said, that in moving for a return connected with the Established Church in Ireland, his object was, to avert the evils now impending over that establishment, and to correct whatever abuses there existed under the present system. He had in his possession accounts of two cases of a Distress for tithes levied in Dublin lately—the one was for fifteen, and the other for sixteen years' arrears. The hon. Baronet then moved, than an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that there be laid before the House a copy of the Commission issued on the 4th March last, for an Inquiry into the Established Church in Ireland.—Ordered.

presented Petitions from the Corporation of Glasgow, the Corporations of the Burghs of Dundee, and from the Royal Burghs of Jedburgh and Dumfries, praying for an extension of the Scottish franchise.

cordially supported the prayer of these petitions. He was of opinion, that a similar extension of the franchise in Ireland should be granted. In several of the Irish boroughs, the right of sending Representatives to that House was confined to a sovereign and twelve freemen, a great portion of whom were generally non-residents. Even before the Union, such, in many instances, was the case. He would mention the town of Galway as an example. He also knew three boroughs, of which the whole number of voters did not amount to thirteen, that sent six Members to Parliament. He spoke of matters as they stood before the Union, but at the same time he must remark, that this grievance, in a great measure, still continued.

said, he had to present a Petition from an individual who was a party to the petition which he had formerly introduced to the House, against the return of his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Ewart), for the town of Liverpool. The petitioner stated, that there were 4,500 voters in that town, and that it was perfectly capable of proof, that four-sixths of them were bribed at the late election. The petitioner was, therefore, of opinion, that whatever plan of parliamentary reform his Majesty's Ministers might think proper to bring forward, still the Representation of the town of Liverpool should be taken into serious consideration by that House. The reason why this petition was now offered to the House was, because an idea had gone abroad that his hon. and learned friend intended to vacate his seat, and that no inquiry would, in consequence, be instituted into these proceedings. Such was the ground of the petition, which prayed, that even if the seat were vacated, the House would itself adopt such measures, with reference to the proceedings at the late election, as might seem right and proper.

thought, the petitioner had gone too far in declaring that he could prove bribery and corruption, and then insinuating that his (General Gascoyne's) hon. and learned colleague meant to evade the charge. He trusted that his hon. and learned colleague had been informed of the intention to present this petition.

begged hon. Members, before they proceeded further, to bear in mind, that if this were an election petition, it was too late; and if it were not an election petition, it would be well to inquire how far they would prejudge this case, or enter into a subject which must, by the law of the land, be examined before a committee.

gladly availed himself of the opportunity afforded him by his hon. friend, to answer the first statement of the petition. He could only say, that the shadow of such an idea as the acceptance of the Chiltern Hundreds had never crossed his mind: it would be the dereliction, not only of individual duty, but of public duty also, since public justice must necessarily suffer, if he, who felt himself completely innocent, basely acquiesced in the charge of guilt. If consciously to do nothing; wrong, to sanction nothing wrong, or to wish it,—if this constituted innocence, then was he most truly and completely innocent. There was one portion of the petition, for a knowledge of which he had been indebted to the courtesy of his hon. friend, which suggested some extension of the franchise at Liverpool. He (Mr. Ewart) was decidedly of opinion, that those who contributed to extend the wealth and to bear the burthens of a vast community like Liverpool, ought to participate in the benefits to be found in that community; and that they ought, as far as Parliament thought fit, to be admitted to the privilege of voting. If there was one sentiment which could add to his consciousness of rectitude, it was the confidence he felt, that he came in for the borough of Liverpool with the strongest support from the most respectable classes of society, and also with the enthusiastic acclamations of the people. Even this, however, was not to be compared with his own deep consciousness of rectitude, to which extraneous circumstances could add little, and of which no circumstances whatever could deprive him.

expressed his opinion, that this was not an election petition. The petitioner, anticipating the possibility of the petition which he (Mr. Robinson) had formerly presented not being inquired into, in consequence of the parties not entering into recognizances, or from some other cause, called on the House to prosecute the matter themselves, should his apprehension prove well-founded. Now he would ask, whether there was anything irregular or informal in that? With respect to what had fallen from the gallant General, he could assure him, that he never presented a petition of a personal nature without apprising the individual to whom it related of the fact.

must do his hon. friend the justice to say, that he had communicated his intention to him. He begged leave to repeat, that he never entertained the shadow of an idea of taking the Chiltern Hundreds.

presented a Petition, very numerously signed, from the inhabitants of Bristol, on the subject of West-Indian Slavery. He thought it necessary he should explain the cause which gave rise to the petition. Some time since, a numerous meeting of the inhabitants of Bristol,—called by public advertisement, —took place at Bristol, to consider the state of slavery in the West Indies, with a view of petitioning Parliament for its speedy abolition. Much discussion took place, with considerable heat on both sides. To allay this irritation, it was agreed that certain Resolutions should be embodied in a petition, which might satisfy both parties. A petition so signed was now in course of signature, and would, as he understood, be presented to the House. If it should be intrusted to him, the hon. Gentleman said, he would endeavour to behave with strict impartiality to both parties. In the mean time he was requested to present the petition which he held in his hand, most respectably signed by 2,500 persons, who expressed their opinion on this important subject. He was informed that both these petitions left the question of compensation to the justice and wisdom of Parliament. He (Mr. Davis) regretted that so much warmth should be brought to the discussion of a question which required the coolest discretion and judgment. He had no hesitation in allowing, that the greatest part of those persons who had petitioned the House for emancipation, had been influenced by the most praiseworthy, and even by the most generous motives; but he regretted, that these motives had not been tempered with more political discretion: on the other hand, he deeply regretted that the planters had not been compelled —for they might be compelled through their interests—to act fully up-to the resolutions of the House. He did not intend to say more on the importance of the West Indies to the mother country, than that they paid a revenue of more than 5,000,000l.; that they received manufactures from England to more than the same amount. They wore a great nursery for our seamen, and employed 260,000 tons of our shipping. No government, of whatever party, would be so unwise as to sacrifice these great advantages to an abstract principle, unless that principle was founded in justice and expediency, and unless there was no other mode of obtaining the wished-for result. In that case, a great, religious, and moral country, like England, ought to make sacrifices, nay, the greatest sacrifices, for the sake of such a principle. But if it could be proved that by delay, assisted by religious education, the slave could be better prepared for that freedom which all parties were anxious he should possess, and that by this delay the stumbling-block in the way of sudden emancipation, namely compen- sation, could be got rid of, few persons would doubt which course ought to be pursued, especially if the House were of opinion with him, that sudden emancipation might lead to all the horrors of St. Domingo, and be as injurious to the slave for whose benefit it was asked, as for the planter, who would by it be involved in irretrievable ruin. He (Mr. Davis) had given a most conscientious and unbiassed opinion on this great question; for if he were asked on which side his advocacy would most benefit his political interest, he really could not answer. Perhaps what he had said would not please either party. He concluded by stating, that the West India colonies were at present in the most abject state of distress—that they required all the fostering aid of the Government at home, and he trusted that this aid would be afforded in the next Session of Parliament.

trusted, the House would allow him to make a few observations on the subject, which was deeply interesting to his constituents. He coincided most heartily in the prayer of the petition, and in the sentiments expressed in it. Several hon. Gentlemen, when a petition of this description was presented from Liverpool a few nights ago, agreed in the opinion, that a temperate compensation should be made to the West-India proprietors. One learned Member, in particular, argued much in favour of the principle of compensation, which ought to be fairly treated. He did not mean to say, that all the expectations of the West Indies were to be realised; but the principle of compensation should be admitted in justice to the West-India proprietors. Representing the city of Bristol, whose inhabitants were deeply interested in this question, he thought it his duty to give his most cordial support to the hon. and learned member for Weymouth, and every other hon. Member who should assis' in carrying into effect what he believed to be the wish of the people of this country generally, and the expressed wish of the House-—the abolition of negro slavery. The principle of compensation being once fairly admitted, he should, as a West-India proprietor, and as a member for Bristol, be most happy to give his cordial support to every measure that could promote the emancipation of the slaves, and further the wishes of the people. And in case that the period at which the abolition of slavery might take place should be more distant than some hon. Members expected, he should be happy to give his most cordial support to any measure which might tend to advance the period at which so desirable an object could be obtained. He was as anxious to attain that object as any of the hon. Gentlemen who were the warmest advocates for the complete abolition. He was a Member of the House fifteen years before, when the Slave Registry Act was passed, he had given his support to that measure, and had always been happy in reflecting; that he did so.

wished to make a very few observations on what had fallen from hon. Gentlemen on this subject. When the House was told, that this question must stand, not on justice, but expediency, he must say that he could not subscribe to such a doctrine. The House was told, too, that, the slaves should be better educated, in order that they might be the fitter prepared for emancipation. But he would ask the House to consult any authority, to read the public papers, and then hon. Members would be convinced that there was no disposition in the masters to prepare for the abolition of slavery, by educating their slaves. He, therefore, was not disposed, looking" to what had been already done in the West Indies, to place much confidence in the planters; and if the: Government did not take some steps to promote the amelioration of the condition of slaves, it would lose the confidence which he, in common with the great mass of the community, was disposed to place in his Majesty's Ministers.

presented a Petition from the parish of Cloudegad, in the county of Clare, with reference to tithes and church-rates. These rates were considered to be one of the principal causes of the disturbances in England—and innumerable petitions were presented from its various districts, complaining of them. The English petitions were all from Protestants; and he certainly thought, that petitions complaining of the exaction of church-rates and tithes, for the support of Protestant churches and parsons, coming from the Catholics of Ireland, should meet with attention. The petitioners stated, that in their parish there was no Protestant church, no Protestant clergyman, and no Protestant inhabitants, and that, not with standing, tithes and church-rates were as regularly enforced as if the whole parish was composed of Protestants.

reminded the hon. Member that tithes were paid exclusively by the land, and if the Church did not receive them, a sum equal to them would go to the landlord, and the people would not be benefited by the abolition of tithes.

could not allow the observation to pass, that the landlord was the only person affected by the tithe-system, without notice. The manner in which the tithes were collected was productive of more evil than the hon. Member appeared to be aware of. No kind of tax was so productive of inconvenience to individuals, and the community generally, as tithes and the system of levying them; and he, therefore, hoped that some measure would be adopted, without delay, to effect a beneficial alteration in the system.

rose to present a Petition from the untried prisoners confined in the gaol of Newgate, in Dublin. They complained that they had been for a long period immured in the dungeons of that gaol, and that they had not an opportunity of being tried, in consequence of the absence of the Recorder, who was attending his parliamentary duties in that House. He was bound to consider the petitioners innocent until they were found guilty, according to law, and he conceived that they had just reason to complain of this hardship. The petitioners were in number ninety-five, who had been confined on various charges, and they could not obtain a trial in consequence of the circumstance which he had stated; they were thus kept, in prison, because the Recorder of Dublin, who ought to be at his post to try them, was a Member of that House. He had also heard a complaint from a constituent of the learned Gentleman, who was now in London, and who said, that he could not get the Recorder to attend to his duty in Parliament, as he had gone back to Dublin to attend his duties as Recorder. That fact proved that the duties of the two offices were quite incompatible. These unfortunate prisoners were confined in dungeons, and could not obtain a trial because the learned Recorder said, that he must attend his duties here—and when a respectable constituent of his, a gentleman connected with the silk-trade, and who was anxious to have something done in Parliament for the employment of the people, called upon him here to bring; the question before Parliament, "oh!" quoth the Recorder, "I can't go to the House when that question comes on, for I must return to Dublin to discharge the prisoners untried an Newgate gaol." Was there not reason then for the petitioners to seek for redress at the bar of that House? Was it not hard that many of them who might be innocent should be immured at this season, when every man wished to be at home with his family? It was an exceedingly great hardship upon them. One gentleman who had signed this petition, and for whose respectability he could vouch, Mr. A. M'Donnell, stated, that he was confined in Newgate, on a charge of assault—that he had been confined for a length of time, and that he could not obtain a trial in consequence of the absence of the Recorder. He (Mr. M'Donnell), also alleged that certain abuses existed in connection with the gaol of Newgate, which, if the allegations were true, should be remedied. He stated, that on one night he sent for the Protestant chaplain attached to the gaol, intimating, which was the case, that, he was seriously ill, that it was a life and death case, and wanted his assistance, and that the chaplain would not come, because it was past ten o'clock; and he also alleged, that the medical men connected with the gaol refused to attend him that evening too, on the pretence that they had regular hours for attendance, and that time was not included in them. The incompatibility of the two offices of Recorder and Member of Parliament was so obvious, that some remedy should be applied to the evil in this instance. Last Session he understood that the Legislature had passed a law rendering the situation of Member of Parliament and Master in Chancery incompatible; that was the case of Mr. Ellis, who was allowed to choose between the two offices. He thought, that the same rule should be applied in this instance. There was a grant of Parliament in addition to what was allowed by the Corporation of Dublin, to the Recorder of that city; he believed it was about 500l. or 600l., and he now gave notice, that whenever that vote came before the House, he would move, that it be withheld until the Recorder of Dublin made his selection between the office of Recorder and that of Member of that House. He repeated, that the two offices were perfectly incompatible, for even with a limited portion of ubiquity—it was impossible that the learned Gentleman could discharge the duties of both properly and efficiently.

remarked upon the unfairness of making such an attack in the absence of the Recorder, who was, he was certain, able to clear himself from any imputations which the petitioners or the hon. Gentleman might cast upon him. He wished to know from the hon. Member, whether he was certain that the discharge of the prisoners in question was cot owing to other circumstances besides the absence of the Recorder. This he knew, that previous to the Recorder coming over here, he had tried all the prisoners who were then ready for trial, to the perfect satisfaction of the public. He was also desirous to ascertain from the hon. Gentleman whether he had acquainted the Recorder with the charges which were preferred against him in this petition, previous to his presentation of it?

said, that one of the allegations of the petitioners was, that many of them had been confined in prison for thirty and forty days—a term too long for those who were innocent, and even the guilty had a right to be brought to trial. These men would not, surely, have been so long confined had the Recorder been at his post. He did not want to throw any imputations on the Recorder. It was manifestly impossible for him to communicate the contents of this petition to the Recorder, for he had received it since the departure of that learned Gentleman for Dublin. He must repeat, that the two offices were quite incompatible, if the learned Gentleman possessed a limited extent of ubiquity.

apprehended, that the hon. member for Clare laboured under some misapprehension or mistake in this instance, with regard to the duties of a Recorder. The hon. Gentleman had contended that the office of Recorder and that of Member of Parliament were incompatible—upon that point he should not now enter, but the hon. Member derived his proof from the fact, that some prisoners were lying over for trial in New gate gaol, in Dublin. He believed it "was the case in Dublin, as in London, that certain Sessions were held at certain periods of the year, at which the Recorder attended as the assessor of the Corporation, and at which the prisoners ready for trial were put on their trial accordingly. If the Recorder attended regularly at these Sessions, he did not think that the administration of justice suffered from his being- a Member of that House. He doubted whether any injustice were done to the prisoners if they were tried at the first Sessions after their commitment, provided they were ready for trial. That appeared to him the true state of the case, and if his memory served him right, the Sessions were held in Dublin as here, at stated periods in the year.

conceived that this was a most important question indeed. The duties of the two offices were perfectly incompatible, and when the subject was mentioned, the right hon. Baronet, who was lately Minister of Justice, rose to find excuses for it. If the Recorder attended to his duty in Dublin, it was impossible that he could attend to his duty in that House. It was the duty of a Member of Parliament always to be in his place, and how could the Recorder of Dublin fulfill that duty? He wondered that his Majesty's late Government did not take up this question. He was surprised that the right hon. Baronet below him, the late Home Secretary, did not prevent this judicial officer from exercising functions so completely incompatible. He trusted that the present Government would direct their attention to the subject. At all events it was the duty of the House, when the Estimate came to be voted which included the grant for the Recorder of Dublin, to withhold it until he had made his selection between the situation of Recorder and Member of that House, the respective duties of which were so utterly incompatible.

was prepared to answer any charges which could be properly brought against the late Administration; but he was not prepared to reply to all the charges which the most utter ignorance of the law and constitution of the country might prefer against it. Nobody could have made such a charge unless he were more utterly ignorant than a gentleman holding the situation of the hon. Member ought to be. He would tell the hon. Member that no principle of the constitution was better established, than that the persons holding judicial situations ought to be independent of the Crown. The Recorder of Dublin was completely independent of his Majesty's Government, and he knew of no law to disqualify the Recorder from sitting in Parliament, if the electors of Dublin chose to send him to that House. The hon. Member seemed to think that the Minister for the Home Department could make the Recorder give up his situation, or resign his seat; but that Minister had no power to remove any Judge from his office. He had no more power to make the Recorder of Dublin relinquish his office than he had to make the hon. member for Middlesex relinquish his seat in Parliament. He would not enter into the question, whether or not the office of Recorder was compatible with the duties of a Member of Parliament. If the House thought the two situations were not compatible, it was for the House to alter the law, but on that he would give no opinion. He only wished to correct the misconception of the hon. Gentleman, and state that he supposed, though; he did not recollect, that the custom of Dublin was like that of London, where Sessions were held at stated periods. As for the House withholding the salary now given to the Recorder, that was not under consideration; and when that part of the question came before the House in voting the Irish Estimates, the hon. member for Middlesex might take the opportunity of bringing it to an issue.

explained, that the Recorder of Dublin held Sessions more frequently than they were held in London. In Dublin, he believed, the Sessions were held every fortnight. He was of opinion that there was no want of attention shown by the proper authorities to the state of the several gaols in Ireland. He knew that any letter from any prisoners to the Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, was sure to meet attention from that officer; though he believed that trials had been postponed longer than usual, in consequence of the absence of the Recorder.

wished to set the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) right as to one fact. In Ireland there are no stated periods for the sitting of the Recorder. It altogether depended on his will, and this was generally guided by the state of the calendar; and if it should not please the Recorder to sit for a considerable time, or it he was absent attending his parliamentary duties, the unfortunate citizens of Dublin were mulcted in order to support the increased number of prisoners. Now, the keeping persons in prison who were supplied by the common funds, was an injury to England as well as Ireland. He held in his hand a document, giving an account of 550 English having been relieved in Dublin, 440 of whom were sent home to their own country. By keeping people in prison, the means were diminished for relieving distress. There was another circumstance, which he conceived rendered the presence of the Recorder at. all times absolutely necessary. It was his duty to receive bail in the absence of the Judges of the land. This duty could be delegated to no other person. The Courts of Dublin were different from those of London— there they were empowered to issue Writs, on oath, for the recovery of debts, from the sum of 40s. to 60,000l. In a late case, a merchant of the greatest respectability, and of a most ancient family, was, on the oath of a common prostitute, obliged to find bail to the enormous amount of 120,000l. Had the Judges been on circuit, and the Recorder attending his parliamentary duties, that gentleman would have been obliged to remain in prison, as none but these officers were empowered to receive his bail.

wished again to declare, that he had not intended to canvass the question, whether the Recorder should sit in Parliament or not. He had only wished to state, that the prisoners were detained by the rules of the law, and not by the absence of the Recorder.

said, that he did not expect that the right hon. Baronet would take up the question in the manner he had done, making an attack on him in not a very courteous and civil tone. He wished the right hon. Baronet to understand, he was not one of those men who pretended to be acquainted with every thing, nor did he say that he was not, like other men, liable to mistakes; but he was one of those men who never palliated nor protected any abuse, like the late Minister of Justice. He did not accuse Ministers; he only put a case, and said, if the late Ministers had not done so, he hoped the new Ministers would. They had only been fourteen days in office, and in that time they had not power to remedy all abuses. The right hon. Baronet, however, seemed disposed to justify his own conduct by a reference to the conduct of his successors. [Sir R. Peel intimated that he had done no such thing.] The language of the right hon. Gentleman implied that. He said, that it was impossible for the Government to remedy the abuse that was complained of. Why, he wanted to know, was he accused of ignorance? Because the right hon. Baronet supposed that he (Mr. Hume) thought that a Minister could displace a Judge. That was not what he said. The hon. Member opposite had made a statement, and he understood the right hon. Baronet had risen to palliate what he considered an abuse. In support of his own opinions he would refer the right hon. Baronet to his own relative, who was lately the opponent at the hustings of the learned Recorder, and was, he understood, at those very hustings. Did not the right hon. Gentleman to whom he alluded declare openly, that the two situations ought not to be held by the same person? so that if this was ignorance, he shared his ignorance with the protegees of the right hon. Bart. He thought the language he had used uncalled for, and the accusation of gross ignorance as ill-timed as it was unfounded.

was obliged to the hon. Member for the lecture, which he had read to him about the use of courteous and civil terms. He had no interest or motive whatever to palliate what the hon. Member called an abuse. He had no interest in the question, and he had declared, that he would give no opinion on the compatibility of the two situations. The hon. Member condemned the Ministers for not having prevented the union of the two situations in the same person— an argument he could only have used from supposing that the Recorder held his office under the Crown.

said, that the present Recorder of Dublin had performed the duties of his station with attention and impartiality, and he thought the charge brought against him might have been better made in his presence, or, at least, he should have had some notice of it.

said, he was wrongfully accused by the hon. member for Longford for assailing the learned Recorder in his absence. He had never uttered a word of accusation against him; all he had done was, to repeat the statements of the petitioners, for which he was in no way answerable; and as to giving the learned Gentleman notice, that would have been very difficult, as he was not in the way to receive it. The very complaint against him was, that he was not present where he ought to be, to perform his duties; but if he had been here when he was at home—then he might have received the notice. The fact was, he was not to be found anywhere. When asked for in Dublin, he was on the stage for London; and inquired after in London, was perhaps, in a steam-packet bound for Ireland. He hoped the hon. Member for Longford would withdraw his charge against him, of having assailed the learned Gentleman in his absence.

moved the third reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.

would take that opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade; if there were any truth in the report he had heard, of its being the intention of Government to reduce the duties on barilla. He had heard that the Officers of the Customs had received orders to admit foreign barilla at a rate of duty much below that ordered by the law. The House would recollect, that this subject had formerly been under discussion, and that the duty had been reduced from 11l. to 8l. 8s. The latter duty had been fixed by the law, and those who were engaged in this branch of business depended on the provisions of the law being preserved. They were thrown into consternation by the rumoured change. He wished, therefore, to learn of the right hon. Gentleman, if the report were true, and he hoped to hear that it was incorrect, and that the Government had no such intention.

was sorry to say, that the answer he had given to the question of the hon. Baronet was not likely to give him satisfaction, or to accord with his views. The Government meant to propose a bill to the House for reducing the import duties on barilla to 1l. 10s., and, in the meantime, they had given orders that barilla should be admitted on payment of that duty, the importer giving a bond to pay the difference between that and any higher duty that might be imposed by Parliament. He had read over the negotiation, which had been carried on for some time during last year, with the kelp-manufacturers, and he understood that they were ready to admit barilla at such a rate of duty as he had proposed. He should be ready to justify the conduct of the Government when he brought in the bill, but the House would remember, that a discussion took place on the subject last Session, and it was agreed that the duty on barilla should be reduced. The present Ministers only followed the course sketched out for them by their predecessors. He had at the time concurred in the good reasons then assigned for this reduction, and he concurred in the opinions of those who thought that no injury would be inflicted by the abolition of the duty. He thought, too, that the House had consented to the principle, that the raw materials which entered into some of our most important manufactures should not be subject to any heavy duties. Barilla was much employed in manufactures; its use was extending, and, therefore, it appeared to the present Government, as to the late Government, that the duties on it ought to be reduced.

admitted, that it was a correct assertion of the right hon. Gentleman, that it was the intention of his Majesty's late Ministers to propose to Parliament a reduction of the duties on barilla. A bill had even been prepared for that purpose; and in the bill, he was free to confess that, there had been introduced a provision something like the alteration now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. He begged, however, to say most distinctly, that, as Parliament were sitting at the time the alteration was proposed to be. made, it would not have been attempted without the authority and consent of Parliament. He said thus much with reference to the case, not by way of censure, but as a warning to the members of his Majesty's Government for the future not to meddle with sources of taxation under the immediate control of the House. He must say, indeed, that, unless the right hon. Gentleman was able to state some better reason for the course he had adopted than any they had yet heard, there was no immediate justification for the haste with which he had acted, or for the manner in which the duty had been removed. Parliament had always been applied to in cases of this kind, when it happened to be sitting at the time the alteration was determined on. He recollected, indeed, one case in which the Government had taken it on itself to adopt a similar course to that of the right hon. Gentleman, and that was with relation to Mr. Huskisson's plans on the subject of the Silk-trade; but Parliament was not sitting, and although its sanction had been obtained immediately afterwards, upon a discussion in which the proposal for the reduction of the duties was consented to, yet the course had been found so inconvenient, it was not afterwards resorted to. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by declaring that he was favorable to the reduction, and so were the members of the late Government; but he thought the course adopted in making the alteration, one which should not have been made use of while Parliament was sitting, and, as far as he could see, unoccupied with any business of importance, which would have delayed an application to it.

said, he could not allow the opportunity to pass, without also expressing his objection to the course adopted by the right hon. Gentleman. He protested against it as unjust, and calculated to produce mischief. This was the season at which the merchants who dealt in barilla were in the habit of importing the quantity they required; and the right hon. Gentleman informed them, that those who took out their barilla under the new regulations were to give a bond for the payment of duty, in the event of its being required, if Parliament refused to sanction the reduction made by the Treasury. Now, he was at liberty to argue, that this assent would be refused. He had aright, for argument sake, to assume it; and, what, then, would be the consequence of this refusal, to those who took the barilla out for general consumption and sold it to the trade, when they were afterwards called on to make good the duty on their bond? This was one only of many inconveniences which would result from the right hon. Gentleman's interference in the present instance with a duty levied under the sanction of that House.

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Robinson) might have found a very sufficient justification for the course pursued by his Majesty's Government in the observations which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite. That right hon. Gentleman had stated, that his Majesty's late Government were themselves prepared to bring in a bill for the purpose of reducing the duties. That intention had been, indeed, formally announced in the last Session of Parliament; and although not carried into effect, the confusion and the indecision which it introduced into every branch of the trade had been so extremely prejudicial, that many of the dealers, whose future condition the hon. Member so much pitied, were already quite ruined. As to the method by which the Government had effected the alteration, they had merely followed the precedents on former occasions of the same description, and he could produce ten cases of the adoption of a similar course, and full five of them, too, without, the intervening consent of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman, who had shown so much touchiness on the subject, mentioned the case of the silk-duties; but there was also the precedent of the alteration of the sugar-duties, on which occasion the right hon. Gentleman (the then Chancellor of the Exchequer) sent an order to the Custom House on the 1st of July, to take the duty according to the new scale, before the House gave its consent to the change.

The right hon. Gentleman seems to forget that the House had passed a Resolution sanctioning that scale.

said, that at all events, there were precedents for the course adopted, and he thought that it could not be denominated in the slightest degree unconstitutional, while it must be admitted, to be productive of immediate advantage.

also protested against the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman as in the highest degree dangerous and injurious, and he hoped, for the sake of the kelp-makers of this country, that the determination to alter the duty would undergo some reconsideration. He was convinced that if the kelp-manufacturers of our own shores were properly encouraged, that barilla would speedily become one of the staples of the country. The manufacturers viewed, however, with the greatest alarm, the intended alteration of the duties, and he feared, if it was carried into effect, that the ruin of the home manufacturer must be the inevitable consequence.

was quite satisfied, that the argument of his hon. friend, the member for Newcastle, would not bear the test of examination. The adoption of any system like that which he alluded to for the encouragement of trade, would be most pernicious, and would completely fail to attain the object aimed at. What would be the effect of thus encouraging the manufacture of British barilla, by levying so heavy an impost on a foreign alkali? It would be this—to fix an additional cost on the production of every article, in the manufacture of which alkali is used; it would be to compel the manufacturer to resort to a British article, for which he would have to pay from fifty to 100 per cent, more than what he would procure a foreign article of the same quality for. His hon. friend would support the manufacture of alkali here by the imposition of an immense duty on foreign barilla. It was perfectly clear that the English manufacturer never could compete with the foreigner in the production of this commodity; and every attempt to encourage the manufacture of an article at home, by the imposition of an enormous duty on the foreign article, only inflicted a most serious injury on other manufactures in which it is used. He was surprised that any hon. Member, so conversant with trade as his hon. friend, should talk of imposing a protecting duty on an article of produce, or on a raw material, for the encouragement of Our manufactures. Such a system of trade would cause distress, and would ruin many of the important establishments. He admitted that, to a particular class of manufacturers the duty in question might be beneficial; but at a serious loss to the community. It was not the interest of the country to encourage the production of an article which could be produced at so much less cost elsewhere; for it was obvious, that the adoption of such a line of policy must operate as a heavy tax on some of our most important manufactures; the demand for which, and in proportion, the demand for the labour necessary to produce them, must be in the same ratio decreased, to the great injury of that class of manufacturing labourers engaged in this branch of our trade. Mr. Huskisson Stated, on the production of his schedule of duties, that it was the intention of the Government that there should be no higher protecting duty than thirty per cent. But what was even that rate of protecting duty but a tax to the amount of thirty per cent on the consumer, on all articles on which it is placed? But, in the present instance, this protecting duty amounted to more than 100 per cent. To talk, therefore, of encouraging a manufacture under such circumstances appeared monstrous: and it was a matter of surprise to him, that his hon. friend should be led away by such fallacious reasoning, the result of which, upon his own argument and shewing, if pushed to the utmost extent, would overlay and destroy the whole productive industry of the country. He would add, that if the House adopted such a system of encouragement for manufactures, it would have infinitely more complaints of distress than at present.

spoke against the measure adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, and observed, that although the late Government did pursue the same course with respect to the silk-trade, they never had recourse to it afterwards. No such proceeding had been adopted whilst the right hon. member for Harwich (Mr. Herries) or Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald filled the office of President of the Board of Trade. Those Gentlemen always set their faces against the practice, from a consideration of the inconvenience which had resulted from it in the case quoted by the right hon. Gentleman. That right hon. Gentleman ought to remember, that this was a protecting duty, and that he could not abrogate it without exposing the manufacturer to great inconvenience. He regretted, indeed, that the Government had followed the only bad precedent it could find in the present instance.

said, the five instances alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, even if they had been found to prove that there were precedents for the measure, formed no justification in his mind for an act of gross usurpation of the powers of Parliament by any Government, and more particularly by the members of a Government scarcely yet fully installed in the offices to which they were appointed. In his opinion, it was not for the members of a Government of that kind to take on themselves the responsibility of interfering with the exercise of one of the most important privileges of Parliament—the re- gulation of a great branch of commercial taxation. It was for Parliament, and not for the Government, to judge of the fitness of the reduction of the duties. The right hon. Gentleman, it was true, said, that it was determined to submit the subject to Parliament, and that bonds were to be taken for the duties; but he thought that the observations of the member for Newcastle (Sir M. Ridley), with respect to the feelings and views of the barilla manufacturers of this country, would show how, unwise and impolitic had been the haste: exercised on the occasion, and that Parliament were not so fully prepared to sanction the alteration as the right hon. Gentleman imagined. Parliament justly and wisely viewed with jealousy any attempt on the part of the Executive to interfere with any branch of that taxation which was only to be removed or imposed by its full public assent.

said, he should endeavour to give a short answer to the somewhat lengthy question of the hon. Member for Corfe Castle. It was quite true that Mr. Gregory had been removed from the office he held under the late Government, be- cause it was the opinion of the present Ministers that the removal was necessary for the public service, and they had, therefore, taken upon themselves the full responsibility which attached to it. He agreed with the hon. Member, that it was not usual to remove gentlemen placed in the situation of Under Secretary, and he also agreed with him, that one of the reasons for not removing" them was because they were not considered open to political partialities; but the existence of political partiality in the present case was precisely the reason why the removal had taken place.

approved highly of the conduct of the Ministers on this occasion, and declared, it was absolutely necessary for the good government of Ireland that the office of the Under Secretary of State, which had long been a nest of partiality and party spirit, should be thoroughly cleared.

said, that as it was not probable he should have another opportunity for some weeks to come, to attract the attention of the House to what he considered an important subject, he felt it necessary to make a few observations on the recent appointments and changes in Ireland. He believed that all men were agreed on the question of the fitness of the persons who were appointed to fill these offices, and he was confident, indeed, that the learned Gentleman raised to the bench of the Common Pleas, would, in a very brief space of time, satisfy all of the propriety of his elevation. It was not so much to the men who were placed in the new situations, as to the manner in which they were so placed, that the objections were taken; and he believed he spoke the feelings of the people of Ireland when he said, that the appointment of (Lord Plunkett) to the head of the Court of Chancery had excited the utmost dissatisfaction and astonishment. On a former occasion, he (Mr. Dawson) had asked a question of the noble Lord (Althorp) with respect to that appointment, and the noble Lord seemed to know very little about it. He had, however, since learnt, that Lord Plunkett had been selected for the appointment because the Government had occasion for a political Judge. Now, in his humble opinion, Ire- land had had enough of political Judges; and if the principle of selecting Judges for their politics was once to be entertained, the House would soon be visited by such a flight from the four Courts that it would soon become tired of the company of Irish barristers. It was now four years since Sir Anthony Hart had been appointed Lord Chancellor of Ireland, purely because it was agreed by all parties that Ireland required a Judge who was not mixed up with politics; and they were now told, that it was necessary to displace him for a Judge who was mixed up with politics, and whose appointment was looked on by all parties, Catholic as well as Protestant, with equal dread and consternation. It was, indeed, notorious, that Lord Plunkett was not popular with the Catholics, and was looked on with distrust by all the Protestants. They were told, however, in this country, that the noble Lord's appointment was the more worthy of approbation, because he must be ranked among the most strenuous supporters of the Established Church. But it was well known to every body in Ireland, that Lord Plunkett was bred a Dissenter, and that he is not by any means likely to be extremely zealous in favour of the Church. The measure had been recommended by the assertion, that there was to be a saving of 2,000l. a year in the future salary of the Lord Chancellor. All this sounded well in words, but how did it correspond with the conduct of Ministers in that House? Some ten days ago, the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, moved for a Select Committee of that House, to report on the amount which it considered fitting to be given to the Ministers of the Crown, because they thought that course would be more grateful to the country, and prove more beneficial to the public service, than if they were to make the reductions themselves; but in this case, where the salary of a great law-officer and a member of the other House, was concerned, they seemed to have no hesitation in fixing the amount of his salary themselves. There was an inconsistency in this not a little remarkable, and even ridiculous. It appeared, indeed, as if Ministers merely intended to throw a tub to the whale, for the gratification of the popular feeling of the moment; but that, in any case where a point of patronage was concerned, they could come to a decisive conclusion at once. Either Ministers had not turned their attention to the question of economy, notwithstanding all their promises—or they did not see their way clearly to a performance of them. At all events, he was sure that such proceedings would not satisfy the country. He now came to another point—the retirement of the Chief Baron of the Exchequer in Ireland. They were told, that the Chief Baron had expressed a strong desire to retire, and that twenty-five years service gave him a title to demand it. Now, when he (Mr. Dawson) was connected with the Government, he knew that nothing was then heard of the disposition of the Chief Baron to retire —nothing of his indisposition to continue to preside on the Bench; and, indeed, he might say, that the learned Judge was considered to be as fit for the efficient performance of his duties as any other in the country; but now they were all on a sudden told, that the Chief Baron was to retire, and to be bribed with a peerage for his complaisance. He did not wish to cast any imputation on the learned Chief Baron, but he wished the House to recollect how that learned Judge was situated with respect to some of the Members of the late Administration. In 1823, his hon. friend, the member for Limerick, now a member of the Government, made a motion in the House which, if it had succeeded, would have led to the impeachment of the Chief Baron. He had voted against the motion of his hon. friend at the time it was brought forward; but was it recollected by some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, and did they recollect the position it. placed them in with regard to the Judge? Did they remember what were the charges they brought forward against, the chief Baron, and supported by their deliberate vote in that House? Did they remember what they had urged against the Judge whom they now advised their Sovereign to raise to the peerage as a reward for his resigning his seat at the time they required it? In the year 1823 some of the hon. persons who gave this advice brought forward a motion against the Chief Baron O'Grady, charging him with taking unnecessary and illegal fees in his Court of the Exchequer; a charge which, if entertained by the House, could have had no other effect than that of subjecting him to impeachment. The motion was lost, and the Chief Baron escaped the consequences of its being carried—he (Mr. Dawson) having, as he observed before, voted against the accusation. But what was the course adopted by the supporters of the motion? They —the moment they obtained power—rewarded with a Peerage the man whom they had proclaimed by their vote an extortioner of illegal fees. And who were the persons who composed the minority to which he alluded? Who were the Chief Baron's accusers? Why, the very first name on the list he found to be that of. Henry Brougham, now Lord High Chancellor of England and Keeper of the King's conscience—the very person whose duty it became, as a public officer, to affix the Seal to the Patent of Peerage of the Chief Baron; and whose duty it became also, as Keeper of the Royal Conscience, to advise his Sovereign with truth and sincerity on his sense of the fitness of the person who was to receive such a dignity at his hands. The next name he found in the minority was that of the member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. W. Wynn), who was also one of his Majesty's Cabinet Ministers, bound to advise him on this subject. Then there were among others the names of the hon. member for Limerick (Mr. S. Rice), and that of the hon. member for Dungarvon (Mr. Lamb), both of them connected with the Government, and one of them (Mr. Lamb) the Under Secretary for the Home Department—an office through which the patent of peerage must pass, and in which the hon. Member would have, of course, the opportunity of pointing out to his brother, Lord Melbourne, the unfitness, in his opinion, of the Chief Baron, for the honour to which he was destined.^* These, however, were the men, who, at this particular time, thought the Chief Baron no longer disqualified for the honours of the peerage; and who even recommended to their Sovereign, that the person whom they had once stigmatized by their vote, should be now bribed with a peerage to quit the Bench, and rewarded also for his compliance with 3,600l. a-year saddled on the country as his pension. He regretted the necessity of alluding to these matters at this moment, and of troubling the House, but he thought it of great importance, that the public should estimate properly the value of the professions of the Ministry, and that they should be informed of the degree

^*See Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, New Series, Vol. viii. p. 1511.

of respect with which a Whig Government regarded the honour of the peerage, and of the regard which they really paid to their promises of economy and retrenchment.

rose, to express his surprise that the right hon. Gentleman should have ripped up accusations—exploded accusations—of ten years' standing, in order to make a point against the Government, without giving him (Colonel O'Grady) any notice of his intention. Had the right hon. Gentleman done so, he should have been prepared to prove, that those who brought forward those charges against his father acquitted him of any criminality, and that the public were equally satisfied of his innocence. With respect to the imputation of a bribe to leave the Bench, he must say, that he never expected to be the inheritor of honours acquired in that manner. He knew, indeed, that it never would be his lot. The character of his father placed him above such an imputation, and he could say with confidence, that if he retired, and he was not yet convinced that it was his father's intention to retire, his retirement would take place without any regard to the official changes which would ensue in consequence of his doing so. The Chief Baron had been frequently offered permission to retire; and if, after twenty-five years service, he now accepted the offer, he was sure it was without the shadow of an imputation of impropriety. He trusted the House would pardon the time he had occupied in giving vent to the feelings which had been roused on this occasion; but he could not avoid expressing his surprise, that he had not received any intimation of this renewal of the charges against the Chief Baron.

began, by complaining that the right hon. Gentleman had taken the opportunity of making an attack on the Government, at a time when the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) was unavoidably absent, from a domestic calamity; and his other noble friend (Lord Palmerston) was also absent, from the pressure of the most urgent public business. The defence of the measures of the Government had, therefore, fallen on him (Sir J. Graham), one of its most unworthy members; and he must take leave to trouble the House with a very few observations on the extraordinary attack which the right hon. Gentleman had made on the whole of the conduct of Government, with respect to the legal appointments. The Government to which he had the honour to belong, was on its trial before the country. It placed its title to the support of the people, through whom it hoped to maintain its power, on three great principles— a determination to produce a thorough reform in the Commons' House of Parliament; a desire to make all practicable reduction in the public burthens, and to secure the most rigid economy; and lastly, on a zealous endeavour to maintain peace in its foreign relations. These were the principles of the Government. From the trial to which they were to be subjected, then, its members did not shrink back, for they looked forward with confidence to the opportunity of redeeming the pledges they had given to their country. The right hon. Gentleman says, the House is to take the new law appointments as a specimen of the manner in which the Ministers mean to redeem those pledges. He hoped he was not to take the speech of that evening as a specimen of the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman, or of the generosity of demeanour with which the acts of the Government were to be henceforth regarded. He said right hon. Gentleman—he at one time thought he might have said right hon. friend; but if the honour and integrity of every member of his Majesty's present Government was to be called in question, as he had heard that night, he feared he could say friend no more. He could scarcely, indeed, believe, that three short weeks could have produced so striking a change in the language of the right hon. Gentleman, and so strong an opposition to the Government, if he had not heard and seen the right--hon. Gentleman, when opposed to the Ministry of the late Mr. Canning, in the year 1827. He must say that, situated as he (Sir James Graham) then was, in the absence of so many of his colleagues, he thought he might have expected greater forbearance from the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had asserted, that it was inexpedient to make the appointment of Judges, political appointments. In the general rule he perfectly agreed with the right hon. Gentleman; but the appointment of Lord Chancellor, both in England and in Ireland, was an exception to that rule: he was the political counsellor of the Crown. The appointment of Sir Anthony Hart was an exception to the general rule in that respect. That matter had been explained elsewhere by the noble Lord at the head of his Majesty's Government. Among the many evils which had attended the non-settlement of the Catholic Question, one of the greatest (and it was so stated at the time by the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth), was, that it prevented Government from being at liberty to choose certain officers whom, under other circumstances, they would have appointed. Lord Goderich distinctly stated, only a few evenings before, that this consideration had placed his Majesty's Government under great difficulty, and rendered it expedient that Sir Anthony Hart should remain Lord Chancellor of Ireland, although Lord Plunkett would have been a preferable person for that situation. As to the expediency at the present moment of having a Lord Chancellor of Ireland, whose political opinions coincided with his Majesty's Government, when it was considered that Ireland was greatly agitated, and that a powerful party was busily engaged in that country in attempting to dissolve the Union, he thought that, all who agreed with him that a repeal of the Union with Ireland would be equivalent to a dismemberment of the empire, and that it would be as injurious as a repeal of the Union with Scotland, would concur in the propriety of having such a Chancellor. If that were the case, he begged to ask, whether it would have been sound policy for such a consideration as 1,400l. a year, at such a critical moment as the present, to deprive the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland of the valuable services of an individual, whose splendid abilities had so frequently been witnessed in that House, and of whom he might justly say, that, in point of talents, eloquence, and statesman-like qualities, no equal to him could be found in Ireland, and no superior in this country. In the appointment of Magistrates, Lord Plunkett's knowledge of the individuals, and of their qualifications, would be of great advantage. The right hon. Gentleman asserted—and the objection came with a singular grace from one who had been so staunch an Orangeman—that the appointment of Lord Plunkett to be Lord Chancellor of Ireland would be peculiarly obnoxious to the Catholics. Why, he had yet to learn. He could not, he would not, believe, that the Catholics of Ireland would view with an evil eye, one who had been among their most triumphant advocates, and to whom they were under the greatest obligation. But the right hon. Gentleman also expressed his persuasion, that the noble Lord would be equally disliked by the members of the Church of England, as his ancestors were Dissenters. But he begged to ask the right hon. Baronet opposite, whether, when the noble Lord was his colleague, he had not fought manfully in the battles which the right hon. Baronet had maintained in favour of the Protestant establishment in Ireland; and whether he had not in later years evinced an equal attachment to that establishment? Then came the expense. As his noble friend in another place had observed, it was surely no bad bargain for the public to obtain the services of such a man, and at the same time a permanent saving of 2,000l. a year, at the expense of a pension of 3,600l. a year during the life of a very old man. The right hon. Gentleman complained of a want of candour in this proceeding, and said, that the settlement of the Lord Chancellor's salary should have been left, like the settlement of other salaries, to the committee. But the right hon. Gentleman should recollect, that the appointment was to be made, and therefore it was politic to reduce the salary before Lord Plunkett accepted the office. Other offices were not under the same circumstances, and he was sure that the Administration would most readily furnish every possible information to the committee, and be able, he had not the smallest doubt, to satisfy every Member, of the propriety of the proceeding. So much for the appointment of Lord Plunkett. Of the appointment of Mr. Doherty to the office of Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, it must be unnecessary for him to say anything, as the right hon. Gentleman himself acknowledged, that it was unexceptionable. The retirement of the Lord Chief Baron, also, was an occurrence quite independent of any political consideration; and the original suggestion of that retirement did not proceed from his Majesty's present Government. The right hon. Gentleman said, that he was not aware of any intention of the Chief Baron to retire, until he was tempted by a peerage. The late Government had, however, proposed to the Chief Baron to retire; and all that the present Government had done was, to adopt such measures as might render that proposition effective. With respect to his retiring pension, the length of the Chief Baron's services had entitled him to demand that whenever he should think fit. He knew not that it was necessary for him to trespass longer on the attention of the House: if he had not succeeded in fully vindicating the Government, he was sure that it was not from the weakness of its cause, but the deficiencies of its advocate. The general disposition of his Majesty's Government to retrench as much as possible, had, in his opinion, been very unequivocally evinced. They had already reduced the offices of Treasurer of the Navy, Lieutenant-general of the Ordnance, Vicetreasurer of Ireland, and Postmaster general of Ireland.

begged to say a few words in answer to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, respecting the opinions of the small minority, who, seven or eight years ago, had voted on the question to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded. As he (Mr. Lamb) believed that he was almost the only Member present who had belonged to that small minority, the responsibility of defending their conduct devolved upon him. He trusted he was not unequal to that task; but he thought it would have been more accordant to justice, although not perhaps to the right hon. Gentleman's view of it, if the right hon. Gentleman had abstained from touching upon that subject, in the absence of those who were more competent to answer. He confessed, that he was never more astonished than at the proposition which had been advanced by the right hon. Gentleman. That proposition was to the effect, that although the House had determined, on the occasion in question, that the Chief Baron should not be put on his trial, he should nevertheless be now treated as if he had been, not only tried, but convicted. Was the acquittal by that House nothing? He had always been taught to consider a person innocent before he had been tried; the right hon. Gentleman seemed to consider persons guilty after they had been acquitted. But because he had been one of a small minority who had formerly voted for putting the Chief Baron on his trial, was he therefore ever after to consider that learned person as unfit for office or for honour, and to hunt and persecute him to the end of his life? He had not a very clear recollection of the circumstances of the case; but he remembered, that after a re-con- sideration of those circumstances, he had not thought the case so strong a one as in the first instance it appeared to be. This, however, was certain, that Chief Baron O'Grady had been acquitted by the House of Commons, and under such circumstances, to have stopped the current of those rewards and honours to which he was entitled by his long services, would have been nothing less than gross persecution.

was one of those who, on the occasion alluded to, had voted for Parliament's sending the Chief Baron to trial in some other place. The minority was small, but among them were the present Lord Lyndhurst, and others whose opinions were entitled to respect. But because that was his opinion ten years ago, should he be justified after Parliament had determined against it, in maintaining', that the learned person in question should not have the rewards and honours to which his long public services entitled him? Further than that, he had never thought the case a strong one; and if he had been a friend of the Chief Baron's, he would at the time have advised him to demand an inquiry into his conduct. The proposition was, however, over-ruled by the House. He had had some connexion with Ireland, and he had never known the Chief Baron's integrity as a Judge impeached, except in the instance which had been adverted to. He was quite ready to take his full share of the responsibility of his conduct on that occasion; he did not shrink, he never would shrink, from avowing the part he had taken; but he must protest against such observations, reviving forgotten imputations, as had that night been made by the right hon. Gentleman.

would touch upon only one or two of the multifarious points comprehended in the attack of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He had not the honour to know the Chief Baron; but the cause of that learned person had already been satisfactorily advocated by his most natural and competent defender. From all that he had heard of that learned person, he concurred in everything that had been said in his praise. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to consider, that the appointment of Lord Plunkett to (he office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland would be equally obnoxious to the Catholics and to the Protestants in Ireland. Why? No one had espoused the cause of Ca- tholic emancipation more eloquently, more zealously, more fervidly, than Lord Plunkett; and yet, in the fullest flow of his efforts, no one had more sedulously excepted, and guarded, the interests of the Protestant establishment than Lord Plunkett. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed his rooted dislike of all political Judges. It was undoubtedly true, that Lord Plunkett was a political character; but it should be recollected that he was a Judge already. He was a Judge in a Court of Common Law. Now, it was much more convenient that a political character should preside over a Court of Equity than over a Court of Common Law; for in Ireland political considerations had much greater influence in a Court of Common Law than in a Court of Equity. What was the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's complaint? That the most eminent man in the Court of Equity in Ireland had been placed at the head of that Court. He was surprised to hear the late member for Londonderry utter expressions so strong, and which were equally applicable to almost every Chancellor in Ireland who had preceded Sir Anthony Hart.

begged to say a few words. He was exceedingly surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman opposite say, that the Protestants in Ireland would look with jealousy on the appointment of Lord Plunkett as Lord Chancellor. Did he forget, that a most eminent member of the Protestant Church of Ireland had married his daughter; and that two of his sons were in the Church? As to the noble Lord's having been a Dissenter, did the right hon. Gentleman forget that Archbishop Seeker, and several other dignitaries of the Church of England, had originally been Dissenters? With respect to the removal of the Under-Secretary of State in Ireland, such a removal was essential to the efficient transaction of the public service, and was perfectly justifiable in principle, for that officer had often very important confidential political duties to perform at the Castle, when the Chief Secretary must be attending his duties in Parliament. He was well aware that the best devised measures of any Government might be thwarted or neutralized in their effects, by being carried into execution by unwilling instruments; for he knew, by melancholy personal experience, how unsatisfactorily business must be performed, when one had to work with such instruments. The right hon. Baronet explained his expression by stating, that when in office himself he had been greatly impeded in the performance of his public duties, by those with whom he was for a period obliged to act; and, in conclusion, expostulated on the hardship, that an Administration, but three weeks in existence, should be thus arraigned for the dismissal of one of their own officers.

thought the discussion now introduced had been most unnecessarily commenced, and he entered his protest against the mode adopted by the right hon. Gentleman to prejudice the minds of the Government and of that House against the adoption of measures of Reform and Retrenchment.

said, he had not the slightest intention to create any prejudice against Reform or Retrenchment, both of which he should be happy to see effected, provided they did not injure existing institutions.

maintained, that such had been the tendency of the right hon. Baronet's observations. He advised all the advocates of Reform and retrenchment, to look at the condition of France and Belgium, and he held up the misfortunes of those two countries in terrorem, over those who sought to improve our own institutions. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet, that the Revolutions in those countries had led, as might be naturally expected, to much present misery; but he believed, that timely Reform and retrenchment would be the means of preventing such a Revolution here. The right hon. Baronet had read a severe lecture to the lower classes, and to those who called for retrenchment, economy, and Reform; but had he read a similar lecture to the higher classes, who had brought this country to its present state? No such thing. Had not the Government which preceded the present, positively and distinctly refused all Reform, which the people had called for year after year? The right hon. Baronet spoke of preserving existing institutions. The people did not wish to set aside those institutions, they only wanted to reform the abuses that had crept into them. He hoped that his Majesty's present Ministers would not listen to the advice given them on that side of the House [cheers and laughter.] Oh, he knew what those cheers meant—he was sitting on that side, but then he was an exception; he. was not properly a part of that side of the House: that side of the House was now in possession of those who had recently sat on the other. He was not one of their body—he was, as he had before said, an exception to the rest. Perhaps he might differ but little from the right hon. Gentleman, as to the salaries to be paid to the efficient servants of the public, but there were others about whom some doubts might well be entertained. When he looked around him he saw numerous offices that might be reduced wholly,,or in part, without any injury to the effective service of the country. He hoped, that the present Ministers would adhere to the promises they had given of retrenchment, and not risk the advantage of being supported by the country by deserting their promises. He should be glad to know what the right hon. Baronet meant, when he spoke as if there could be no reduction of offices without injury to the public service, and when he talked of preserving existing institutions? Were there not pensions and sinecures increasing the Dead Weight, and rotten boroughs, whose occupants were put into useless places by the Government? After the explanation given by the hon. and learned member for Weymouth, on the subject of the abuses in the Court of Chancery, he feared he could not point out one thoroughly good institution, and therefore he was afraid of Reform. That speech shewed such a mass of corruption existing in that which should preserve the integrity and honesty of others, that he despaired of being able to effect Reform. The people, however, did not want to destroy existing institutions, they only asked to have some control over the taxes to which they contributed. It was only Reform that would enable honest men to act as Ministers, and to conduct the affairs of the public in that House. The right hon. Gentleman had talked of his personal feelings, as opposed to his being in office. Those feelings, no doubt, arose from the difficulties he had to contend with while in office. Those difficulties would be at an end in a reformed Parliament; and, under such a Parliament, he should be glad to see the right hon. Gentleman in office. The right hon. Gentleman said, that he did not like the distinct pledge of peace given by the present Government. If there was any one thing better than another in the conduct of a Government, it was the making a distinct pledge that they would not interfere with the affairs of other nations. It was that interference which had added 600,000,000l. to our Debt; and it was the successful issue of that interference in replacing the Bourbons on the Throne of France, on which the late Lord Liverpool congratulated the other House of Parliament; though he, and those in office with him, had frequently before declared, that the defence of our own country, and not there-establishment of the Bourbon family, were the objects of the war. He repeated that he was rejoiced at the pledge of non-interference given by this Government, and he conscientiously believed, that if the Duke of Wellington had continued in power, this country would have been at this moment, if not in actual war, at least on the verge of hostilities. He was, therefore, glad that the late Ministry were no longer in office, and that the present Ministers had pledged themselves to the maintenance of peace. "With respect to what the right hon. Gentleman had stated regarding Revolutions, he must say, that if the party who held the Government, broke the condition son which they held it, the people had a right to put an end to the Government; and that had been the case in France. Although, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman had condemned the French, he could not but admit that the government had no right to issue the Ordinances, and therefore he must admit that the people were right in resisting them. He wished the Poles as much success as had attended the French; but he declared, at the same time, that it was no part of the duty of Government to interfere.

had not condemned the French—he had said that they had no alternative but resistance, and had only observed, that lawful as was the resistance, it was still unfortunately true that the Revolution thus occasioned, though successful, had been productive of much misery.

Sir, the hon. member for Middlesex has made so long a digression from the subject immediately before the House, that I almost regret that my connection with Ireland makes it a kind of personal duty on me to make a few observations in reply to the right hon. Baronet, who addressed the House at such length, and with so much ability, on the subject of the recent law appointments in Ireland. I admit that I have felt deeply on these appointments. I hope I entertain the opinions which an independent, considerate, and fair man, ought to feel on such an occasion. All those who have addressed the House on the subject of these appointments, have confined their observations to the personal claims and merit of Lord Plunkett. Sir, with the greatest deference, there is a person left out of the consideration of the question, whose station, whose feelings, and whose responsibility, ought not, in times of such immense public difficulty, to be treated lightly, or inconsiderately overlooked,—Sir, I mean the first Lord of the Treasury, and Prime Minister, Earl Grey. Sir, when that distinguished nobleman and statesman was called on to form an Administration, what was the state of public affairs? Will any man say, that the foreign and domestic concerns of the country were ever in so critical or so embarrassing a situation? Was not the continent of Europe exposed to a political earthquake and a moral convulsion, which bore no similitude or resemblance to anything that had happened at any former period? Will any Gentleman deny, that the state of this great metropolis had assumed an unusually agitated and almost insurrectionary appearance? Can any man deny, that the surrounding counties were not one scene of connected and apparently organized rustic combination, in which there was no respect for property, and, probably, as little even for life? With regard to Ireland, can the greatest enemies to the Administration have the courage to rise in their places and assert, that the aspect of affairs in that country was not such as to make it absolutely imperative on any Minister to feel an intense interest in adopting any practical measure, and make such arrangements as were likely to be conducive to its future prosperity and peace? If this be no exaggerated picture of your affairs at home and abroad, was it surprising in Lord Grey to repose his confidence in, and divide his responsibility, as far as Ireland was concerned, with my Lord Plunkett? Sir, that nobleman is not a stranger to either House of Parliament —he is, on the contrary, well known to both. Sir, I claim for Lord Grey, in the appointment of Lord Plunkett, the benefit of the eulogy which the right hon. Baronet, the late Secretary of the Home Department, has pronounced on his late colleague and friend. I do not look to Lord Plunkett, whose talents have been so justly eulogized, so much as I look to Lord Grey, who has a heavy weight of responsibility impending over himself. Would any man assert, that even in last summer the north of Ireland did not exhibit a theatre of frightful party and political dissensions, principally arising out of religious prejudices and aversions? And was it not at least desirable to give the Catholic Relief bill a fair trial, and impose on the principal promoter of that important and healing measure—a man admirably conversant with the artful and selfish policy of its opponents—the power, by high official situation, of contributing to its final and complete success? Called on as Lord Grey was, under the circumstances I have described, was he to be condemned for addressing himself to Lord Plunkett and saying—" Sir, you have been the great advocate and champion of the removal of civil disabilities for religion in Ireland, and your country, so far from being tranquillized by your measures, appears to be now exposed to increased agitation and excitement. Under such circumstances your counsel and assistance are essential to the measures of my Government, and I repose in your judgment and qualifications one of the highest offices of the State, in the hope that you may assist the King's Government, and share the heavy responsibility imposed on myself." Under these circumstances, in my honest judgment I must say, that Lord Grey exercised a sound discretion—discharged, to the best of his opinion, a solemn duty— and that it is utterly impossible for any person, disposed to make fair allowance for a public man, not to concur immediately in the justice of the conclusion, that no fair blame, but, on the contrary, just praise, is due to Lord Grey for a sound exercise of calm and deliberate reflection in the selection and appointment of Lord Plunkett. The next appointment is that of the late Attorney-general, Mr. Joy, in the room of the Lord Chief Baron. I believe in the propriety of this appointment: there is not in either country, or in either House of Parliament, a dissenting voice. For years Mr. Joy has held a distinguished station at the Irish Bar, he possesses public confidence, and has the strong claim of great length of official service. Mr. Joy is supposed to be inimical to Catholic claims, but, notwithstanding, there is no second opinion amongst the Bar of Mr. Joy's qualifications and legal acquirements to fill the highest judicial situation. The retirement of the Lord Chief Baron has been alluded to with unmeasured—and, after a solemn acquittal in this House, with, perhaps, unmerited—obloquy and severity. Let it be remembered, that it was in the House of Commons the conduct of Chief Baron O'Grady was most deliberately and carefully investigated—that it was in this House the charges were brought forward, and, it must be presumed, fully and satisfactorily answered, as the House dismissed all the charges. After having filled the office of Attorney-general for a number of years, and being raised from that situation to a high judicial office, I cannot say that the quiddam honorarium was improperly or discreditably bestowed; I cannot bring myself to think, that his retirement ought not to be marked by the same reward which has, in most instances, been conferred on those who preceded him, even on their judicial elevation. I have the misfortune not only to differ from right hon. Gentlemen in approving the appoint- ments which they condemn, but to differ from them also in the appointments they have so highly eulogized and applauded. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dawson) has complained that the effect of political characters—such as Lord Plunkett—being promoted to the Irish Bench, would have the effect of encouraging a flight of legal adventurers to make a perching place in this House. Has the promotion of Mr. Doherty, which the right hon. Gentleman so zealously eulogized, been such an appointment as to increase or diminish the fear of such an occurrence? Sir, I know of no appointment which could be more likely to have the latter effect. Sir, if there be any part of the arrangement objectionable in the opinion of the eminent and distinguished Bar, of which Mr. Doherty was a member—it is Mr. Doherty's elevation to the Chief Justiceship of the Common Pleas. It is not to be concealed that the opinion of the Irish Bur was unfavourable to that appointment—that it gave general dissatisfaction, and, as far as public opinion went, that it was hostile to his promotion. I shall conclude my observations on these legal appointments by saying, that I approve of that part of the arrangement which the right hon. Gentlemen (Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Dawson) have so unsparingly censured, and I disapprove of the part of it which they have so warmly praised. I cannot concur either in their censure or in their praise. It has not been my habit, and it is quite repugnant to my nature, to wound the feelings of any person; and I have the consolation, that if I have erred, I have not been singular in the expression of my dissent, to the glowing and eloquent eulogy which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dawson) has pronounced on the great legal talents, professional eminence, and distinguished forensic ability of his friend Mr. Doherty. Sir, the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) has not confined himself to an inquiry into the propriety or impropriety of the Irish legal appointments, but he has entered on a larger and more expanded inquiry—the present state of Ireland, and the necessity of the Government making it an object of their most peculiar solicitude. The right hon. Baronet has been pleased to express an opinion, that as the question of the repeal of the Union was not likely to be brought under debate by those avowedly favourable to that subject, it would be the duty of Government to come forward, and take the sense of the House and pronounce a very decided opinion on that subject. Undoubtedly, it is competent to the House to pursue such a course as it deems advisable and expedient; but, in my opinion, Sir, there is a far better course for calming the Irish mind, and reconciling the country to its present legislative connection, than a barren resolution "to lie on the Table," and cease to be recollected after it is passed. Sir, when the right hon. Baronet commenced his political life as Secretary for Ireland, every interest suffered materially by the transition from war to peace,—there was no market for Irish produce—every place was glutted with provisions—the private banks failed—and public and private credit were exposed to dangers which it was frightful to contemplate. The measures of that right hon. Gentleman relieved the country; the improvements of the right hon. Gentleman were not only effected without pecuniary loss to the public, but had the merit of being as permanent in their utility as immediate in their relief. I wish to know why measures like those which originated with the right hon. Baronet were discontinued? I ask why did the colleagues of the right hon. Baronet abandon the system which the right hon. Baronet had originated and worked prosperously for Ireland, and profitably for Great Britain; and what was the necessity or occasion for their taking up the wretched system of assimilating the taxes of a poor country to those of the richest country in the world? Why did they announce their intention to tax the Press, and assist in raising the repeal of the Union, which he now deprecates, and marshalling the whole body of the Irish Members in the ranks of his political antagonists? Sir, I readily admit the inestimable blessings which would result from a real union of Great Britain and Ireland; but I assert, that in this House the proper steps are not taken to consolidate and effect it. Sir, the right hon. Baronet knows well the evils by which Ireland is afflicted, and no person knows better than he does that the means of the country have declined materially in value, and that it is now without anything to exchange but the produce of its soil for every luxury of life, and that produce has suffered a most discouraging reduction in price. Sir, I lament the inability of Ireland to contribute much more largely to the relief of Great Britain; but the right hon. Baronet is surely aware that the duties in Ireland on Customs and Excise fall on articles which, in towns particularly, are the very necessaries of existence, and which no earnings in those towns will enable families to purchase. Sir, I contend that tea, sugar, tobacco, and other such articles, ought to be within the reach of the labouring poor; and that any deficiency of revenue, by reducing duties on those necessaries, should be made up by making the rich the contributors. It is the fashion to say Ireland is lightly taxed. Sir, the taxes on those articles, which may be called necessaries, are equal in value to all the exported corn of Ireland, and probably not less than three millions sterling per annum. It is in vain, in the cities and large towns in Ireland, to reason with workmen who have low wages, or none at all, on the necessity of high taxes. In Ireland, the great weight of taxation presses heavy on the working poor, whilst absenteeism, by abstracting from the natural annual returns of productive industry, deprives the people of the vivifying influence of that capital, which, if admitted to fructify in the hands of an industrious community, would lay the foundation of permanent prosperity and national contentment. It is the imperious duty of this House to become itself the great agitator of every measure connected with the improvement of Ireland—political speculations are inseparable concomitants of the multiplied evils arising from an unemployed population. It is easy to lose, and difficult to regain, the affections of a people. The truth is, Ireland has been shamefully and cruelly neglected. But I hope the time has arrived for removing every trace of the ruinous policy which has been pursued towards her—to foster and develop her resources—to repair the dilapidations which neglect and impolicy have produced in both the social and political system— and realize the hope which every one expresses (but which was, unfortunately, forgotten the moment it was uttered) of her becoming a wealthy, vigorous, and truly integral portion of this great empire.

believed there were but few who listened to the bad advice of the press to which the right hon. Baronet had referred, so that the poison, unless it spread widely, could do little harm to the community at large. He was persuaded that discontent would subside, and finally disappear. It had been excited by the posi- tive declaration of the last Ministry, that there should he no reform. The present Government was pledged to a reform, not only speedy, but effectual, and the people would wait patiently for the redeeming of that pledge, in the confidence that they should not be disappointed. Even if the lower orders should not be satisfied, the middle classes would loyally rally round the banner of a constitutional monarch. Much had been said on the subject of distress; and from some experience in the southern counties, he was convinced that the distress, at least there, was by no means irremediable. If Gentlemen would but return to their estates, and make those exertions which the situation of the peasantry demanded—if they would come forward to give employment to the poor during the severity of the winter, a beneficial change would be soon visible.

explained, that he did not intend to be guilty of any want of courtesy towards the right hon. Gentleman, especially in not communicating the nature of the statement he had to make: the fact was, that it was called for on the sudden, by the unfair removal of Mr. Gregory. He, however, begged to apologise to the hon. Baronet for the use of the word "bribe," which had escaped from him, while he only meant it in the sense of inducement. In what he had said, he had not intended to express the slightest personal ill-will.

having moved the printing of certain Parish Returns, which ought to be in the hands of Members during the approaching recess,

said, he would take that opportunity, in the absence of the noble Lord (Althorp), of stating the intended arrangement of public business. It was to be proposed that the House, at its rising this night, should adjourn till to-morrow; to-morrow it would be moved that it should adjourn at its rising until Thursday; on Thursday it was intended to move, that the House should adjourn for the recess until the 8th of February. On the 15th of February the House would commence with the Election petitions, in the order in which they stood in the book; three ballots would take place on each of two days in the week, viz. three on every Tuesday, and three more on every Thursday, until the House arrived at a series of petitions, all of which were presented in one day: the priority of those would be best decided by putting them into one urn. There was one exception—the petition from Wigan—the sitting Member for that borough having relinquished his seat: the representation was, therefore, so far incomplete, and in order to remedy the defect it was intended to take that petition into consideration first on the 15th February. He mentioned this as the proposed arrangement, without wishing it to be understood that some variation might not be made by circumstances. The principle was, that all the ballots should be completed before Easter.

was quite aware of the circumstances in which Ministers were placed, and of their natural desire to have an interval of time to make certain preparations; but he could not help saying, that he thought the proposed adjournment too long, looking at the very little business that had been already transacted. He had no wish to embarrass Ministers, and he admitted their claim to an opportunity of maturely considering their measures.

addressed the House. He said, that his learned friend (Sir E. B. Sugden) below him, seemed to think that he (Sir E. Sugden) had stood forward the other night, for the first time, as the first exposer of the abuses of the Court of Chancery. His learned friend, however, was, he would himself admit, in error upon that point, and there was no exposure which his learned friend had put forward which, together with a great many more, had not been over and over again pressed upon the consideration of the House, by himself, as well as by many other Members; or to which the attention of the commission appointed to inquire into the Court had not been forcibly drawn. Besides, he could not help remarking, that during the time his learned friend and the late Lord Chancellor had been in office, notwithstanding all they had advanced upon the evils, no one practical benefit had been extended to the suitors of the Court. His learned friend had stated, that motions on this subject had been opposed on political grounds. This was quite true; he could confirm it by his own experience; for, when he brought forward a motion on the subject, while Lord Eldon held the Great Seal, he was opposed by the then Government,—and why? Because Lord Eldon threatened to resign if his motion were agreed to, and had added, that he would admit of no reforms into his Court. His authority, on this occasion, was the best, —for it was Lord Eldon's authority. That noble Lord himself told him the fact. He had brought forward a motion in 1810, and all those subsequent to that period, were defeated on similar grounds. At last the Chancery Commission issued. That commission, after sitting two years, made a report, and Lord Lyndhurst, then Attorney-general, opened the proposed alterations, and gave notice of a bill for that purpose. That bill, however, was never brought forward. At a subsequent period, Lord Lyndhurst did offer his bill. This was in 1827, he believed, but the bill so introduced did not embrace half the objects which the commissioners had in view, and which Lord Lyndhurst had alluded to in the plan of reform which he had opened to the House in 1826. Owing to some differences which arose between Mr. Canning and Lord Lyndhurst, and which had their origin in a speech upon the Catholic Question, Lord Lyndhurst refused to go on with the measure, and it fell to the ground. In 1828 he (Mr. Taylor) called upon the Ministers to take some step; still nothing was done. In 1829 a bill was moved for in the House of Lords by Lord Lyndhurst: it passed that House, and came down to the Commons; but the Ministers did not press it, and the then Secretary of State for the Home Department stated, that as it had come down so late it was impossible to carry it through the House in that Session. In the last Session another bill was introduced in the same way; but that also ended in nothing. From this history of what had been done, or rather what had not been done, during the space of twenty years, the House, he was sure, must see, that unless a committee was appointed of a different complexion, or unless the Chancellor himself would take the matter into his own hands, the abuses complained of never would be redressed. The Chancellor could do much. The Chancellor, for instance, was competent to carry into execution nine-tenths of what his learned friend proposed should be done. It was said, that the Rolls might be made a more efficient Court. He had no doubt it might be: but see how the matter stood now. At the present moment, the Master of the Rolls had not a single cause before him, while the Vice-Chancellor laboured under the pressure of upwards of 200 causes. The Master of the Rolls had offered,—and he felt that he should be acting most unjustly by the Master of the Rolls if he omitted to state the fact, and to add, that the Master of the Rolls was one of the ablest Judges who ever presided in a Court of Equity—the Master of the Rolls had offered, if the Bar and the parties would consent, to divide these causes with the Vice-Chancellor, and hear one half of them himself. The root of the evil, was not, however, limited to the hearing alone; it was to be found in the absurd length of the pleadings in the Masters' offices and in the Six Clerks' office. His learned friend (Sir E. B. Sugden) had adverted to a plan the other night, of putting the Six Clerks' office upon a different footing: but this would be only perpetuating an intolerable abuse. The Six Clerks' office ought to be abolished altogether, on account of its inutility and its expense; for instance, to take a bill off the file here, costs 60l. or 70l. and was often ruinous to the suitors. His learned friend objected to separating the jurisdiction in bankruptcy from the Great Seal. He (Mr. Taylor), however, was of opinion, that the bankruptcy business ought to be severed from the jurisdiction of the Great Seal; but if it were still to be kept attached to it, at all events, the grinding and oppressive fees connected with it, and which bore with such severity upon the unfortunate suitors, should be removed. He was further of opinion, that the numerous patent places connected with this establishment ought to be abolished. A commission should be opened by affidavit, and not by patent, and every thing possible ought to be done to reserve the property of a debtor for his creditors. Good God was it to be borne, that when men had lost so much by misfortunes in trade; when those who had trusted and those who had been trusted were alike suffering,—was it to be borne, that the law should diminish the little remnant left, and plunge those who were so situated into beggary and ruin. While he was on this subject, he would advert to Mr. Vizard, whose appointment had been called in question, but which to him was a source of great satisfaction. He believed that that gentleman understood the business of bankruptcy, and was capable, both of effecting improvements in that department, and of suggesting to the Legislature what improvements ought to be looked to. For many reasons, he was opposed to the system of having political Chancellors. Amongst other evils, the political character of a Lord Chancellor, and the avocations consequent upon it, prevented his regular attendance in his Court. The Chancellor should be only a Judge of Appeal in the House of Lords. With regard to the manifest and enormous abuses which had so long prevailed in the Court of Chancery, he must say, that Lord Eldon might have removed and remedied many of them. Lord Lyndhurst should have reformed them, according to his own suggestions, but he failed. Lord Eldon presided in that Court for upwards of twenty years, with that vicious system in existence, and not a single beneficial alteration was effected by him. If those who had presided there had been unwilling to reform the abuses existing in that Court, it was the duty of the executive government to have pressed the important matter upon them, or to find some Lord Chancellor who had the will and ability to effect the remedy. He had long endeavoured to attract the attention of the Legislature to it, and his patience had been nearly exhausted with the numerous and various complaints which had reached him from many quarters, with regard to the evils produced by the abuses in the Court of Chancery. He had, during the course of some years, received an immense number of letters from different persons who had suffered from those abuses, soliciting him to bring their cases before Parliament for the purpose of obtaining redress; and from one individual, a lady residing near Bungay, he had lately received a communication, covering sixteen sides of letter-paper, filled with a detail of the wrongs which she had endured, owing to the existence of the present vicious system. If the House would but consider the misery and wretchedness which that Court had been the means of disseminating amongst thousands of families, they would see at once that, by reforming the system which existed there,—for he found fault, not with the Judge, but with the system, —they would confer the greatest benefit that Parliament could possibly confer upon the country. There had been, from time to time, much eloquence exhausted on this great question, but as yet not a single act of real reform had been effected. He was confident, looking to the past career of the noble and learned Lord who now presided over that Court, that he would not let the present Session of Parliament pass over without trying whether, by his own individual efforts, he might not be able to work the work of reformation; and that, if he found himself, by his own individual authority and power, unable to effect that good, he would come to Parliament for its assistance towards applying a fit remedy to such monstrous and crying evils. With regard to patent places in the Court of Chancery, if no other individual would take that matter in hand, he (Mr. M. A. Taylor) would certainly hereafter submit a motion to the House on the subject. Whoever might be Lord Chancellor, or whoever might be Minister, this he would say, that he would never abandon this question of reform in the Court of Chancery until he saw it carried. He concluded by again expressing his hopes, that the present Keeper of the Great Seal would bring his great and comprehensive mind to grapple with the important subject; and that, at no distant period, the manifold abuses in that Court would be completely removed; and, in that case, the public would no longer consider the Court as a curse, but regard it as a blessing, in its due administration of equitable relief.

said, his chief objection to the proceedings of that night, and the night before, was, that there was no specific motion before the House for the improvement of the Court of Chancery. If it were true, as stated by his hon. and learned friend, the member for Durham, and as also stated by his hon. and learned friend, the member for Weymouth, that speeches had had their day, and that acts were now required, he feared that no benefit whatever would arise from the present conversation, as there was nothing in view, and no distinct proposition before the House. Indeed, the conversation had one disadvantage attending it,—viz. where so much was said, it might be supposed that something would be done; and in this case such a supposition would end only in disappointment. He could not help expressing his regret, therefore, that his hon. and learned friend, the member for Weymouth, should have thought fit to take so discursive a course, and that he did not bring forward a specific measure, calculated to meet and remove some, even the most minute parts of those evils with which he appeared to be so fully impressed, and described so forcibly, and in so much detail. He was sure, had his hon. and learned friend introduced any specific measure, that it would have been fairly and candidly discussed, more particularly as his hon. and learned friend had stated, that he looked upon the reform of the abuses of the Court of Chancery in no respect as a measure of party; but would lend his powerful assistance to any one who should introduce any measure of probable relief; and if such a bill should be brought forward, he had no doubt, whoever introduced it would derive great benefit from the experience and superior knowledge of his hon. and learned friend. It was not his intention to follow his hon. and learned friend in his observations on the abuses in the Master's Office, arising from the length of the reports, or into any one of the many heads of the discourse he had pronounced. He declined doing so; not because, like his hon. and learned friend, the member for Durham, he would not allow the merit of novelty to the speech of his hon. and learned friend, the member for Weymouth, but because it was wanting in any distinct proposition. Treating the subject generally, in his opinion, the fundamental objection to the Court of Chancery was, the nature and extent of its jurisdiction. That should be diminished, and given to other Courts better constituted, from which it had been improperly filched. In his opinion, this would be the only effectual reform; and he had no doubt his hon. and learned friend, the member for Weymouth, would give his assistance in carrying it into effect. For his satisfaction, therefore, it might be mentioned, that the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, and the Common Law Commissioners, had adopted the principle of relieving the suitors of the Court of Chancery, by withdrawing them from that Court to other tribunals, where justice could be obtained in a more easy and compendious, and in a cheaper manner. [" Hear, hear," from Sir E. B. Sugden] His hon. and learned friend cheered him, and no wonder, for no one knew the abuses of the Court of Chancery better than he. He trusted, therefore, that he would agree to the propriety of restoring to the Courts of Common Law that part of the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, which should never have found its way to that Court. The Bill of Inter pleader, lately introduced, was one step in that direction; and his hon. and learned friend would probably recollect, that the Law Commissioners recommended that, in cases of injunction, the appeal should be made directly to a Common Law Court, instead of the Court of Chancery. He did not know what his hon. and learned friend would think of that, nor how he would bear it, that those very Commissioners dared, in their recommendations, even to tread on the sacred ground of legacies, which no man could have touched out of the Court of Chancery, as it was supposed, without sacrilege or something quite as bad. He had often found that the best, way to draw the attention of the House to any subject, was, to mention some particular case bearing on the point, not much perplexed with details. He would, therefore, take leave to mention a case which had come within his own knowledge, in order to show the blessed effects of the joint jurisdiction of Law and Equity—the one trespassing on the other, and the combination of which had been designated "the consummation of human wisdom." This was the expression of Lord Kenyon, who practised in one Court, where he got all his money, and was then placed at the head of another. No wonder, then, that he should say, that this joint operation of law and equity was the consummation of human wisdom. Let the House see, however, how they operated in the case to which he was about to allude. In that case a person named Graddon, who was born in the county of York, died after having made a fortune of about 4,000l. or 5,000l. real and personal. The deceased left the possession of a house, which he had in town, to a female relation. Shortly after his death, however, a near, though an obscure relation of the deceased's, a common labourer in the fields, started up as a claimant, and was supposed to be entitled to the whole of the property left by the deceased; to the personality of the deceased as next of kin, and to the realty as heir-at-law. The Solicitor to whom this man made application knew, that as there was both real and personal property, proceedings must be taken both at law and in equity. The first step, however, which he took was favourable to the character of that Solicitor, who resides in the north. He offered the defendant to take 300l. for his client's whole claim, but this offer was refused, and proceedings commenced. A bill was filed in the Court of Chancery, not to determine whether the claimant was entitled to the property, but to determine whether it was necessary for the Common Law Courts to entertain that question. Examinations were taken, and the proceedings in equity carried to a considerable extent, and of course at considerable expense, until at length there was an issue, from Chancery to a Court of Common Law, to try whether the plaintiff was the next of kin to the deceased; and this issue went down to York to be tried. This was the mode of proceeding necessarily resorted to on account of the personal property, the plaintiff having to resort to the Common Law Courts, by an action of ejectment, to recover possession of the freehold property. The issue tried, in which the plaintiff was proved to have been the next of kin, also demonstrated him to be the heir-at-law, and in this particular case entitled to the realty. The trial which took place in York, however, to try the question as to whether the plaintiff was next of kin, was not sufficient. The action of ejectment was to be tried in London. The freehold premises being situated in London, the venue was laid there, or more properly in Middlesex. To prove the case, however, it was necessary to bring up some aged witnesses who had been examined in York (some of them above eighty years of age). Those wit- nesses were not brought up, and the result was, the plaintiff was foiled. On the first action of ejectment, there was a verdict against him, though on the trial which took place shortly before at York, the fact of the plaintiff's being next of kin to the deceased was proved by evidence as plain as the light at noon day, and he actually recovered the personal property, on the ground of his being next of kin to this party dying in London. Before the plaintiff absolutely got possession of the personal property, however, there was another step—a motion made before the Master of the Rolls for a new trial. After being fully argued, that motion was refused with costs, still the plaintiff's right to the little freehold property remained to be tried. A second action of ejectment was brought to recover possession of this property. The witnesses were then brought up from York,—the same evidence to the very tittles which went to establish the plaintiff's being next of kin in York was also produced in London to establish the fact of his being heir-at-law, but this was done at an expense of not less than 400l. or 500l. After all this expense, however, there was no resistance. His hon. and learned friend, the member for Malton, (Sir James Scarlett) who is not in the habit of starting away when he can set up any defence for his client, on that occasion offered no defence; and Lord Tenterden, who tried it, observed that it was the clearest case he ever heard. There was a verdict, of course, for the plaintiff. To recover possession of this small property, however, there were three trials at Common Law, besides the proceedings in Equity. After all was over, the costs came to be taxed in the Court of Equity, and the plaintiff not being able to pay the bill, his person was taken in attachment for the costs. He had no means whatever of support, and was as he had been informed that very day, existing either by the lowest species of labour, or upon charity. When the proceedings commenced, the property of the deceased was in the possession of the woman to whom he had already referred, but as she was making away with it, an application was made to the Court of Equity to appoint a receiver. An order was made to this effect, but no actual appointment took place. Whilst matters were thus pending, the plaintiff's Solicitor received intimation that this woman was carrying off the property in the night-time, and he repaired to the house, not to take possession of the property, but merely to give orders that locks should be put on the doors, and measures of that kind adopted to prevent the property from being surreptitiously disposed of. Would the House believe it, however, in a country which assumes to be governed by the perfection of law, that for this interference on the part of the plaintiff's Solicitor, an action of trespass was brought against him, which action went through all the preparatory proceedings until it was brought to issue, and it would have been tried, but that the Master of the Rolls said, that out of common decency, and for the credit of the country, he felt called upon to interpose, and to stay the trial by a perpetual injunction. Of the 4,000l., however, which the plaintiff was entitled to recover upon the plainest proof, he never received one farthing; the woman who unjustly made the resistance to his claim, did not retain a farthing—all was spent in the joint expenses of Law and Equity. The defendant's Solicitors received about 2,000l.in the course of those offensive and defensive proceedings, which he would not then more properly characterize. The moral of this brief, and, he thought, instructive ease, was this, that if the Court of Chancery had kept its claws off, and the parties had only had to try the plaintiff's claim at Common Law, the issue to try who was the next of kin of the deceased, would also have decided who was the heir-at-law, and all the subsequent proceedings would have been saved. By no ingenuity within an undivided jurisdiction of either law or equity, could such an enormous expense have been incurred, as took place in this particular case, by "the consummation of human wisdom," the joint operation of law and equity. Bad as the Court of Equity is, and profligate as are the expenses of proceedings in it, yet, if it had had undivided jurisdiction in the case to which he had alluded, it would have been impossible that the expenses should have been so large. The Master of the Rolls was so struck with the clearness of the case, and so impressed with the justice of the plaintiff's claim, that he gave the plaintiff's Counsel a week to find out whether there was any precedent by which he might at once declare the plaintiff's rights to the freehold house, and prevent the expense of the actions of ejectment, which were tried at Common Law. No such precedent, however, could be found. He complained, then, of the joint operation of the two systems of law and equity. They were both at work at the same time; and when a party got into certain hands, so devoutly and charitably disposed, by the operation of this joint system, the persons, to whom he need not more particularly allude, had a power such as he had been endeavouring to exemplify, by tracing its results in one particular case. Charybdis is bad enough; but to be in Scylla and in Charybdis at the same time, surpassed all that he ever remembered to have heard of, either in ancient or modern history. Even the poets had invented nothing so cruel. With Common Law on one side, and Equity at the other, the 4,000l.—the whole property—went for the benefit, of whom the House might easily guess; and this upon a refusal to get rid of the whole of the claim, and, of course, the proceedings upon a payment of 300l. The offer was rejected, the property torn to pieces; and neither the party who injuriously resisted the fair claimant, nor the other, who had the fair claim, had ever received one farthing benefit. Whatever might be the antiquity or the authority of the system which tolerated such a nuisance, it ought to be put an end to by the unanimous condemnation of all mankind. It was a disgrace to this House and an injury to its dignity, to allow such a system to exist. As to the facts of the case, he entertained no doubt of their correctness, for many of them came within his own knowledge and observation. It was only by revising and recasting the more objectionable"' parts of both these systems, that any good could be effected, rather than by allowing the one and the other by their joint operations to tear the client to pieces. The great evil was, that men were placed under the joint administration of Law and Equity, and he should hail with sincere satisfaction any measures calculated to bring back to the Courts of Law that jurisdiction which they were robbed of in former times. He utterly despaired, indeed, of any large, comprehensive reform in the Court of Chancery. Reform must come step by step; it could not come from mere speeches; but by directing attention to manifest and obvious grievances. From that quarter he saw the light coming. He hoped that a change would be effected by the introduction of successive bills, by which the interference of the Court of Chancery would be diminished, and application made to other Courts which are more open, easy, and compendious, and that to them would be given what is conceived to be the jurisdiction of the Court of Equity. He gave no opinion on the various points introduced by his hon. and learned friend. Men did not remember what occurred in a conversation, where there was no definite point. Mention had been made by his hon. and learned friend, of the noble and learned Lord now at the head of the Court of Chancery. He was the last man to deny that every public Minister, and every man placed at the head of a Court, was the proper subject of public discussion and public observation. If, therefore, his hon. and learned friend, speaking manfully and fairly, as it is the undoubted privilege of every Member of Parliament to do, had merely commented on the fitness of that noble and learned Lord, there would have been no ground for complaint. But if it was intended by his hon. and learned friend to doubt the capacity of that noble and learned Lord for the situation which he now fills, he, who had sat side by side with that noble Lord for many years—for a greater time than it would be convenient for either to remember—would take leave to say, that those who had seen him only in this House, were unacquainted with his Herculean powers of labour and stupendous industry, which extended over a space of which few had any idea; and he had no doubt, if that noble and learned Lord were allowed to remain in his present position for only a reasonable time, either he would die under his exertions, or he would make himself a most accomplished magistrate to preside in that Court; and, as a mere lawyer is a poor sort of thing without other accomplishments, he would be rendered, by means of his great capacity, and the variety of his attainments, an ornament even to that high station in which he had, at length, been placed. As the Judge of the Equity side of the Court of Exchequer had been alluded to, without any disrespect to the learned Lord now sitting in that Court, he might take the opportunity of saying, that it had caused the greatest disappointment in the profession, to learn that there was no likelihood of another noble and learned Lord being elevated, if it could be so called, to the head of that Court. In his opinion, that noble and. learned Lord was the fittest man in the country to be placed at the head of the Court of Exchequer. His hon. and learned friend had talked of making the Equity side of the Court of Exchequer effective; but, meaning no disrespect to the very venerable and learned person who presided in that Court, he must say, that the placing the noble and learned Lord alluded to at the head of it, would do more in twelve months to render it effective than could be done by any other measures in as many years. He had practised under that noble and learned Lord, and he had no hesitation in saying, that when the judicial talents of that noble and learned Lord were enlarged by practice, the consequence of his elevation would be, the highest popularity to his Court, and the business of suitors would flow into it, and the result would be of greater importance in equalizing the general business of the Courts than any Act of Parliament which could be framed for that purpose could effect. In conclusion he begged to remark that he felt great disappointment at the speech of his hon. and learned friend, the member for Weymouth, on finding that the hon. Member had confined himself to making remarks on the nature of the abuses in the Courts of Equity, and on their remedy, on which remarks no practical result had been founded or proposed.

confessed, that he had heard the speech of his hon. and learned friend, who had just sat down, with a great deal of surprise. He remembered the hon. Member's speech on the same subject last year, when he was one of the most strenuous supporters of the proposition for the appointment of a new Equity Judge, it seemed extraordinary, therefore, that he should now propose that the greater part, if not the whole, of the business should be removed from the Equity Courts to the Courts of Common Law. His hon. and learned friend found fault with his hon. and learned friend, the member for Weymouth, for not bringing forward any distinct question, and proposed to remove the business of Courts of Equity to his own Court. Instead, however, of shewing that any part of the business of the Court of Chancery could be disposed of in a more cheap, easy, and compendious manner in the Courts of Common Law, his hon. and learned friend had laboured to shew, that both jurisdictions were equally objectionable. [Mr. John Williams said, he did not say that.] That was the necessary inference from what his learned friend did say; that was the moral which every one must have drawn from it;—every one who did not know the hon. Member's purpose must have supposed that his hon. and learned friend was going to propose some sweeping measure for abolishing the jurisdiction of the Courts of Law and Equity. His learned friend would, therefore, excuse his further entering into the question of removing the Equity business to Courts of Law, and of attempting to reconcile such a proposition with the sentiments uttered by his hon. and learned friend last Session. He meant to address himself to the question—" can we reform the Court of Chancery, by removing or diminishing the existing abuses?" In his humble opinion, they could. He regretted, that instead of the Motion before the House, the speech of the hon. and learned Mover was not followed by a motion for leave to bring in a bill, for, had it been, he was confident he would have had the whole of the House, and the discussion of this subject would not have ended in a splash, as was said the other night by the hon. Member for Middlesex. Mr. Spence proceeded to state, that in his judgment, the House of Commons must take upon itself to reform the Court of Chancery; he could not agree in the opinion, that the Government must originate such a measure. Looking back historically, he observed that nothing effectual had been done by any Government on this subject. The complaints against the Court of Chancery began almost as soon as it became a Court for the administration of justice. Some few nights ago, he moved for certain returns, which would shew what were the complaints against that Court in the reign of Elizabeth. In 1743, those complaints were renewed in this House, which referred them to the consideration of a Select Committee, and that Committee made a report, and came to certain resolutions; one of which, namely, that which related to the exactions of the officers, pointed out the nature of the evil, and of the remedy to be applied, more effectually than any thing that had since been proposed in the House or out of it. A commission was at that time appointed by the Government to inquire into the subject, and a report was made, but it led to nothing effectual, either on the part of the House, or the Administration. Lord Hardwicke, however, issued certain orders, in which he established regulated fees, and endeavoured to extinguish gratuities, expedition-money, and other evils; all of which, however, had continued down to the present hour, accumulating in pressure upon the suitor till they had become intolerable. All this was because the House of Commons left the remedy to the Government, which, from the multiplicity of its duties, could not possibly have time to attend to it. Every Chancellor, and every person who held office under his Majesty, must have such numerous objects to divert their attention, that it ought not to be expected that they could, without assistance, establish any measures for so great a reform as was required. Every Member of the House must give his mite of earnest assistance—he must furnish them with details, he must himself bring forward propositions; for if this were not done, the country would never see a reform of the Court of Chancery. The orders of Lord Hardwicke would give an instance of this. His order was, that a party should be at liberty to take a copy of so much only of a report as he might require: this had been superseded. Lord Hardwicke also expressly declared that no expedition-money should be taken; but expedition-money was taken in almost every office of the Court, under the name of "the stationer's charge." He trusted that, in future, the suitors would not have to rely only on the ill-attended-to orders of Judges, but that the House would adopt resolutions so clear and precise, that not even a Judge should be able to overturn them. Whoever might be the Chancellor, if the Legislature did not watch over him, it would be utterly impossible that, in the multiplicity of his business, abuses should not escape him. He humbly hoped, therefore, that in future, looking to past experience, the House would take care not to trust to orders, but would superintend the Court of Chancery itself. Inl813 there was a commission, and the Commissioners, in their report, exposed a great number of abuses—expedition money and gratuities, among others; yet nothing had been done to this hour to get rid of those abuses, which prevailed to such an extent, as to make it imperative upon the House to step in to reform the Court. With regard also to useless offices, the report he had first attended to, stated, that they were a great evil. It was only necessary to turn over a few pages of the valuable document, lately laid before the House, for which it was indebted to the right hon. Gentleman on his left, (Sir James Graham) and the House would find one person holding three sinecure offices, yielding 240l, 1,816l., and 553l. per annum respectively. Turn over to the next page, and again they found one person enjoying three sinecure offices, yielding salaries amounting, in the aggregate, to upwards of 9,000 l.a-year; and these offices were granted he understood, in reversion. What then was the use of the investigations in 1732? What was the use of the commissions twelve years later? What was the use of all the subsequent inquiries, since the evil had increased to such an enormous extent? He called the particular attention of the House to the gross abuse that prevailed with regard to the patentee for the execution of the Statutes respecting bankrupts. His emoluments came out of the dividends of bankrupts' estates, thereby still further diminishing the small amount of his debt the creditor had to receive. The year 1825 was one of extensive distress; but how must the patentee have rejoiced at it, for it raised his emoluments from 8,000l.to 13,000l. He said, therefore, that some measures must be instantly taken, more powerful and more efficient than any that had been had recourse to, and such could only be taken by the House. There was such a vast field of matter before him, that he was afraid of fatiguing the House by entering upon it; but he would, as cursorily as possible, go through the prominent topics which had been so ably urged by his learned friend, on the preceding evening, adding illustrations to those points in which he entirely agreed with him, stating very shortly where he disagreed with him, and also adverting to those points in which his propositions ought to be extended. First, then, with regard to the important subject of the Registrars' Office. The expense of decrees could only, at present, be judged of from the evidence taken before the Chancery Commissioners; but the returns he had moved for in April last, would, when produced, shew it in its true light. At present, referring to the evidence of Mr. Vizard, Secretary of Bankrupts to the present Chancellor, we find, that in one instance, 60l. was paid for a decree, of which nine-tenths was for recitals. It might be instructive to inquire what were the fees received by the Registrars in 1797, many years after 1732, when the House of Commons thought the enormity of the fees in the different offices called for parliamentary inquiry. In 1797, as appeared by the report of the committee on Finance, in the thirteenth volume of the Reports of the House of Commons, the senior Registrar received 1124l. a-year; and the whole sum received by the Registrars at that time, which was thought very exorbitant, was 4847l. 9s. Hon. Members, not conversant with the subject, would be utterly astonished when he told them that the senior Registrar, now received more than all the Registrars put together in 1797—namely, 4861l.; and the sum of all the receipts of all the Registrars and deputy Registrars, and chief Clerks in the office, now amounted to 21,601l. Upon the evidence before the House, it was clear those who practised in the Courts knew it without such evidence—-that every decree, except one of dismissal, was filled with pleadings, in order to swell the demand made for it. But hon. Members might say, perhaps, these recitals must be of some use. They were of none—they were utterly useless; and if Counsel were to quote a recital in a decree, he would be told, and properly told, by the opposite Counsel, that they would not be bound by that statement, and he must produce the original bill or answer. But let the House look to the evidence of Mr. Walker, the Registrar himself, when examined by the Commissioners. "He was asked,— "Do you who sit in Court and hear the cause, point out what recitals are to be made in the decree?"—" No; I have too much to do."—" Who does it?"—and his answer was, "Why, I leave it to a clerk," and he, no doubt, puts in just as much as he thought the cause could well afford to pay; so that, if the cause would afford it, the decree was stuffed with recitals. Any hon. Member who would look at the evidence taken before the Chancery Commissioners, would find that this was the regular system; nay more, that the abuse of those recitals was not confined to payment for the original decree; for, after getting the order, which was to be embodied in the decree, and after waiting two months for it, the Registrar sends you to a clerk for the decree: who tells you must wait a month or six weeks; and if you say you want it immediately, it is of no avail; but if you say that you want two copies, perhaps it will be produced the next morning. That was the evidence of Solicitors themselves, to be found in the document to which he had before referred. These abuses had grown up in consequence of these abominable recitals; for if they were not in the decree, the clerk could not say to the Solicitor, it would take him a month to draw it up; and if it were confined to the ordering part, the Solicitor could get it, as in a Court of Common Law, the next morning. The next subject was one of great importance—that of the Masters' Office; and with the permission of the House he would make the same comparison, with regard to the fees received by the Masters and their clerks in 1797"and 1830, as he did with regard to the Registrars. Taking all the receipts of the Masters in 1797, it made a sum of 13,664l. The clerks of the Masters received more in 1830 than the whole amount of what the Masters received in 1797,—namely, 13,852l. besides 5,143l.to junior clerks; whilst the Masters themselves received no less than 39,043l., being an excess of more than 40,000l. a-year. In the Report Office, the Master—who had a mere sinecure place, for his clerk did all the duties, and who, in 1798, had 1,069l. a-year, in 1830 had 4,589l. The Masters obtained these enormous emoluments from the system of taking office copies from them; and having ascertained that to be the abuse, the House would know how to apply the remedy, which was not precisely that which had been suggested by his hon. and learned friend. It would be best, he thought, for the Solicitors mutually to hand over copies, and his hon. friend would find, on referring to the Chancery report, or the report on copies made in 1828, that two of the Masters agreed in that suggestion. At present all the cost for copies was clear outlay by the Solicitors in the Masters' Office; and during the whole time the case was in the Masters' Office, the plaintiff's and defendant's Solicitors were put to the expense of taking these copies, without the slightest remuneration, till the costs were paid, and it might happen that the case would stay in the Masters' Office two, three, four, and even six years. The Solicitor must be remunerated for this outlay, which was done by the objectionable system of warrants, for every one of which he got a certain sum. But if the plaintiff were to hand over his copy to the defendant, and was paid for that copy as at Common Law, and the defendant, on the other hand were to do the same to the plaintiff, the Solicitor would not be at so great an outlay, and would be remunerated by the charge for copies, and, consequently, would not be obliged to have recourse to extraordinary means of reimbursement. It was, too, by no means necessary that these fees should be taken by the Masters, in order to give them an adequate salary: for the amount of their lawful fees (he being unable to ascertain how the Masters acquired the right to demand these fees for copies, as in the Statute of Charles 2nd, defining the fees to be taken by the Masters, they are not mentioned,) appears, by the return of the emoluments of one of the Masters, to be 1,377l. It would be better, he thought, to revive that Statute, and declare that the Masters should receive those fees, and those only; and to increase some of them, if necessary, so as to raise their incomes to 2,000l. That sum had already been fixed upon by the Legislature as the utmost amount of salary for a Master in the Court of Exchequer, and he conceived it was sufficient for the duties of the office. We should then have men appointed from those ranks at the Bar where you would find them most competent to nil the office, as it would not be worth while to fill it for an indirect or political purpose, and it would be requisite, too, that it should be filled by a really working man. He next came to a subject of paramount importance, though he knew not whether an humble individual like himself ought to originate such a proposition, but he confessed, looking to the absolute necessity of a reform in the administration of justice in the Court of Chancery, that he felt compelled by duty to state his opinion, which was this: that until the Lord Chancellor shall be remunerated by a salary, instead of fees, it would be utterly impossible to carry the proposed reforms into every branch of the Court. On recollection, he found that such a suggestion had not originated with him. The committee appointed at the instance of his indefatigable friend, the member for Durham, reported that the Chancellor's emoluments were to a great extent made up of fees, which were apportioned between him and his officers, and gave an opinion, that it was inexpedient that such a practice should continue. If any hon. Gentleman would take the trouble to look at the returns presented to the House, he would see that, in some instances, the Chancellor received emoluments in petty driblets, and in others from most objection able sources. He should no longer be the only Judge in the land upon whom could rest the imputation of receiving improper fees. It should be recollected, that the Chief Justices of the Courts of Common Law, the Master of the Rolls, and all the Judges, had had whatever fees they were entitled to, commuted for a regular salary. When it was known that the income of the Chancellor, derived from these exceptionable sources, only amounted to the income of the Chief Justice, it seemed very improper that the chief law officer of the country should be placed in a worse situation than the Chief Justice. If that reform were accomplished, there might be a substantial reform in bankruptcy, but it would not be practicable to abolish recitals or decrees in causes, and keep them in orders in bankruptcy. It would be difficult to do it in either case, if measures were not introduced to do away with the practice of the Chancellor dividing fees with his Secretary. If that practice were abolished, orders in bankruptcy might, be written on the petitions. Let him remind the House, that in 1797, the fees of the Secretary in Bankruptcy amounted to about 1,100l., of which 500l. went to pay the expense of clerks, the other 600l. being his income. Now his receipts were 10,000l. a-year, of which about 4,000l. went to the Chancellor. This was a subject of vast importance, and he rather threw it out for consideration than made any proposition upon it. He trusted that the House would give him credit for his motives in making this suggestion, for he did not know whether the alteration would be gratifying to the Chancellor or not, but he felt so strongly on the subject, that he could not forbear bringing it before the House for consideration. Before proceeding further, he wished to correct an error, unintentional no doubt, into which his hon. friend had fallen with regard to the office of the Accountant-general, which ought to be regulated, and he would state why. It appeared by the Returns, that the Accountant-general received a part of the brokerage; his learned friend did not object to that, but did he not object to the broker receiving 1,848l. per annum? for that was his share in 1828. Now, he "would propose, that what had been done in Ireland should be done here,—namely, that the Chancellor should appoint a broker, and no doubt a man of the utmost respectability might be found who would undertake the office for l,000l. a-year. His learned friend did not object to the salary of the Accountant-general as such, but it should be remembered, that with what he received as Master, his income was 4,452l., which was too much by at least 1,500l. With regard to the Six Clerks'-office, the evidence of Mr. Vizard, so often referred to, had convinced him that the incalculable evils which arose from it could only be got rid of by its utter abolition. He confessed that when he heard Mr. Vizard was appointed the Lord Chancellor's Secretary, he thought it was a good omen of an effectual reform in the Court of Chancery. If he had been asked what man he would select as most proper to be about the Chancellor at the present moment, when he had to reform the Court, he should have said, by all means take Mr. Vizard. The Chancery Commissioners were certainly against the abolition of this office; the reason they gave for it was, that it was proper that there should be a body of practitioners kept up acquainted with the practice of the Court, by which it might be maintained in a uniform state. The Clerks in this Court received about 9,000l.a-year for copies, 3,000l. of which would be saved if copies were mutually handed over by the Solicitors, as he proposed in the case of the Masters' Office. These copies, besides, are made in the most inconvenient form, often as thick as the box on the Table, with a few words,—indeed, in some cases, with no more than two words all down a page. This was perfectly monstrous, and those copies, which cost so much were all sent to the chandler's shop as waste paper. What was extraordinary, too, although the client paid a clerk for an office-copy, if he made any mistakes, such as leaving out a sentence, putting the party to great expense, the Court refused a remedy: so that, although they were paid for as perfect copies, no warranty was given with them, and great expense was often occasioned by their imperfections. But to return to the question as to the practice. There was no complaint of an attorney not knowing the practice in the Courts of Common Law, but in those Courts there were no clerks on whom to rely for the practice; the Attorneys learn it, therefore; and although they might make mistakes, there was no Attorney in a Court of Common Law who would not be ashamed of not knowing the practice of his Court, but a Solicitor never pretended to know the practice of the Courts of Equity; he sent to the Clerk in Court, and, the practice being confined to the breasts of those persons, the Solicitors could not learn what it was. He could point cut many instances where the Clerks in Court had differed as to what the practice is, and as they never went into Court, how could they learn it? At one time they used to be allowed a fee for attendance every time a cause was heard, but, as they never did attend, the commissioners struck off that shameless charge, and they were now allowed only for one attendance. Surely, the practice ought to be laid down by the Judge, but here the proper order of things was absolutely reversed, and the Judge had to learn the practice from the officers of the Court, instead of himself declaring what the rules of practice were. That was a perfect absurdity? He would rather take the suggestions of his learned friend, than of the commissioners, on this point. He said, that the orders of the Court regulated the practice, from the time of Lord Bacon downwards; but it was extraordinary that when one Judge had made a substantive set of orders, he had never recited those of his predecessors, or noticed them in any way, leaving it to the practitioners to find out what orders were in force and what not, and that down to the last set made out by the late Lord Chancellor. '; He should say, therefore, let the Judges of the Equity Courts meet together, re-frame the orders of different periods, and settle the practice generally, and thus prepare a document to which the Solicitor might refer to know how he was to proceed in a cause. But it was more singular in the present practice that no one Clerk in Court is an authorized organ for fixing the practice; and, each solicitor going to some; one clerk, there was often a clashing of; opinion. Only a few days ago a creditor to a small amount was turned round upon a point of practice, and made to pay costs four times the amount of his claims when he would defy any human being to say beforehand what the practice was. There was occasionally a decision in practice, and, by dint of great labour, a man might pick out from the reported cases what the practice was to a small extent. A few days ago he wished to inform a client upon a point of practice, and turned to Mr. Grant's very able book, the last upon that subject, to see what he had said upon it, when, to his utter dismay, after detailing what the practice formerly was, he went on to say —" The above is stated for information; but how far the new rules have altered the practice, or reversed it, or abolished it, it is impossible for any person, on such a point as this to say; it must be left to the decision of the Court."—Thus a Solicitor who wrote a book on the subject, said, it was impossible to tell what the practice is. There was then a vital disease in the practice of the Court, which" could be completely remedied only by abolishing the present system altogether. The Six Clerks'-office was also preserved for the purpose of taxing costs; but he had documents in his hand which completely illustrated their inability to discharge even that duty. He held in his hand a bill of costs, thirty-five sheets long, which was taxed in the Masters' office, in the presence of a Clerk in Court. The bill amounted to 830l., from which, upon taxation, 132l. was struck off'; but afterwards the Solicitor himself relaxed the costs without the Clerk in Court, and took off twice the amount. It might be asked how this happened? Why the Clerk in Court allowed for a copy of ninety folios, when it contained only fifty-one; and for another, 1,150, which contained only 779, and committed other oversights, of a similar nature, although he was one of the most intelligent of the body. The fees, too, which they received were very heavy. He had known a case in which they had received as much as 60l. from each side, and as the Solicitors received the same, it made an expense of 120l. on each side for taxing the costs alone. The Six Clerks themselves had, in effect, sinecures; for they divided the duty between them by taking two months each in the year, for which two months of doing nothing, each, with other small fees, as Comptroller of the Hanaper, received 1,200l. a-year. He said, two months of doing nothing; and hon. Members would agree with him, if they would take the pains to look at the evidence of Mr. Vizard, or of the Six Clerks, which describes the duties of the office; and they might be discharged by any man of the least glimmering of understanding, for they consisted in seeing that the documents were written in a fair hand on proper parchment, and not blotted, and other similar duties. He did not mean to treat the individuals in that office with any disrespect, but he certainly did not think them competent to the office of taxing costs, as suggested by his hon. and learned friend. There was, he feared, no alternative but to employ one or two taxing officers, and he would pay them as he would every one who did anything beneficial to the suitor, while he would get rid of all offices not beneficial to the suitor. He would then proceed to the last subject on which he should trouble the House. Having got rid of the Six Clerks, an office must be erected to keep the Records; and, connected with this subject, he had framed a plan which would as he thought get rid of three-fourths of the abuses existing in the Court of Chancery. He proposed, that all bills should be filed in the office so erected, not written, as now, on a great sheet of parchment, which nobody could read, but in the form of a book. Next to the bills, the answers should be entered in the same way. Then should come the decree, the report, the order, or further directions, all following one another in the same way. This would totally abolish the present expensive system of recitals. At present the decree was carried to one office, the report to another, and the bill and answer to another, so that each document contained a recital of all the proceedings necessary to explain it; but if they were all entered one after another, like sheets in a book, there would be no necessity for a recital, for the report would be explained by the decree which preceded it, as would the order on further directions by the report. He would ask any individual who had ever seen the records of the Courts of Chancery, the immense sheets of parchment, covered, certainly with writing in a legible hand, but he defied any man to read them without a guide for the eye;—he would ask any individual, who had seen these records, whether the plan he proposed would not be a simple, but vast improvement? It would at once put an end to the multiplied copies of the same document—multi- plied, indeed, to an extent hardly conceivable; for it often happened, that the same sentences were written ten times over in the different offices. It would abolish, also, the Enrolment Office; for, not content with all the previous copies for decrees, in order to get the benefit of his decree, a party must have it enrolled —that is, have it written on a long musty sheet of parchment, and laid by. The gentleman to whom he was indebted for many of these details, Mr. Edgar Taylor, had published a pamphlet on the subject, to which all interested in it might refer with great advantage. That gentleman shewed, that the pleadings were copied six times over at least: a Writ of Execution, must contain the order, with all its recitals; and what was most monstrous, although the party succeeding was compelled to obtain a Writ of Execution to enforce his decree, yet he was not allowed it in his costs. Indeed, he must say, that a complete revision of the present system of costs was necessary. he had trespassed longer on the time of hon. Members than he intended; but he thanked the House most cordially for its kind indulgence. He should not have entered so much into detail, had he not, early in the Session, given notice of a series of resolutions "which embody the opinions he had expressed. It was certainly his intention to take the opinion of the House on those resolutions, unless something- effectual should in the interim be brought forward in this or the other House; and he had only delayed the subject till after Easter, from a feeling that, he could not fairly press it upon the attention of Ministers whilst they had so nanny things to attend to. He was sure his Majesty's Government would not consider that it was in the slightest spirit of hostility to them that he had formed this resolution, but he had been grievously disappointed by trusting to other Governments, and felt it necessary, therefore, not to depend too much upon this Government. He had the most perfect conviction that the Court of Chancery might be rendered a Court in the highest degree beneficial to the subject, and he believed that, if the alteration of the hon. member for Winchelsea were adopted, of transferring its jurisdiction to the Common Law Courts, of which he says they have been robbed, we should soon find them more encumbered than the Court of Chancery itself. Let the House keep the Courts of Common Law free from the reproach of delay, expense, and vexation, and endeavour to make such alterations as would relieve the Court of Chancery from such imputations, and then the House would not have to discuss such bills as that brought before it for forcing parties to submit their cases to the arbitration of any individual the Judge may think fit to appoint. That he should decidedly object to: for it would be in effect to deny a man that justice the Constitution of the land entitled him to demand, and would be for Parliament to declare itself incompetent to establish a sufficient Court of Judicature.

submitted that the debate should be adjourned.

was ready to acquiesce in the adjournment; but he thought Members must feel how much more advantageous it would be to deliver their opinions when there was some substantive proposition before the House, and not on conversation leading to nothing. He did not conceive it was regular to adjourn, for the second time, on an unresisted motion,

merely rose to protest against the doctrine of his hon. and learned friend (Sir E. B. Sugden), that a member of the Common Law Bar could not make a competent Lord Chancellor. This was saying, that to spend twenty years in an equity draughtsman's office, was the best education for a Lord Chancellor, a proposition which he could never acquiesce in. He had the authority of Lord Eldon for saying, that the best Chancellors were those that had been taken from the Common Law Bar. That learned Lord himself went the northern circuit. Sir Samuel Romilly practised at Sessions sixteen or seventeen years, and he believed that the most eminent Equity lawyers had received the best part of their education at the Common Law Bar.