presented a Petition, agreed to at a very large and respectable meeting held in Manchester, on the subject of the Irish Church. The Dissenters of that town were among the petitioners, as were all interested in the prosperity and welfare of Ireland, and anxious for the removal of the grievances which press upon the Dissenters from the Established Church. The petitioners stated their regret at the measures hitherto introduced and adopted on the subject of the Established Church, and to enforce its acceptance by the Irish people; they believed that any connexion between Church and State was injurious to the interests of religion, and they desired the abolition of the abuses allowed to exist in the Church of Ireland. They complained that the property of the State should be appropriated to the support of the religion of a very small section of the people, and they therefore prayed that, after the due maintenance of the Irish clergy, the surplus should he applied to national purposes. They stated, that the Dissenters of the United Kingdom had waived their claims to a redress of grievances till the present Session, in the hope that they would be dealt with in a more complete manner than hitherto. They also prayed that the grant to the Dissenters in Ireland, called the Regium Donum, might be withdrawn, and that the revenues of the Irish church should be resumed by the State. They prayed that the Bills for the registration of births, deaths and marriages might pass this Session. They further prayed that the Ecclesiastical Courts might be abolished. The petition was signed by 32,000 individuals, Dissenters and other inhabitants of Manchester. It was his duty to state to the House what their views and feelings were. He must say, that he did not cordially assent to some portions of the petition; but the portion to which he cordially gave his support was that which prayed for the redress of the grievances of the Dissenters during the present Session of Parliament. He most cordially gave his support to that part of it which prayed for the civil registration of births, marriages, and deaths, and also to that portion which prayed for the abolition of one of the greatest nuisances—he meant the present system of the Ecclesiastical Courts. With respect to the Regium Donum, he could not enter into the question. He was only speaking the sentiments of the petitioners, who objected to the grant.

had been solicited to protest against the sentiments contained in the petition just read by the hon. Member, which could be considered as like travelling at the rate of twenty miles an hour. The hon. Member was proceeding when

inquired if the object of the hon. Member was to object to the petition being laid on the Table? [Mr. Trevor: "No!"] If that were not the case, he begged to ask the hon. Member whether he thought right, where there were so many subjects referred to in the petition, to consume the public time with discussions on the petition, when ample opportunity would be afforded for that purpose when the subjects referred to in the petition were brought in a distinct form under the consideration of the House? Unless it was the intention of the hon. Member to oppose the petition being laid on the Table, it was better to allow the business to proceed.

said, that he was induced to offer the few remarks he had made in consequence of the language contained in the petition, and he was disposed to oppose its being laid on the Table; but as the sense of the House appeared to be against him, he would not trouble them with any further observations.

opposed the Bill; and moved that it be read a third lime on this day six months. It was one of the speculations of the day, the shareholders being chiefly resident. These railway gentlemen drove their lines through a man's grounds and gardens without even asking his consent, so that the old saying every man's Louse is his castle, was no longer true, for though the King could not enter it, these railway, speculators could, and pull it down about his ears.

seconded the amendment. According to all the information which he had been able to obtain, the case of the gentleman alluded to by his hon. and gallant Friend, appeared to be one of peculiar hardship. He admitted, that private interests must yield to the general interest of the community at large, but the former ought not to be unnecessarily injured. The line which the gentleman in question wished the company to adopt, instead of that which they had determined on, would not occasion more than a minute and-a-half's delay. If ever there was a case in which the House was called upon to protect the rights of an individual, the present was such a case. Whatever might be the fate of the amendment, he should have great pleasure in standing by his hon. and gallant Friend. It was not the first time he had had that high honour.

The Committee had reported, and he thought justly, in favour of the Bill. There was no line more advantageous, and the chief opposition came from a gentleman whose house was not approached by the railway nearer than three quarters of a mile.

hoped the House would not allow an individual to defeat a measure of public utility, which the Committee approved of.

did not understand the hon. Member as bringing forward an objection to Sunday travelling in general; and, undoubtedly, the mode of locomotion upon railways was the least objectionable of all, as employing the fewest number of men, and the least amount of labour. He should oppose the bringing up of this clause.

could not conceive what necessity there was for this clause. The proprietors of the railroad had full power to prevent Sunday travelling upon it if they pleased.

said, the hon. Member should bring forward a general proposition, if any, upon the subject, and not introduce it in reference to a particular railway.

thought the hon. Member had better not press the motion, though, if he did so, he should consider it his duty to support him.

was surprised that hon. Members should object to Sunday travelling on the railway, seeing that it would be attended with this one great advantage —that it would enable persons to select among a greater number of churches.

said, there might be a great deal of wit in the hon. and Learned Member's observation, but there was no argument. It was very desirable that the same sort of exemption should be extended to all railways.

said, he hoped the House would not sanction this attempt to prevent Sunday travelling.

would not vote for the hon. Member's motion. The projectors of this Bill made loud protestations about the wonderful liberality of their intentions and their desire to afford opportunities of cheap travelling to the poor, yet by this clause they sought to hinder the lower classes from availing themselves of this cheap travelling on the very day most open to them. The projectors themselves, he would dare to say, would have no scruple about travelling on Sundays in their carriages and on horseback. The short of the matter was, that their professed liberality was ail a pretence; they cared for nobody but themselves, and he would pronounce of this, as of most other such speculations, that it was a mere selfish project.

said, he stood in a rather peculiar situation on the subject of the Bill. The religious classes in Hull knew there were special reasons why, if any invasion were attempted of their freedom or privileges, he must of necessity be the first to join them, and the last to quit. But he must say to them distinctly, he could not support them in their unreasonableness. He did not see that any such invasion was attempted here. There was no endeavour, that he was aware of, to force any of his worthy friends, the Methodists of Hull, to travel on this railway on Sundays against their consent; and if a clause to that effect should ever be proposed, they might depend upon its meeting his most strenuous opposition. From what he had just heard he gathered that he was right in his persuasion, that the proprietors of the railway had power to make any regulations for the travelling on it they pleased. Now, if this House was applied to by certain individuals, requesting us to shut their mouths in the dog-days, lest flies should enter in, should we not reply to them, "Shut them yourselves." Allusion had been made to something he had said in the Committee, and therefore he was under the necessity of repeating it here, leaving it to obtain such credence as the belief of his capability for giving evidence might procure, that in 1808 he was going as Governor to Sierra Leone, and Mr. Wilberforce, as would readily be believed, gave him advice on many subjects, which no man could do better than to follow; and, among other things, said to him, "That, for his part, he did not believe the Sabbath to be of Divine obligation upon Christians, but he thought it an excellent political institution, and hoped the Government in Sierra Leone would do everything in its power to uphold it."

said, he wished to aska question of the noble Lord the Secretary at War. Having read the decision of a court-martial, in which it was stated that there had been introduced into the 15th regiment of Hussars "a practice which (the court-martial said) cannot be considered otherwise than revolting to every proper and honourable feeling of a gentleman, and as being certain to create disunion and to be most injurious to his Majesty's service;" having read, likewise, in a general order from the Horse Guards, that "his Majesty has been pleased to approve and confirm the finding of the court;" and likewise that "his Majesty has been pleased to order that Lieutenant-Colonel Lord Brudenell shall be removed from the command of the 15th Hussars;" he wished to ask the Secretary at War whether, without this decision being previously cancelled, without its being solemnly proclaimed to the army as being most unjust and false, it can possibly be true that the noble Lord in question is appointed to the lieutenant-colonelcy of the 11th Light Dragoons? If it be true that such is the case, he wished to know likewise whether the Secretary at War had approved of and sanctioned this appointment?

, in answer to the question put by the hon. Baronet, could only say, that it certainly was true that the noble Lord referred to had been appointed to the lieutenant-colonelcy of the 11th Light Dragoons. Having stated this fact, which the hon. Baronet was equally aware of before from having seen it gazetted, in answer to the second part of the hon. Baronet's question—namely, whether that appointment had taken place with his (Lord Howick's) sanction, he could only say that the hon. Baronet, by the fact of asking such a question, had shown himself to be quite unacquainted with the practice adhered to in making these appointments. The duty of a Secretary at War, as many hon. Members from experience knew, and particularly the gallant officer opposite, was confined to watching over the arrangement of the finances appropriated to the army. He had no concern or right whatever to interfere in any respect in army promotions, appointments, or in anything connected with the discipline or internal management of the army; for all that related to such matters, the Commander-in-chief, and he only, was responsible. According to the usual practice, the Secretary at War was never made aware of any intended promotion or appointment until the Horse Guards minute had actually been approved by his Majesty, and sent by the Commander-in-chief to the War-office. The Secretary at War had no more to do with military appointments than the hon. Baronet had. This was the usual course; but in the present instance he could not say that the usual practice had altogether been adhered to, for in point of fact he had been aware, before the appointment in question was submitted to the Crown, that such an appointment was intended. When he was apprised by the Commander-in-chief of the contemplated appointment, his answer was, "It is for your Lordship to determine upon it: I have no means of judging whether the appointment is right or wrong; your Lordship is the responsible party, and it, therefore, rests altogether with your judgment. If you think proper to make the appointment, I have no possible grounds upon which to object." He (Lord Howick) had said, that he had no grounds upon which to object, because he had found in the records of the War-office, that a few months before the court-martial took place which led to the removal of the noble Lord from the 15th Hussars, a correspondence had taken place between his right hon. Friend, the Member for Coventry, then Secretary at War, and the Commander-in-chief, the result of which had been the full acquiescence of that noble Lord in the rule very properly laid down for his adoption by the right hon. Gentleman—that no officer "should be removed from full to half-pay but who was not considered by the Commander-in-chief fit— from his character and conduct—to be called again into active service, if the Commander-in-chief should think proper." This being the principle fully admitted by Lord Hill in November, 1833, and the noble Lord now in question not having been put by him on the half-pay list in March, 1834, it was manifest that the noble and gallant officer must at that time have been considered by the Commander-in-chief as eligible in every respect to be called into active employment when the occasion should be considered by him to arrive. He (Lord Howick) had therefore considered that he had no right whatever to object to the appointment, and that it might be very possible, for all he was entitled to know to the contrary, that among all the candidates for employment, the noble Lord had made the most fitting selection. Upon this point there were no documents within the reach of the Secretary at War which might enable him to form an opinion. He would repeat, the appointment had certainly taken place, and with his knowledge, and without any objection on his part; but at the same time without his sanction—in this sense, that, as he had before said, as Secretary at War, he had not been called upon to give or withhold his consent.

said, that the noble Lord having very honestly and candidly stated that he was not responsible for these matters, he should beg leave to ask the noble Lord, in the name of the Commons of England, who was. It was fit that somebody should be responsible to the country for the management and control of the army, and moreover, that the country should know who that responsible person was. The government, responsible to the country for the general conduct of its affairs, intrusted to a noble Lord the management and superintendence of the internal affairs of the army. He (Mr. Hume) wished it to be understood, whether that noble Lord was independent of all responsibility, and whether his acts, as Commander-in-chief, were to be subject to no control from any quarter whatsoever? Was the Secretary at War, in point of fact, as he (Mr. Hume) had really stated the case to be, merely a clerk to the Commander-in-chief? It was necessary that the country should be put in possession of the real nature of the case, and that it should be understood whether the party exercising the entire control and management of the army was or was not subject to the same responsibility which attached to Ministers themselves.

would offer a few observations upon what had been asked, without, however, going much into the question, upon which he rather agreed with the hon. Member, in reference to the powers of the Secretary at War as regarded the Commander-in-chief. But so far as regarded appointments and promotions in the army, the discretion was placed, and he must say by no means improperly placed, in the Commander-in-chief. If the Commander-in-chief, being the person of the highest station in the army, and necessarily acquainted with the merits of the different officers serving in it, did his duty, he was responsible for the appointments and promotions made by him, his Majesty's Ministers, the First Lord of the Treasury, being responsible for advising his Majesty to adopt the recommendations of the Commander-in-chief in such cases. If, on the contrary, his Majesty's Ministers were of opinion that the discretion so lodged in the Commander-in-chief was wrongly exercised, that it was not exercised in such a manner as to benefit the army and do credit to the service, he should say the responsibility, in such a case, fell upon the Ministers, for not advising his Majesty to remove the Commander-in-chief. So that, in his (Lord John Russell's) view of the matter, while Lord Hill continued Commander-in-chief, he was, no doubt, responsible for the due execution of his duties, and for taking care that all the appointments and promotions made by him, should be founded upon his unbiassed judgment of the merits of the respective officers, and their position in the service. For the general discretion, and confidence placed by Government in the person holding the office of Commander-in-chief, he (Lord John Russell) was ready to take his share of responsibility, for he thought that if a Ministry were of opinion that the person holding so important an office was not properly and conscientiously performing his duties, it would be they, and not the Commander-in-chief, who would be responsible, for their clear duty would be to advise his Majesty to make another choice.

wished to know whether he were right in understanding the noble Lord to have said, that the Commander-in-chief was responsible for the promotions he made, and the Ministers of the Crown were responsible for the acts of the Commander-in-chief. Then, if so, he wished to ask the noble Lord to inform him whether the act of promoting Lord Brudenell received the Ministers' sanction and approbation.

thought he had explained the position of Ministers and the position of the Commander-in-chief. His explanation was, that the Commander-in-chief was responsible for the particular acts which he advised, and the Ministers were responsible for advising the Crown to place confidence in him. With respect to the particular act of the appointment of Lord Brudenell, he would apply to that what he had stated as to the appointments of the Commander-in-chief generally. He thought it would be exceedingly inconvenient if on each occasion of the appointment to a lieutenant-colonelcy, or other commission in a regiment, it became the practice that those who held civil situations in his Majesty's service, should intrude their opinions on the Commander-in-chief in respect to the military services of the officer. As to the case of Lord Brudenell, he, like his noble Friend (Lord Howick) was informed by Lord Hill that such an appointment was in contemplation before Lord Hill had decided on making it; but certainly he did not think proper, any more than his noble Friend, to inform Lord Hill that he had formed an opinion as to whether Lord Brudenell should or should not be placed in the situation of lieutenant-colonel of a regiment; but he did make some observations that were similar to those made by his noble Friend. He said, he thought that it was a question for the discretion of the Commander-in-chief. He had understood, from what he recollected of the circumstances, that his right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, who was Secretary at War, asked at the time of Lord Brudenell's removal from the command of the 15th Hussars, whether he was to understand that the Commander-in-chief would not think fit to appoint Lord Brudenell to such a situation as he now held; and he believed Lord Hill stated to his right hon. Friend, that he did consider Lord Brude- nell as a person, whom, at some future time, he should think it a benefit to the military service to employ again under his Majesty's command. Lord Hill having given that opinion in 1834, he considered it was a question for Lord Hill's discretion and judgment whether the removal of Lord Brudenell from active service should be followed by a continuance of that punishment—for it must be considered as a punishment—for a greater or a less period of time. He did not venture to say, that he thought it was fit at this time, or not fit, to remove him; but this much he did say, that he had full confidence that Lord Hill would form an unbiassed judgment on the subject, according to his conscientious sense of duty. Therefore he came back to what he had stated in the beginning, viz., that Lord Hill was responsible for this act, and the Ministers were responsible for confiding in him as a person fit to be trusted in the office of Commander-in-chief.

entirely concurred in opinion with the Noble Lord who last spoke, and also with the Noble Lord who was Secretary at War, as regarded their responsibility, for the appointment under consideration. There was certainly a general responsibility, and the special responsibility rested with the Commander-in-chief. He agreed with the Noble Lord that if the Commander-in-chief conducted the affairs of the army in such a way as not to secure the confidence of the Government, it was a fit subject for the consideration of the Government whether they should not advise his Majesty to remove him from his office. He admitted the principle, and thought that was the mode in which the affairs of the army ought to be carried on. But he had heard that night, as on former occasions, that Lord Hill did so conduct himself as to merit the confidence of the Government. Under these circumstances in his opinion the act of Lord Hill was an act which was approved by the Government, inasmuch as the Government did not interfere in the individual appointments of the Commander-in-chief, unless those appointments were such as they disapproved of; in which case they were bound to remonstrate, and, if necessary, apply the remedy of removing the Commander-in-chief from his office. As to this particular case the hon. Member for Cornwall stated that Lord Brudenell was removed from the command of the 15th Hussars in consequence of the sentence of the court martial, and he had quoted the substance of it, from which it appeared that the charge against Lord Brudenell was, that he was in the habit of taking down the private Communications of officers in the orderly-room without their knowledge.

suggested to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the propriety of not entering into particulars.

was not going to enter into the particulars. He was only about to state, that the noble Lord, when he was removed from the command of the 15th Hussars, in consequence of the verdict, did petition the King praying that he would allow him to be tried by a general court martial, and declaring that he never had—

rose to order. In his opinion, they ought either to enter into the subject fully and fairly, or not go into it at all. The right hon. Gentleman had introduced details into the debate which were not noticed in asking the question. He put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether he thought it right to enter into a general discussion of the subject now:—in his opinion, the details ought to be reserved for the period when the question came regularly before the House. He protested against the right hon. Gentleman being permitted to go into particulars, unless the other side were allowed the privilege of reply.

said, he did not wish to go into particulars; but the hon. Member for Cornwall stated a fact, and he thought it but fair that he should be allowed to rebut that fact. Lord Brudenell, so far from assenting to the justice of the sentence upon him, petitioned the King praying his Majesty to order that he should be tried by a general court-martial. The King, however, did not acquiesce in his request; thinking, probably, that it would be injurious to the service to do so. But it was intimated to Lord Brudenell, that the case being one of discipline only, he might expect to be reinstated in his original position after a time. The Secretary at War of that day asked the Commander-in-chief if he considered the conduct of Lord Brudenell such that he should be permanently placed on the half-pay list, or temporarily as a punishment merely? the answer was, that he was placed on half-pay for the purpose of being restored to the service on a future occasion. It followed that the sentence of the court, in the estimation of the Commander-in-chief was not such as to call for the permanent removal of Lord Brudenell from the active service of the King. He had taken steps to ascertain what were the impressions entertained on the subject by persons at head-quarters; and he could state them to have been, that there was no intention to fix Lord Brudenell permanently on the half-pay list, but on the contrary to restore him, after a time, to active service. He begged to add, that he never saw an appointment with more satisfaction than he did that by which the noble Lord was placed on full pay. It was an appointment by which the gallant Officer was restored with honour to the service; and he was satisfied that in his future career he would do that appointment credit.

had never advocated the system of canvassing the sentences of courts martial in that House, and he had not done so on the present occasion. That being the case, he begged to say, in Parliamentary phrase, that the Gallant Officer ought not to ask him a question of that kind.

disapproved, as well as the right hon. Gentleman, of the interference of that House with the discipline of the army. He was glad the question had afforded the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity of making a satisfactory reply.

said, he had the honour of commanding in the army for twenty-four years, and there was no one transaction in his military life which gave him more satisfaction than he derived from seeing the name of Lord Brudenell restored to the array. He should not feel that he had acted with justice towards Lord Brudenell if he did not make that declaration boldly in the face of military men.

gave notice that soon after Easter, he should move a humble Address to his Majesty on the subject of this appointment. In the course of this evening he should move for Copies of the Correspondence referred to by the gallant Officer opposite.

asked what the hon. Gentleman meant by correspondence?

The Petition and the Answer.

said, he knew of no correspondence but the Petition of Lord Brudenell, and the answer received to it. As to those documents, he had no doubt the hon. Member would be as much gratified as he was on seeing them, if the hon. Member had the feelings of a Gentleman, which no doubt he had.

suggested, that the hon. Gentleman should not move this evening for a Copy of the Petition, as he (Lord Howick) should not feel justified in concurring in the motion, or, indeed, in any motion for the production of any Papers on the subject, till he had been afforded an opportunity of communicating with Lord Hill.

said, seeing the noble Lord, the Foreign Secretary in his place, he wished to put to him one or two questions of great importance with respect to our national honour, and of vital importance to the commercial interests of this country. In the course of the recent discussion which took place, relative to the late unfortunate events at Cracow, the noble Lord stated, that communications had been made on that subject with the Ministers abroad. The first question which he wished to ask the noble Lord was, whether amongst the parties he had communicated with were included the authorities of Cracow itself; and whether any answer to his communications had been received? The second question he had to ask the noble Lord was, whether he had received any official notice of events which it was said had occurred affecting the victims of Cracow since the occupation of that place? Was the noble Lord aware that the Polish Refugees, having been induced to pass out of the district in which they were, instead of being forwarded to the place of their destination, had been delivered up by the three powers into the hands of Russia, and had been marched, in all probability, to Siberia or to Tobolsk? His next question had reference to our commercial interests. He begged to ask the noble Lord if he had information of an attempt on the part of Russia to close the mouths of the Danube by certain quarantine regulations. He begged also to express a hope that the noble Lord would inform the House whether it was the intention of the Government to interfere to prevent this further violation of the treaties of Vienna and Adrianople, by both of which it was declared that all the navigable rivers traversing the European states should be free and open in their course to the whole of Europe.

said, he should feel it his duty on Friday, the 15th of April, to call the attention of the House to what he advisedly and deliberately designated the aggression of Russia.

begged to ask the noble Lord whether he could give the House any information as to the state of the negotiations between the Queen of Portugal and his Majesty's Government affecting the commercial relations of the two countries? Another question he desired to ask the noble Lord was, whether his Majesty's Government had consented to annul the treaty which existed with the State of Frankfort, by which that State was excluded from joining, without the consent of this country, the German Confederation? If the consent of this country had been given, he should be obliged by the noble Lord stating on what grounds.

would avail himself of that opportunity to ask the noble Lord whether it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to fill up the vacancy at Canton occasioned by the death of Lord Napier?

said, that question involved some very important considerations connected with the commerce of this country—considerations, the very importance of which, he could assure his noble Friend, was one reason why the Government had paused for so long a time with regard to any measures which it might be deemed advisable to take. By the instructions sent out to the superintendents when Lord Napier first went out there, it was ordered that every vacancy as it occurred, was to be filled up on the spot, subject to the approbation of the Government at home. Pursuant to that arrangement there were now three superintendents; they were Sir G. Robinson, who had been in the service of the East-India Company, he was the senior superintendent; Captain Elliot was the second; and Mr. Johnson was the third.

wished to ask the noble Lord whether there was any truth in the general rumour, that a negotiation was going forward for a loan for the service of the Queen of Spain, and that this country was to guarantee its repayment?

had no objection to give the hon. Gentleman the information he requested, but thought he should be almost entitled to ask the hon. Gentleman in return a counter question of just the same nature. In reply to the question of the hon. Gentleman, he begged to say, that no loan had been negociated by the Queen of Spain which the Government of this country was to guarantee. He now begged to ask the hon. Gentleman, or any other hon. Gentleman on that side of the House, whether, "as he had seen it reported," a loan had been negociated for Don Carlos; and if so, upon what guarantee?

admitted the importance of the document in question, but expressed some doubt as to the right of that House to call for it. It was of very great importance in a legal point of view, in suits for tithes, moduses, &c.; but not many years ago, the Court of Chancery had decided, that extracts from it were to be received as evidence, so as to render its production in Court not necessary; and he understood, that there was every facility given on payment of a small fee, for the inspection of it, and if required for taking extracts from it.

opposed the motion; he denied the right of that House to demand the production of the document: in one point of view, they would be committing a great injustice in so doing; for the person in whose custody it now was received certain fees for its inspection. He had a vested interest in those fees, and that House had no just right to deprive him of it.

said, that, as Chairman of the Record Commission, he could assure the hon. Member for Finsbury, that they would use their influence to procure the production of the document referred to.

said, his only object was to get at the document; and, on that assurance, he would withdraw his motion.—Motion withdrawn.

said, in bringing before the House a Bill for making certain alterations in the duties of the Lords Ordinary, &c., he wished to call attention in the first place to the savings that had been made in the Court of Session and Court of Admiralty, and Court of Exchequer in Scotland. In the Court of Session and Admiralty, the savings which had actually accrued amounted already to 17,375l. 8s. 4½d. per annum; the prospective savings to 11,566l. 6s. 2d. The actual savings in the Court of Exchequer amounted to 14,996l. 13s. 4d.; the prospective to 7,215l. 11s. 4d.; amounting altogether to 51,153l. 19s. 2½d. The returns from the Commissary clerk were not so clearly made, but the savings by the abolition of that Court would exceed 2,000l. These returns, as soon as a further return was obtained from the Commissary Court, he should move should be printed after the recess; but savings to the public would take place which could not appear on any return, for from twenty judges being reduced to thirteen, and six principal clerks to four, a very considerable saving would take place in the amount of retiring allowances. The office of Keeper of the Privy Seal, which had undergone no change, and who, besides drawing a salary of 3,000l. receives a large amount of fees, would be reduced to 1,200l., no part of which would he payable from the Exchequer, but entirely from the fees, and the balance would be payable to the Treasury. A very large saving would also arise in the event of the office of Lord Register, Keeper of the Sasines and of the Signet, becoming vacant. In the department of stamps and taxes, the savings would be upwards of 12,000l. The abolition of the Boards of Customs and Excise, and other retrenchments in those departments in Scotland had been very considerable. In these circumstances, it was natural that the suitors should look for some diminution in the fees which they paid, which would render the expense of litigation less, and throw open the Courts of Justice to persons of ordinary means, without exposing them to ruin, for justice could not be said to be free if parties were obliged, besides paying counsel and attornies, which must always be a heavy expense, to pay large court fees on every step of the proceedings. The great object of this Bill was to follow out the recommendations of the first and second Reports of the Law Commissioners. The first provision of the Act was, that the junior Lord Ordinary should act as one of the permanent Ordinaries, as one of the other four, and that actions of reduction should not be confined to him, but might be brought before any of the other Lords Ordinary. The junior Lord Ordinary has hitherto been overloaded with business; and, although the great zeal and ability of the present Judge has enabled him to get through his duties with great satisfaction to the country; yet, under the former arrangement, it was not possible for Judges of great zeal, industry, and knowledge, to overtake the cases brought before them. His Majesty's Government have found it necessary this year to prolong the Session, so far as regarded the Lords Ordinary, by one fortnight. This was the first time, that the Act of the 1st of his present Majesty, sec. 10, had been carried into effect. It had heretofore remained a dead letter." I have been told, that this Order in Council has given dissatisfaction to some individuals; but, I trust, that the advantages it will be of to the administration of justice, and the satisfaction it has given to the country, as a proof that Government is resolved to remove all unnecessary delays, are more than sufficient to justify the adoption of that measure. The other clauses of the Bill relate to arrangements, the great object of which are to improve the administration of justice and diminish the amount of fees which are exacted from the suitors. I have, in all the salaries proposed, adopted the recommendations made by the Commissioners on Scotch Law, with the exception of one, where the proposed salary was 600l. a-year, and it appeared to me that 400l. would be sufficient; but if it shall appear to the House, that the salary proposed by the Commissioners ought not to be reduced, I shall most readily acquiesce. In general, the salaries of the establishment proposed by the Law Commissioners are very moderate—in the opinion of many persons much too low. The saving in fees to litigants will amount to upwards of 19,000l. per annum. They will be great gainers by this change, and I think they ought to be so. It appears to me, that nothing can be more unjust than that the proceedings before courts of law, which must necessarily be heavy and vexatious to those engaged in them, should be severely taxed to pay fees to officers of Court. By trying a question, and having it ascertained what the law is, the parties often do what is serviceable to many hundreds, who hold their property afterwards in greater security, or are enabled to avoid questions previously unsettled; but the delay with which the discussion is attended is often most vexatious, and the expense frequently exceeds the value of the subject in dispute. I am persuaded, that an enlightened Government could render no greater service to the country than by improving the Courts of Justice, and removing, as far as can be, every source of delay and expense. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, for leave to bring in the Bill.