Star. — London, England, 1828-07-18 00:00:00

1 , tie Court, and asked for the table of fees Proctors were 1 allowed charge. 'He found none , and naturally in• g utted, il am Ito go before the Registrar withosit va t any gelds to the propriety of the charges? He therefore, itid his solicitor. Mr. Walker, made affidavit referring to the I 35th and 136th Articles of the Canons, w hich, it was contended, required that a table of fees should be Ming up conspicuously in the Court. It seemed to him (Mr. Hume) that on the 134th Article of the Canons depended many of the abuses of the Court ; and if he showed that the Judge positively re fused to have the necessary reforms made, the House would agree at least that he had bets guilty. of inatten tion td his duty. The 134th and 135th Articles related to the fees to be taken, which it was declared should not be greater than had been approved and established i in the year 1597. The 136th Atticle provided. that a Ohio of fees should be •I•ung up openly in the Court; •P g WI it was declared that any Registrar who should fail -tobiag up this table of tees should he suspended until ' he executed his duty in this respect; and if a Registrar 1 - allowed it to be removed, for such offence he should be suspended from his office for six months Mr. Peddle attended with his Solicitor, and could find no table of fees as required. He made affidavit i f the fact, in order • that** Registrars might be suspended, according to lbehS6th Article of the Canons. The matter seemed quite plain and simple, and it was surpoising that any difficulty upon the point had ever existed. Notice was then given in the Assignation Book in the regular man net. pi an intended motion on the subject for the Bth of JoiTs'when it was stated that the Counsel for the Peti tioner would pray the Court to suspend the Regis trar until the table of fees was exposed, as was re quired, which table if fees was necessary, in order that the parties might proceed with the taxation of the bills of costs. The day ani'ved when the Petitioner was pie pared by his Counsel to open his case, but the Judge gripped him at the moment he was about to begin.— The Hon. Member. from the notes of the short•hand wi Lei, proceeded to state what occurred on that occa sion, when Sir John Nicholl refused to allow Dr. Lee to -proceed, on the ground that the paperiwete entitled in •It cause which was not berme the Court. He also ob. jetted decidedly to the reading of the affidavits.because they were made the vehicle of charges against the Officers of the Court. He (Mr. Hume) contended that this course amounted almost to a denial of justice; he did not deny that a Judge was bound to maintain the dignity and discipline of the Court, but he was bound to do so without favour and affection, and, without mote knowledge of one - party than the other. pursue only in 'a straightoforward course the ends of justice. Another -objectoiwtsten by Sir J. Nicholl to the affidavits was, that they were a-porte, when such was Vie fact with all affidavits until they were auswered. When Dr. Lee •rose to address the Judge on the subject, Sir J. Nicholl .retaseel to hear him, and finally desired the officer of - Vile Coutt to remove him if -he did not resume his seat. • fle.4eriner, the nephew of the Judge, called upon the Vomit to protect its dignity. It was not for him (Mr. unroll) inlay that this proceeding was not soictly ac cording to law, but he wi uld say. that the Canons re quired the exposure of a table of fees, and that the con • duct. of the Judge towards an individual who sought •only that the law should be carried into effect was at •leaat most extraordinary. It amour ted almost to a threat that any man should be put down who attempted to in tefeie with the ariangement of fees. Atter reading several passages from the Petition relative to this part of sba case, the Hon. Member adverted to the genetal ssairOaiiit contained in it relative t • the monopoly at tempted to be established and preserved in the Prero gative Come. It seared to him (Mr. Hume) doubtful whether the charge was not coriect. The Canons re. quires] that no Registrar shohld be Counsel directly or indirectly in any proceeding connected with the Court; yet it would scarcely be believed that three of the Registrars were Proctors, cat tied on business to a great esteut, and were actually called upon to tax the costs of each other. The ties of blood and connection mast °pet ate in some way or other, and when a man had a came decided against bins he might have reason to .lement that he did w t employ a Counsel for whom t :e Court might' feel a partiality. He did not say that such was the cast, but the Petitioner suspected it; and shire was some ground to believe, that in taxing costs the Judge was disposed to favour particular individuals.— Mr. George Jennie, according to the assertion of the Petition's, was nephew of Sir John Nicholl, Registrar of the Arches, • and Deputy Registrar of the Prerogative Court, besides holding two or duce other offices • and, ' in opposition to the express Canon, carried on th e busi. sae of Proctor, under the firm of Jaw. Cooke, and Amer. Mr. Cooke was dead, and Mr. George Jenne, was, in fact, now the only surviving member of she Isousc. Mr. bynely was also a nephew of the Judge; sad if no actual aiminality and connivance could be established, suspicion nasstunavoidably attach to parties as circumstanced and connected. It appeared from payees with which he (Mr. Hume)bad been forni•hed„ abut is February last Dr. Lee submitted a humble me morial to Sir.J. Nicholl.lpraying, among other things, that'll)e table of fees mentioned in the Casein: should be placed in open Court, and the terms used were to plain, and. the proposition so cell-evident, that it was very es.: trawrdinary how the Judge could pass it over as he had dome. It brought home to him, at least, great want of attention to the duties of his office, which was the more glaring, because in 1823, he actually suspended as party for charging fees not sanctioned by the Regis. tar. Dr. Lee's memorial was presented in F‘bruary, Mfffff, before the case of the petitioner was before the Dom, so that when that case came on, Sir J. Nithoil cosld.not plead ignorance upon the subjeca. Atter • the lapse if four month., viz. in June, 1828, Sir J. Inchon stated that he had consulted several Grade- MS of the Bar, and had decided• that it was hot moomity to take any notice of Dr, Lee's memorial. A 'jailer petition was presented to -Di. Lushington, Jodge of the Bishop of London's Court, on the 9th of Jelly, and on the following day he said that he had mad it, but declined snaking any order, and should *Bow the UMW line of conduct Sir J. Nicholl had pur stied in the Court of- Arches. Thus there was great reason to complain of the conduct•if both 'Judges in respect of the table of tees, and the time seemed come when an inquiry ,ought to be instituted into the whole proceedings and constitution of the Coons in Doctors' Commons. Before he sat down, he would obsetve that le had not referred to the Report c f the Committee of four Learned Gentlemen appointed•to investigate, be cease it had no reference to the ground of complaint in MS case, which regarded the exposure of the table of fees. The House was bound to call for a Return ofthose feet, is order that they might be accessible to the , whole community. He had thought it right to enter lima at Inge into the contents and Merits of the Pe died% Contrary to his.otiginal design, in consequence of the soar tieatnarat he bad received on a satinet night. ethos Into was - Walks to bring forward the facts. He bad rmo listod to 'n d g hilt facts : the reason tag upon them might be if Amt. hot he wan prepared W substantiate all the allegaufie bad made founded , nr uppn the Prftion. The question was imomraft... merely to the particular case, but to the whole corn munity ; if such a mode of prbeeeding was proper, hit it be publicly declared, and then the question would arise whether it was not fit that the Coast and its prac tice should be reformed ? If the mode of proceeding were wrong, theo what answer could be given to the allegations of the Petitioner? If any explanation could he given by his Hon. Friend below him (Dr. Lushing ton), he should be happy to hear it ; but as it stood, the treatment Counsel sandiparties had received, in reference to the table of lees, was most extraordinary, and ap parently unjustifiable. It was not possible, at this late period of the Session, for the House to enter into a minute inquiry upon the subject, but it was a question whether Government ought not themselves to order au investigation by other means than a Commiwee of the House of Commons. The Petitioner, by coming for ward, did a substantial service. not only ti himself, bot to the community; and he (Mr. Hume) was satisfied that the discussion would be useful, whatever might be the result. The question was then put that the Petition be brought up. Dr. LUSHINGTON said, that he lamented the ne cessity which existed for troubling the Houle upon the subject ; but be felt assured that the House would fa vour him with their attention when they considered that .into his hands was confided the vindication of the chi racier of a Right Hon. Gentleman—a Jddge—at* indi-' vidual who had been foethir ty years a Member of that Muse—who had graced his profuion between forty and fifty years—who had been for upwards of twenty, years King's Advocate—and who had for many years held the high office which he at the present moment filled. If he (Dr. Lushington) thought that the allega tions contained in the petit,on which the House was, now considering, required any thing more than common capacity to contradict and expose, he might, perhaps, have shrunk from the task ; but it was indeed easy for 1 any person possessed of even the most limited informa tion, to disprove those allegations—foolish, frivolous, and malignant as they were. In entering upon this question he would be as brief as possible—as brief as he could be in replying to the long speech with which the Honourable Member had just indulged the House. But it was first necessary for him to account for the absence of the Learned Judge against whom the allegations contained in the petition were principally advanced. To the astonishment of the Learned Judge, ' he a few days since observed a public notice that on the, Tuesday following certain charges were to be brought forward in the House, in which notice he o by nanie, was denounced to the public as a delinquent; as a Judge who bad betrayed his trust. By name was he described to the country as a person guilty of a violation of duty. He (Dr. Lusbington) was at a loss to conceive why the Hon. Member (Mr. Home) had not considered it more consistent with justice and delicacy riot to have intro duced this notice with the name 4 f the Learned Judge, or why he bad not deferred doing even this, until be had read the documents, in order to see if the charges contained in the petition were well founded. If the Judge had been so hardened by such attacks as to care little for the consequences, be would not have come, down to the House on Tuesday to bear what those at- tacks were. He did, however, comedown to the House,', and then the Hon. Member (Mr. Hume) stated his in tention of postponing, until Thursday, the presentation of the petition, and consequently the preferring of the charges. The House then manifested its sense of the treatment the Learned Judge had received, and cer tainly placed him on such a footing as not to render again necessary his being in his place to meet the charges. Sure he (Dr. Lushington) was, that if the House did not expect the Learned Judge to attend,' the Learned Judge owed nothing of courtesy to the Honourable Member who had so uncoulteously and so unceremoniously postponed the presentation ef the Pe tition when the 'earned Judge was in the House. He was therefore justified in being now absent. Bet Imetbe House consider the course pursued by the Honourable Member for Aberdeen. It any misch'ei had been done by the Court, a remedy was to be found in appeal to a higher tribunal—and here he must protest against being called upon to discuss in that House the proceedings of a Court of Justice, when, as he had ju t now said, the aggrieved party had a. remed y before an utter ior j nri -dic tion. What would be said it complaints were to be made in that House against the Court of King's Bench for having exceeded its jurisdiction.' He was the East man in that House who would say that a Juige was not amenable for his judic al conduct. but he a ould say that those who brought forward charges like the present ought to take care not to be made the instruments of disapointed suitors—(Hear, hear).—CHere 'the Hon. Gentleman proceeded to state the facts of the case, as already detailed.] Much stress had been laid upon the large amount of cats in the cause (Peddle v. Evans). while the sum contested was coasparatrve.y trill rig ; the costs basing been 2.500/.—:he sum in dispute only IRON. But that was a circumstance to t p- culiar to proceedings in that, or indeed in Any Count. Li Courts of Common Law, ton example, es ry man knew • that the costs r f an ejectment sere the same, whether the value of the property was only five pounds, or many thousands—(Hear). Of the petition beanie the Hnu e, he would say that it taus more the petition of the per !son whose petition it purported to be, than it was the "pet tion of any floiioarable Member of t at House. The petitioner was an eicisenisin, in-an est.eniele hums ble situation in life, I. tterly incapable of knowing or ' understanding the coot?! teof it—(Tne Honourable and Learned Member defended Sir John N choll again t tbe charge of delay, denting the alleged airier of business: in the Court over which th.t Honcuritit)vandisefined per son presided, and bore testimony to the assictoity, industry, patience, forbearance. and tales t of that Learned Judge, as proved even by his Attrition t the very cause referred Vs), which he had wisest cation in saying involved, or very nearly balanced, ' ; die ' que.tion, whether or not the to tacos was of sound mind ? In speaking of the Solicitor (Mr., ' Walker), he had, he acknowledged, wed very strong expressions, not one word of which would he now re-' tract; for he should be ashamed to avail himself of his Parliamentary privilege to state any matter which he could not af erwasdefully substantiate—(Cheers). [The Hon. and Learned Member then read a letterlrom Mr. Walker, dated Bristol, Sth May, 1828, in which he as ' seated that the whole burden of the costs would fall upon him, and then proceeded to contrast that asser tion with his subsequent evidence.] A discrepancy which he.contended fully justified him in using the ex pressions he•had applied to than individial—and, he should ask, had he not made out his case ?—wben that person on the one band swore he was responsible - fur the tostsiand on the other that be was not. sh..D.-W. HARVEY—Not legally responsible. Dr. LUSHINGTON'-.-The Hon. Gentleman - says not legally res pbasible, but I Will maintain that he was le. gaily and actually responsible, for At was he who em. played the Proctor. *He (Dr. Lushington) hoped to Goo no man would be permitted to take advantage, of such a subterfuge as that just now suggested by Me-Honourable Member for Colchester k and if au at • .• tor tee or solitit shotii,l m a k e suc h so ntveapt, he (Dr. Lushington) hope. the party would. be vi•itiel with the indignation of the Court—(llear, hear). In the first itistanie the petitioner employed 'roller and Son as his Proctors; he **seined silent for 17 mouths. and it was not a little remarkable that the next person he applied to was the only one who had been suspeeded three tithes, once by Lord Stowell and twice by Sir John Nicholl--the name of that person wa. Mr. William Gear y, jons The Advtatate he employed was Dr. Lee. who had been practising in that Court for 12• years, condiibting hittvef in Mich a !banner' that the only excuse that could be made for his extraordinary conduct towards the Court and the Bar was, the very great doubts entertained respecting•his sanity. For 12 years he bad been silent, unless when tie thought proper to intrude hie eloquence upon the Court—and that was the person selected to be the Duff Atli upon this occa. sion. "The. Motion cr Dr. Lee, of which the House had heard so much. was f ir the suspension of the Registrar and the three Deputy Registrars, and he was heard in support of it for nearly three hoots by Sir J. Nicholl, who pronouncei it a most unheard of proceeding to introduce a motion which. as might be seen. had nothing whatever to do with the suit before the Court, and that even if he were entitled at ail, the parties must be brought before the Court previous to the hearing of such motion. ' It was rather hard that those Gentlemen should be so brought forward for tot other reason thaw their not having exhibited a table f fees ('l'he Hon. And Learned Gentleman here proceeded to state the manner in which the fees had been origina:ey —the alterations that had been made in them in 1705 and 1734, since which year they had out been increased). —Dr. Lee, it appeared, wanted a copy of the table. of fees—noue was to be had—but on pressing for it, he was furnished (for the purpose of copying ii) with that which had been laid before the Commissioners ap pointed by the House of Commons to inquire into the subject of fees paid in Courts of Justice. but that table did not comprise fees paid to Proctors, of which, in fact, no table existed. It was complained that the Registrars practised as Proctors, but this practice existed irons time immemorial. The Hon. Judge only discharged his duty in refusing to hear that motion. There was not one s e.l spectable person who wittessed that Judge's conduct thardid not approve of it. The feeling of the whole bar of the Court justified the Judge in preventing the waste of public' time. The affidavits proved he discharged his duty with firmness and impartiality. True, some of these Deputy Registrars were - near relatives of the Learned Judge. The situation required great accuracy and fidelity, and professional experience. A letter writ ten many years ago by him, showed his opinion that the choice of the person should be made on public grounds, nor did he make any interest for the appoint ment of his relative. The only feeling entertained in choosing the candidate was a desire to obtain a com petent person. Mr. Jenner was accordingly appointed for his pri fessional experience, not did Mr. Moore even know that the person he appointed was a relative of the Learned Judge. The second person appointed was equally competent to fill the station of Deputy Registrar, and it was equally unknown that he was, when ap pointed, a relative of the Learned Judge. It was a common practice with Judges to fill offices in their gilt with their own relations, when competent to dis charge the duties, nor was such practice censured in the cases in which Lord Elleaborough and Lord Kenyon exercised their patronage in favour of their relatives. He submitted that' the Right Honourable Judge would appear acquitted of all matter of blame. The salary of the Honourable Judge, for all his labour, was not more than 3 0001. though hew as now more than 20 years on the Bench and was 70 years old. As to the lionourable Mover's attacks on the Court of L indon for an account. of its fee., he (Doctor Luthington), looked on them wtb the most ineffable contempt—he had been. and was a political enemy to the Honourable Judge bit he felt it his duty to bear testimony to the Hon. Judges honour, integrity, and character. He hoped tie House would join hum, one and all, in thi. sentiment of respect for his unspotted reputation. Mr. D. W. H A RVEY regretted that the Petition con tained too str. ng allusions to the conduct of the lino. Judge, ilia- n.u.;:i as the allegations relative to the tees of vie Count were well smithy the attention if the House. Complaints of the abuses of the law should be heard a ith atter,ti-si by the House, notwithstailding the stream of eloquence that flowed from th sides of the House in defetice of those abuses. The House ought also to make a di,tiection be. wren those Members oho brought forward those c mplaints with honest eaten tiors, and those prole.sional defenders of abuses who induiged in malignant and dirty stacks. through feeling of expectation tiff the emoluments of the Court,; or a w ish to make their advocacy in this House a high road to higher political preferment. its, to the at tacks on Sir John Nickell, be acknowledged they a err unfounded. A. to the fees in ;be Prerogative Court, they were clearly 'too large. Itive-and-twenty pounds a fee may not appear too large in the opinion of Coun-el, but they were tog large for an exci,enian. It was most unjust not to allow an attorney to inspect the bilis of costs; for as to the Proctors, though Vie" tried. the bills of costs. but then they may tax each other's hills of costs, and say one to another, you tax my bill of costs liberally) and do the like for you. It was like the saying of • 14 tickle me, Toby—tickle me ten:— (A laugh). As to the aasestion that there were Regis: tran to regul'ate this matter, it waceatily answered by the &att. that Mete three very Retstrars were Psoctsiss ton, and inteietied in the perversion of their power to their own profit *ad emolument. The Learned Doctor ha. acted ttiost unwarrantably Id impaling toerjery to Mr:Walker. Mr. Walker's onduct was st..alle most distinguished and honourable kind. The itTTORNEY4ENERAL perfectly agreed with t4Honourable (ember for Colchester in think ing 6 , there was not ll* slightest reason fcir throwing the remotest blame on the Right Hon. Jude."'' He would further say, that if Sir John Nicholl' had done what was desired by the Hon. Metnbet fur Montrose, he (Sir John Nicholl) would be liable to 3mpelehrnant for conduct which would be at once tyrannical and unjust. It would have been most unjust if be had removed the Registrars, who were not, as Honourable Members supposed, appointed by the Judge. He de fended the conduct of Sir John Nichol!. arid pronounced a high eulogium upon him as a Member of Parliament, a Judge, and a private Gentleman. He (Sir J. N.) like Sir Peter Teazle,' in Shenclan's Comedy; had lett his character behind him, but it was in no danger in that House, where gentlemanly feeling prevailed on all sides. If the two branches of the prayer of the petition could be separated, he had no doubt the Hon. Member for Montrose would be the majority and minority, ano whole population on that sideuf the question. But hi had' yet hopes that a penitence—a late peloteate—giul of mor'al feeling but of judgment; would convince - 6i heart and affect the sensitive sensoriumi of the Honour able Member hir Montrose, and that lie would 'chat. his attack upon Sir J. Nichol). Ile th •ught the Slow • should tied the petition with contempt. He could u help hopios that the . Hon. olembet ton Moutiose woo. with the warmth of 'the apsson, vela* g j „ sl*to that he presented this rrt•tidm as a Memhp ; Parliament. bit seeing that it WAS a gtov, , * a . .willihv tea w;thdraw it. Dr. PHILLI MORE defended the pfsetite or the Court. a q stated upon his experience of tyrenty yeats, tbat there was no c ow , where justice wiry administered more diligently, nuith speedily at less expense, than the Prerogative Court. Mr. H. DAVIS said. he had known the Hon. Judge fur thirty years, and amid bear testimony to his integrity. The Petition was brought up and read.—.on the motion that k do be on the table. • Mr.•ll ()ME rose, and denied that he had aver been in the habit of bringiniforwatd Charges again 4 individuals upon slight *ro we d,. or of allowing them to remain over longer than was necessary, lie defiled that the presetn Petition was any libel. as it bkd h ats 4, scribed. against Sir John Nichol' s and he contended that the pri n a ciple of the allegations it contained bad not been refuted by opposite .ide of the House. The question, s that the Petition do lie en the table," w as sod negatived without a di Vision. Mr. HU ME said he would bring on the subject to-mon:m e m be should then move fora Retuin of the Fees received in that C um Mr. A W. HARVEY wished tO know whither the Control.... loners of Inquiry into the State of the law were td have any n glik or Seed place of meeting, where person. might giie evisleitcr ',cord, so that they might ascertain whether the iteptut of thh Commi..ioners agreed with the evidence they received? Mr. PEEL thought it necessary that the Commis -loners shoul t i have some place where evidence might be received and documents kept. Indeed, these Commissioners were so frequently appoim e l that it was to he regretted that there was no established ,egres s Mr. H. GRATTAN withdrew his motion relative to ibipto. duction of papers Upon certain transactions connected with OW' •Pulice of Ireland. 'COSPoItiIITION OP LISCIIISTER. Mr. OTWAY CAVE rose for the purpose rt moving that a Petition he held in his hand from the ihnabitai4 of Leicester, regarding the conduct of the Corporatioi should be referred to a Select Committee. The Cot po. ration, after great delays, had at Lot tendered the ac counts required of it, tut they were so purposely evasive, that it 'would be impossible for the Botortgh to tabs such Rep' upon them as they wished. The peliting requested. Ministers to take steps to suspend the ration contracts, for which such an unjust tae was levied on the inhabitants of Leicester. The lase he had men. tioned to the House was one of as gross. though petty tyranny, as bad ever been submitted to Parliamentoots remedy remained to the petitioners but to appeal toilet Parliament for redress ; and he moved the the mirk* be referred to a Select Committee to inquire into do matter thereof, and report their opinioti to the House, Mr. Secretary PEEL thought. from the number of Petitions which the Hon.Gentletban had tritely broutht forward relating to the totrnot Leicester, that the hem and animosities tacked by the last electitin for diat Borough bad not quite subsided among all the polies concerned; and that the Hon. Gentleman hiinsa mot have been put forward by some patty which was do. *items of visiting the plate with the effects of its ill will. The object of the . Committee would of course be; to inquire into the returns which had been made to dor House by the Mayor and other Officers'of the bornisli of Leicester. Now be (Mr. Peel) could assure, that Gentleman, that if he thought any case bad ' bees made out to warrant the belief that any intornsationhad bon purposely withheld which ought to have been by this. communicated to Parliament, be would mot readily assist the Hon. Gentleman in bringing the individuals before the House. But no such case had been laid. For his own part, hews: not a little surprised that it had sot occurred to the Hon. Gentleman to make a moden of this kind a little earlier in the Session—(Hear, bar, hear). These very returns had been ordered to It printed as long ago as the 23d of May, 1928 ; asst it was inost.singelar that that House should now Os invited, on the 18th of July, within two or titre* days only of that which was usually assumed to be tb of adjournment, to appoint such a Committee moms now moved for—(Hear.) Had any ground been laid for interring that the Corporation of Leicestet had trifled with the House, he (Mr. Peel) would not at all oppose the proposition. But, besides that none torch could be shown, the delay complained of seemed lo be mainly attributable to the Honourable Gentleetsan himself. Is the first place, the form t f his own motion fir the to turn in gentian was most defective, and such as might have misled the parties as t s its real objects. The re turn called for was for the assessments, during a certain period, in the Borough of Leicester, for gaols, bode wells. „police .4 aCc. " Now this die." was a vague and indefinite formula. The return made did include the information relative to gaols, bridesiells, and police—but nothing about an " &c."—(A laugh). The remedy. for the Honourable Gentleman would be to amend the firm of his motion a little, and rim. af er moving for a return to an 14 Ac." threaten the tinforismate individuals twice over, .tor ,having, coed ,arithing 'upon that part of the call on them, with the interposition of that House-os(A laugh). There were one or two inconsistences, to say the' fast, in 'this' Petition, to which he would beg to call the ittention of the House. Petitioners complained abost the very heavy expenses to which they had been putdor the purpose of building a large gaol in Loco ter; but in reality that complaint applied rather whim self (Mr. Peel) than' to the Mayor or the Corporati. ,6 ; for by an Act which he had introduced but lately, the building of additional gaols in certain towns, and comi ties of towns, was authorised, and in the appendix to that Act be had taken particular care to mention li.O cester—(Hear, bear). But this was upon informat . oa which bad been transmitted to the Home Office, that the populous town of Leicester was badly off for a gaol.- - In confirmation of this fact, it was notified to him, th at 'whereas the average number of persons . comnaited after trial in Leicester - was about SQ; the old prison contained only five tells for females, and only eleven for the noes and upoq this information he had proceeded. As to the nos.appearance of the East& returns cf ptior et .' dating amain years, that was accounted for in this simple manner; that in those very years, 1013. 104 ' 1815, 18115, 1817, and 1818, there bad been no Eag e: Assizes at Leicester—(Cheers). Mr. GURNEY admitted the great abuse: existing ' many Corporations—but was afraid that the peloa"' feeling of pare Hon. Members on the subject. rat her damaged the chances of *octets, which might Otherwise attach to question certainly of the highest itopoele na which could be brought under the notice of Parliameet• Mr. °TWAY CAVE, in explanation, said that the Right Hon. Gendenian had noticed every thing butte only question to which be (Mr.O.Cave) was most snug to obtaiq a reply. How bad it happened that who, by the showing s f their own returns, there had been wards of 6,000 prisoners committed within. a gieco Or their returns related oily to 1,000? AitO'the pet Inotilres which had been unjustly and falsely imPa him—(Hear)—in bringing forward tbesepetitionet be only disclaimed the imputation, but must take leave to observe that his proceeding had bpd lost as ouch to . , r e ° with the borough of Leicester as th e Right Honourable i.ientleman's conduct in regard to East Retford had bad is de with that borough. After what took plac e on ! ioniser * night, when so soleinu a disavowed had been! lausibly and portentously Made on the part of . for tight Hon. Gentleman as to his baying no sort of itr • crest in the district which was technically called t! Dukery ;" what would have been thought of h ! gr. 0. Cave) if he had th is eight imputed to bias Owl .1 wJ a. Ka is VOW abh ua avbi 97 ! Nab than sios Mfr, dow sito*4 : M ,mot T imiih., .., fra is b. ! 9 sal art a. —,_ i :• Huwm tilt 'lli MI ten, ravini .~~.:-.,