, showed cause at great length, against the rule which his hon. Friend, the Member for Bridport, had obtained for granting a new trial in this case. He used these words on the present occasion in no metaphorical sense, for the fact was, that it was attempted in this instance to turn that House into a court of justice; he (the Attorney-General) rather doubted whether it would not be a court of injustice, if it took upon itself to adjudicate such matters. The hon. and learned Gentleman entered into a history of the case. He concluded by saying, that there was no precedent whatever for the motion of the hon. Member for Bridport, and he hoped the House would not, by assenting to it, establish the dangerous precedent—a precedent that would lead to the most mischievous consequences—of constituting that House as a court of appeal from the decisions of the courts of justice.

hoped, the hon. Member for Bridport would withdraw his motion. He had seen the papers and pedigree of one petitioner, Charles Troutbeck, and he was quite sure that he would be able to establish his claim in the courts of law.

presented a petition from a political union in Glasgow, praying that the House might make such a reform in the House of Peers as might make them responsible. He fully concurred in the prayer of the petition, that such a reform as would subject the other House to responsibility ought to be adopted.

observed, that a petition calling on that House to effect a reform of the Lords was irregular, as it called upon the House to take upon itself all the functions of the three branches of the Legislature.

denied, that the words of the petition could be fairly said to bear the construction which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had put upon them. The prayer of the petitioners was, that the House would take such measures as would make the Lords responsible.

said, they prayed that that House might do so; now, that implied that the House itself should do so.

contended, that the words meant only that the House should originate such measures as would effect an organic change in the House of Peers, and make them responsible to the country, and he believed that unless some such change was made it would be impossible to go on.

thought it would not be fair to the petitioners to infer that they prayed that the reform of the Peers should be made by the House of Commons only.

said, it was not probable that the House of Lords would receive such a petition, if sent to them, praying the same thing with respect to the House of Commons.

Philips wished to set himself right respecting a statement he had made on a preceding day, respecting the conduct of the curate of Long Hitchindean in connection with the last election for South Warwickshire. That statement had been denied by an hon. Baronet (Sir E. Wilmot), and still more emphatically by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. A. Trevor,) but he, (Mr. M. Philips) had since made the necessary inquiries, and he found, by correspondence with the parties, that what he had asserted was correct. The under-sheriff having heard that the curate of Long Hitchindean had been active in ordering the preparation of bludgeons, as he apprehended, to be employed for the breach of the peace at the election for South Warwickshire, had waited upon the reverend gentleman, and inquired of him if such was the fact? The curate gave it a distinct denial. The under-sheriff afterwards called upon the parish clerk, and in his possession saw a number of bludgeons. Asking by whose order they had been prepared, he admitted the instrumentality of the curate. At this time the curate happened to be coming by, and being again questioned he admitted that he had some knowledge of the bludgeons, but added that he meant them to be used as staves to escort Mr. Shirley's voters to the poll. The under-sheriff took possession of them and carried them away, as the clergyman, not being a magistrate, could have no power to order the manufacture of staves. These facts were detailed in a letter from the under-sheriff, and he, (Mr. M. Philips) believed that they had been stated on the hustings, although not in his hearing, so great was the confusion. Whether the bludgeons came within the definition of a stave in Johnson's Dictionary he did not know, but that they had been prepared was indisputable, notwithstanding the denial by the two hon. Members. As he had said, his (Mr. M. Philips) only object was to set himself right, and to show that he had not been guilty of any misrepresentation.

hoped the House would do him the justice to believe that he would not make any statement of the correctness of which he was not fully convinced, and he fully acquitted the hon. Member opposite of stating any thing which he did not believe to be well founded. In fact they both spoke on this matter from the information of others, and not from their own knowledge. The only question between them now was, whether those staves, as they were called, could be considered bludgeons. He had, since the subject had been mentioned, been down to the Warwickshire assizes, and he was informed on authority which he had no reason to doubt, that an application had been made to some friendly society for the use of their wands, for the procession of Mr. Shirley's friends to the hustings, and they were refused. An order was then given to a carpenter to make some, and to cut down some young ash-trees for that purpose. He had seen some of them. They were seven feet long, and certainly, if they were intended to be used in the state in which he saw them, they could easily be converted into offensive weapons; but there were amongst them three or four wands not as thick as his thumb, and if these were intended as patterns of the size to which the others were to be reduced, they were not calculated to do any harm.

had such strong objections to this Bill altogether, and particularly to the 5th Clause, which permitted the chief Commissioner to sit in that House, that he could not allow the Bill to pass through this stage without taking the sense of the House upon it.

, in moving that the Report on this Bill be received, said, that with respect to the subject of the appointment of the Revising Barristers under this Bill, he had consulted the Lord Chancellor, who had suggested to him the names of a certain number of barristers fully qualified for the office. Those names he (Lord John Russell) had given to the Attorney-General, and desired him to consult the hon. and learned Members for Huntingdon and Exeter (Sir F. Pollock and Sir William Follett) on the subject. Those two hon. and learned Gentlemen had considered the subject, and had proposed that a certain number of their suggestions should be placed on a list, amounting to not half, but in the proportion of three to eight, or rather of four to ten. That suggestion had been adopted, and another gentleman had likewise been nominated by the Lord Chancellor, whose politics were supposed to incline to the opinions of hon. Members opposite. The names they proposed to insert were the following:—They proposed the right hon. Thomas Erskine to be chief of this court, receiving under the Bill the same salary as the other Revising Barristers should receive. He had, therefore, to propose the following gentlemen: — The right hon. Thomas Erskine, chief Revising Barrister of England and Wales; and John Farquhar Frazer, Francis Newman Rogers, George Long, Frederick Robinson, Edward Harvey Maltby, William Mackworth Praed, Martin West, Woronzow Greig, Charles Rennell, and William John Alexander, Esqrs., to be the other Revising Barristers of England and Wales.

had no objection to these names being inserted in the Bill, provided it should be considered that they were inserted without prejudice to any future objections that might be made to them. Let the clause be printed, and the discussion might be taken on the next stage of the Bill.

suggested to the noble Lord (Russell) the propriety of re-considering the appointment of Mr. Erskine. That gentleman was at present the Chief Judge of Appeal in Bankruptcy, and if the business of the Insolvent Courts were, as was proposed, to be thrown into the Court of Appeal, it would greatly interfere with Mr. Erskine's discharge of his duties as the chief of the court of the Revising Barristers. He entertained, also, very strong objections to this Bill on another and more important ground—namely, because it placed the appointment of the Revising Barristers entirely in the hands of the Ministers of the Crown. True, the Minister for the time being might consult other persons more competent to make a fair and impartial selection, but this was optional on his part, and virtually these appointments were entirely in the hands of the Government. He suggested that the Bill ought to be postponed till next Session in order that an opportunity might be afforded for its full consideration.

begged to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that he had adopted the present scheme at the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth. If the House was of opinion that he had not acted fairly and impartially in the selection of the names of the Revising Barristers, undoubtedly they would be of opinion that the consideration of the Bill ought to be postponed; but had he thought that such a proposition would be made, he should have spared himself a very disagreeable task. With respect to the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland, he (Lord John Russell) thought that the third reading of the Bill would afford a sufficient opportunity for the discussion of the principle of the clause.

had felt, in common with many other hon. Members, that it was unconstitutional to vest the appointment of these barristers in the Crown, and it was to obviate that objection that it was proposed that the names of the barristers should be inserted in the Bill, The hon. and learned Members for Huntingdon and Exeter, had agreed to the selection which had been made, and he was therefore surprised that it was opposed.

thought, that if to the present Revising Barristers there were added three to sit as a Court of Appeal in London, the present system would be much better than that now proposed by his Majesty's Government. Under the present system, if they had a bad Revising Barrister one year, they had the chance of a good one the next, and thus the electors had a guarantee against any permanent injury being inflicted upon them. Under the system proposed by his Majesty's Governter, if they once got a bad Revising Barrister, they were burthened with him for life. He gave notice that, if this Bill were not very much amended, he should be compelled by a sense of duty to divide the House against it on the third reading.

said, that the opposition which the other side of the House had made to this clause, which the noble Lord had framed upon their suggestion, ought to teach him not to be too good natured nor to give way too much to his political opponents. He objected, however, to giving 1,000l. a-year as additional salary to a gentleman who had received 3,000l. a-year for some years for filling a judicial office which was almost a sinecure.

Somerset wished the postponement of the Bill to another Session, as it was too important to be hastily passed at this late period of the Session.

defended the grant of an additional 1,000l. a year to the right hon. T. Erskine, as chief of this court, as he could not be expected to take upon himself the additional duties of chief of the court of revision without an honorarium quiddam.

objected to the Bill generally, and regretted that Mr. Erskine had thought it right to demand an additional salary for his duties in this court. It was, however, a matter of feeling with Mr. Erskine whether he would receive it or not. But if Mr. Erskine demanded it, he did not see how the Government could refuse to grant it.

brought up a clause for the purpose of suspending the operation of a clause which had been introduced by a right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw) on the third reading of the Spirit Licences (Ireland) Bill, prohibiting grocers from retailing spirits in Ireland. He gave no opinion as to the right or wrong of the clause, he only wished for Parliament to have an opportunity of reconsidering the question.

protested against the Bill as contrary to the principle of free-trade. It was hard that silversmiths from Inverness and Aberdeen and other places should be compelled to send their plate to Edinburgh or Glasgow to be stamped.

said, this was an exception to the principle to which he was as much attached as his hon. Friend. The public had no means of knowing what they purchased, and had a right to protection. He had not understood that the system in England was objected to.

said, that the matter should be left to buyer and seller. Buyers of plate should be allowed to purchase it of any fineness. Other countries had emancipated themselves from this absurd system. Legislative interference with manufactures and commerce tended only to clog and embarrass what it was meant to aid.

would not oppose the principle of the Bill, but suggested a proviso that nothing in it should prevent the establishment of an assay-office in any town not within a certain distance of Edinburgh and Glasgow.

defended the necessity of the measure, which, he said, was called for by the trade as well as by the consumers in Scotland.

called the attention of the Committee to the condition of those gentlemen who had filled the office of chaplain of the House in whose behalf the House had addressed the Crown, recommending them for some ecclesiastical preferment, and to which addresses favourable answers had been given. There were now three gentlemen in that situation. By the decision to which the House had come against sinecure church livings those gentlemen would be deprived of the reward which had first been held out to them, and on which they had every reason to calculate. If this Bill passed, it would have a retrospective effect on those gentlemen, fo it would have the effect of rescinding the addresses that had been made on their behalf, and on which favourable answers had been returned. This he thought most unfair to gentlemen who had never received any compensation whatever for their attendance on the House. Under these circumstances, he would move as a proviso to the clause, that nothing in this Act contained should prevent his Majesty from bestowing any church dignity or preferment on those chaplains of the House on whose behalf addresses had been presented, recommending them for such preferment, and to which favourable answers had been returned.

was understood to say, that though there might be some hardship in the case of those gentlemen who had served as chaplains to the House, he did not think it was such as should justify the House in departing from the rule it had adopted with respect to sinecure church preferments. At the same time, the case of those gentlemen might be left to the favourable consideration of the House.

opposed the proviso. He thought it would be acting against the principle on which these reforms proceeded, if they excepted these gentlemen from the operation of the Bill.

supported the proviso, and protested against the injustice of the Bill having a retrospective effect.

thought the case a hard one. These gentlemen had obtained neither pecuniary compensation nor clerical preferment. Justice required that their services should be compensated, and he thought that the same remuneration should be given to each of them as was afforded to the chaplain of that House.

said, that justice required they should receive the same compensation as former chaplains. He decidedly concurred in the motion of the hon. Member.

would take that opportunity of stating that although he entertained some objections to this Bill, yet the statement of the noble Lord (Palmerston) on a former evening was so clear and satisfactory, that he (Lord Mahon) did not intend to offer any opposition to the further progress of the Bill.

rose, in pursuance of the notice he had given, to move, as an amendment to the motion for the Speaker leaving the chair, that an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying him to use his influence with the Greek government to induce it to acknowledge the two loans contracted by the Greek government previously to the accession of King Otho.

could assure the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge, the his Majesty's Government were not indifferent to the situation in which the parties who had contracted these loans were placed, and they had already made representations to the Greek government on the subject. But he felt that it was necessary to draw a distinction between loans contracted under the sanction of the Government and those that were contracted by individuals on their own responsibility. If the assistance sought for by the hon. and learned Member were given in this instance, it could not be refused in the many other instances of a like nature. On these grounds he felt bound to oppose the motion, and he trusted that the hon. and learned Member would not press it to a division, as, if carried, it would be attended with great inconvenience.