the way, so that Government could not effect that object. He thought, therefore, that if the hon. member for Aberdeen would give notice of his intention to propose a measure next year that would apply to the whole Bench, that would be much better than now to press a motion limited to the three new Judges. On these grounds he could not give his assent to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman.

observed, that if the right hon. Secretary agreed that all the Puisne Judges hereafter were to have but 5,000l. a year, instead of 5,500l., he saw no greater difficulty or delicacy, or mark of inferiority in proposing 4,500l., instead of the other sum, that is, if it be admitted that 4,500l, a-year will be a sufficient remuneration to those gentlemen who shall be appointed Judges. In his opinion it was quite enough, and he should therefore support the Amendment.

hoped that he might be considered impartial in any opinion he might give upon this point; and he could safely say, from a tolerably long experience, that the best men at the Bar, and those most fit for the efficient administration of justice, could not be had for 4,500l. a year. With 5,000l. a year there would be a greater probability of securing efficient Judges than with the sum proposed by the hon. member for Aberdeen, and he was satisfied that 4,500l. would not be sufficient for the purpose. Time was when 3,000l. a year would have been sufficient, and when a Judge could keep his four horses, and go round the circuit with them, on that sum; but that was not now the case. When he went to the Bar all did so; but now things were so changed, that, through motives of economy, post horses were employed, and no Judge now took his own horses on circuit.

After a short conversation, the House divided—For Mr. Hume's Amendment 11; Against it 37—Majority 26.