The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1826-05-19 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS, THURPDAY, MAT 10. ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. Mr. LITTLSTON presented a petition from a parish in Star fordahire, against negro slavery —Laid on the table. Similar petitions were presented by Mr. Dawson from Gorey, Weaturd ; add by Sir George Hill from Tullow, Carlow.--Ordered to be printed. Lord J. Rt'SSELL presented a petition from the dissenters of London and Westminster and their vicinities, praying a removal of the disabilities to which they are liable. After a few word; (tart 31r. J. SMITH In.; Mr. HUMS in sup pott of the petitioners' prayer, the petition was ordered to be printed. BENEFIT SOCIETIES. toemHOBH 01.'S E presented a petition from the members of a society in the neighbourhood of the City-road, called the Social Brothers, praying that the arbitration clause In the Act red d ots to such societies may not be rep•aled.—Ordered to be printed. CORN LAWS. Mr. 111'31E resented a petition from Oxfordshim against the I . oin Laws and the pressure of taxation.—Ordered to be printed. THE KING'S BENCII PRISON. Mr. 111'31 B said he had to present a petition from an indivi dual confined in the King's Bench prison, complaining of its regu lations. Ile had had no opportunity of visiting the prison to wet bin whether the charges contained in the petition were correct or not, but he would ante one of its allegations. The petitioner stated that Mr. arse, the Marshal, had the power of giving Inlet to persons confiner for which he could exact any sum he pleated. ' and foe this liberty he charged accordion to the circumstances of the parties applying. Tits petitioner had had to pay as much as 2071. 10s. as a consideration for this privilege. He subsequently was out from his lodgings, and accidentally hail some quarrel with individuals connected with the police; and the consequence of this was. that Mr. Jones locked him up, and now refused either to re turn the money or allow him the privilege for which it was paid. Mr. Hume took this opportunity of saving, that he considered the whole system of imprisonment for debt as an aggravation of the evils of creditors. He was sure, if a return were made of the ex penses incurred through sending individuals to prison, it would amount to three times as much as any payments obtained in this way. If he could persuade himself that taking persons from their business and confining them in prison could at all contribute to. wards the payment of their debts, he would be the last to raise his voice against it; but when he saw the law expenses incurred, and considered that at the present moment the prisons of the country were as full as they could be, he must object to the system. Tte ex. pisses incurred by arrests frequently prevented individuals from be ing able to discharge their debts. He thought this was a subject de serving the serious consideration of the House. In reference to the petition, he thought it objectionable that any individual should have the arbitrary power of granting rules. On the question that the petition be broUght up, Mr. BANKES regretted that the Hon. Member should have presented the petition without first making inquiry as to the accts. racy of the allegations it contained. These charges were of a seri nue nature, and should not be made without some show of probe tidily. It was wer. known that this prison is under the control of the Lord Chief Justice of the Ring's Bench, and any person having cause for complaint, and sending it to the superior Judge of that Coort, would meet with redress. The petitioner did not state that he had adopted this course, which was certainly the usual and proper one, and he (Mr. Bente.) objected therefore to the petition. He did not think it right that charges should be thus entertained against individuals who had received no notice of them. Another objection was, that at this late period of the Session, the person el.arged would have no opportunit of justifying himself. It would he more fair and candid if the l ion. Gentleman would postpone tile petition till he could himself inquire into the accuracy of its statements. . . Mr. P. 3100 RE said he knew the Marshal to be a very humane man ; he had had the best opportunity of ascertaining this, because moat of his constituents were once in that officer's custody. (A laugh.) ,Mr. CALVERT said a few words, which were not audible. Mr. DAWSON said he believed the petitioner's cite stood ft, .16 :—After he had got the benefit of the Rules he was frequently a'tsent from his lodging*, and beyond the precincts of the Rules. The :Hershel, finding this, was obliged to. confine him, to secure himself against being called on to pay the petitioner's debt. Mr. 11131 E said, when be received petitions, he could:not always undertake to visit the risons in other places from whicn they might come, to ascertain their accuracy. He should be very sorry if, through him, any false charges were made against the Marshal (':ears: and., under these circumstances, he should, for the present, *id:draw the petition. TITHES—ST. °LAVE'S. Mr. HOLE said he had to present petitions from three indi. 'idol!: (whose names we understood to be T. Rolfe, W. (lethal, and John Barkland), complaining of the conduct of the Rector of the parish of Pit. (Have. The petitioners were all of them highly respectable. floe of them stated that the extortions of the Rector were not confined to tithes. A person residing in the petitioner's house went to be married, and, after the ceremony, he offered the Rector a guinea, which was refused. In consequence of more net bring given, he revived notice that the tithes of the house would be raised to 21.9 d.. and a writ of Exchequer was issued against the petitioner, putting him to an expense of about fifteen pounds. The petitioner went on to say, that the Rector had a son, bred up to the law, whom he always employed against the parishioners ; he suf fered little, therefore. front legal expenses, while the parishioner. bed to pay heavily. The petitioner prayed that the House would institute an Inquiry to put an end to these vexatious proceedings. Against the second petitioner, writs were issued without any de. mead hsvirg been made. He appe4ed to the Bishop of London ; who said in reply all that perhaps could be expected from his Lordship. His letter, in answer, said that he had no power over the clergy, and the petitioner must refer to other autho. rity. The last petition contained matter very similar to the former ono, with the exception that It stated that the petitioner attended a vestry meeting, called to consider the proposal of the Rector to its- Seem the tithes of the parish. The petitioner made some objec tions to the increase, which offended Dr. Owen, the Rector, who was himself in the chair, and the petitioner was called by him a worthless and paltry fellow. The Rector also said, on that otos sten, that he regretted He wore a black coat ; the reason for which the petitioner thought must be sufficiently evident. Ile (Mr. Hume) thought the House ought to take care that England was not brought by the tithe system into a similar state with Ireland. If the clergy persisted in setting up their ancient right to tithes, amounting to 22.-9 d. in the pound, he thought the landed interest (sight to see that the clergy paid for the poor out. of such tithes, for they originally did en. Ile was persuaded that if there were any alteration in the Corn Laws. and taxes remained as at present, the landed interest would not be able to support the poor, and par the full amount of tithes now claimed. No man was more anxious rum he to give to the clergy a fair remuneration for the duty they performed ; but i n this instance, on caleul sting the Rector's salary, a - d the nember of days on which he had performed duty in the coarse of the year, it was found that he was paid at the rate of 4001. for each sermon. Tor petitions were then ordered to be brought up. The first, from W. thohel, was ordered to he read and printed. The second, from John Barkland, was onlmed to be laid on the Mine. On the (minion that it be read, alt. Alderman WOOD expressed his regret that he was not in the House at the time when the Honourable Member presented the petitions. lie fully concurred in the spirit which dictated them, and hopped this the House would not be inattentive to their prayer. AD. W. iVYNN thought that the subject which formed the ground of the petitions was not one calculated for an application to that House. It was a matter which might be much better brought before those ulbuitsls to which the law of the country referred it. He therefore considered the best mode for adoption would be to put the question In a train of legal adjustment. The petition wan then onlered to be read and p.o.ited : as was also the other petition from Thomas Rolfe, after a few words from /dr. Cat.caerv. WEST INDIES. 144. HUM F: having MitiesortieoiCserv -- titan in reference to a motion, of which notice had been given for that night by an Ho. pourable Member (Mr. LushMgton), presented a petition from George Charles Rapier, of Grenada, complaining of the uncertainty of the expenses. and also the enormity of the charges, which at. tended the emancipation of slaves. 'flies?, in some instances, tormented to 911., and the petitioner prayed that some general rule ahoold be adopted for the regulation of the expenses, in order to relieve the slaves from the hardships which, under the present un. batted system. were endured. LUSHINUTON said he had received a copy of • petition from the tree men of colour in Jamaica, hot in consequence of the prevalence of the easterly winds, he had not gotten the esjiinal. The number of tree men of colour in Jamaica was 3.1,000, and he was sorry that he had not received the petition which was expres. sive of their sentiments. lie understood that there wan a great ex. citemem of feeling among them, and as he did not desire unneces. wily so inc. ,, ,ase that excitement at the present period of the Sec. 'fon, he thori7,lit it the more prudent course not to proceed with the motion of which he had given notice to the House, as a discussion sniseit tend to eitaaperate the C,innies, and could not be followed by soy immedit.t2 practical benefit. Should he, however, occupy a seat in that House in the neat Session of Parliament. he would certainly bring forward a measure on the subject. He therefore ' begged leave to withdraw his motion, particularly as there was an aiditionalreason for so doing, inconvquence of the necessity of not throwing any obstacle in the way of tile important motion which Lad been hied for that Sight by the Honourable and Learned Mem. • bet (the Attorney-General) opposite. The notice was then withdrawn. Mr. W. HORTON proposed some suggestion (which we could ' not distinctly hear) for the consideration of the advocates of the free men of colour. We believe it was a recommendation of moderation. After a new words from Mr. Hew WAL L, the petition was ordered so be read. Mr. HUM F: presented a petition from Thomas Martin, a Cap. tarn on half.pay iii the East Indiaaervlce, on the Bengal Establish.. mein. He (Mr. Hume) confessed that he was not aware of any mode in which the House could redress the petitioner, but he thought tba case was one which, on the principles of analogy, was entitled to relief. It was a rule in military compensation to allow a pension 41001. for the deprivations of one eye, and 215 1 1. for the deprivation or both. The = ernesplained that he only received 3154 a-yew at present NW, which would have been the al. loar e a ar if i timid in i=olllled to remain at Bengal, in the East of his petition was to lie put into pos. monism of the dreamer After tow eterarairileare Om a Member, whose name we could sot learn, the was eedlseed to be read and printed. On the toelfes filf. wiLmor HORTON, the Emigration Committee obtained Ines to sit, notwithstanding the adjournment 01 tile Howe. • e 'I BARON DE BODE.--FRENCII INDEMNIFICATION. Mr. LITTLETON said he had a petitiou to present from the Baron de Bode, respecting the sequestration of some property belonging to him in France. The petitioner was a natural born subject of the King of England, and now resided in this country. It appenred from the petition, that at the breaking out of the French Revolution, he had been possessed of considerable estates and rights in the department of the bower Rhine, and had then entered the Russian service, where he was so distinguished as to have been honoured with eight order.. In the treaty of peace of 1814, indemnification was provided for British subjects. in the great book of puldie debts in France, in the name of Corn. missioners of Deposit, appointed by his present Majesty, then Prince Regent. The names of all claimants were obliged to be entered in registers within a prescribed period. An Act of Par liament of the :79th Geo. 111. made the rejection of the claims by the Commissioners, or an appeal to the Privy Council, final, and a full discharge to the French Government In respect to the claim. ant's name i,t the registers. No new evidence was allowed in the appeal to the Privy Council. The residue of the sum appropri. aced for the indemnification of the French Government was to be at the disposal of the Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury. The pnitioner's name was inserted in the registers for 5 11.11i2f., vrtife'll was afterwards reduced by some modifications to 445,440 f. this title was twofold—in virtue of a cession from his father, and secondly, of a vested remainder by the nature of the tenure. The tether superintended the property for petitioner until 1793. when petitioner and family were compelled to leave the country. A large monied property belonglag to petitioner's mother, was ex. 'tended on the French estates. Petitioner had produced evidence in support of his claim before the Commissioner., and was procuring further proof, most of which was actually obtained at the time, and only waiting for legalization in the public offices of France. This evidence was of the greatest importance in establishing the claim, and would have been forthcoming in four days. But the Commis sioners would not defer theaward, which they accordingly signed on the 2fith April. 1822, rejecting the claim. An appeal was after wards made to his Majesty in Council, and heard on the 23d June, 1823 ; but on that occasion petitioner was precluded by the Act front bringing forward the additional cridenc,•, and the vested right in remainder was through some inadvertence not pressed. Their hardships therefore confirmed the award. Peti tioner then petitioned his Majesty in Counca, praying a re-hearing on those two points, or a reference to the Commissioners of the case, with the aeditinnal evidence. After hearing Counsel. their Lordships concluded that the Act of Parliament did not allow either course. They ended the judgment with commiseration for the state of the Baron. The Hon. Member said, that the petitioner did not apply for any money which was to be given from this country ; for what he asked was already in the possession of the Treasury, where it had been deposited as aicompensation for petitioner's claim and losses. It was therefore improper that the British nation should retain a large sum which had been given for compensation to a man who had been left in the lowest Mate of destitution, in consequent* of the refusal of his claim. He (Mr. Littleton) did not know what relief the /louse could afford, except by Act of Parliament ; but he would suggest to the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the severity of the case, and to offer some terms of corn. promise. Mr. Secretary CANNING said, he did not wish to op pose the receiving of the petition, but he thought it strange that a petition of that kind, affecting the official proceedings in France, should be brought before the Howse.— An Act of Parliament had been passed, which regulated the mode in which claimants for indemnification of losses should proceed, and it appeared .eat the petitioner's case had gone through all the prescribed process. It had been submitted to the Commissioners, and an appeal to the Privy Council was subse miently made. On these occasions the decisions were given, after the points in favour of the claim had been argued as solemnly as In any Court of Justice in the kingdom. If the House were to have all the business thus transacted brought there and argued over again, there would not be time left for the public proceedings affecting the interests of the country to be considered. 31r. HUME observed that the petition Instanced two cases of great hardship—in the limitation of the time for giving the original evidence, so that the award did not wait for the four days; and in the preclusion of the additional evidence when the appeal was pre ferred. Mr. CANNING said that the Commissioners who made the award had decided after the most solemn discussion of the cir. I commences, and the award had been confirmed after a similar con. sideration by the Privy Connell. Both decisions were in accord. ance with an Act of Parliament; and if the provisions of statutes were not to be regarded, it would be useless to make such enact. 'rents. It was not his ( Mr. Canning's) duty to be aware of the addi. tional points which might have been urged. On the contrary, it became him not to notice them ; but if that consideration of the subject was thought to afford sufficient ground for the renewed ajitation of the business in that House, he knew twenty cases of a similar nature. After some observations from Mr. BARING, Mr. P. Moons, and Mr. TR r MAINE, in support of the petition, which, as they coneeived, exhibited a case of great hardship, Mr. LITTLETON insisted on the grievances of the petitioner, and said, if the Treasury neglected the matter, he would take care to urge it at a future period. The petition was then ordered to be laid en the table. GRANT FOR RELIEF OF LOCAL DISTRESS. Lord MILTON addressed the House In so low a tone that we could not distinctly hear his observations. We understood him to say that he had some time ago Inquired of his Majesty's Ministers whether it was intended that there should be any allowance made of the public money to the relief of the local distresses of the country. He was then referred for an answer to the time when the motion of which the Hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. P. Moore) had given notice would come before the House. As there was 'tome reason to apprehend that the motion, which stood for to-morrow, would not come on, he begged leave to repeat the quettion, and hoped that he should receive some more explicit answer than before. Mr. Secretary CANNING, in reply, referred the Noble Lord to what had fallen from him on a previous occasion. A motion was now pending in reference to the subject of the Noble Lord's Inquiry. and when abet was brought on, he (Mr. Canning) was prepared to enter folly into the subject. For the Noble Lord's satisfaction, he had no hesitation in saying, that If any thing arose to put off the motion to which he had *Hutted, he should neverthe less be ready to afford the Noble Lord the desired information ; but whilst such a motion was pending, he would rather not enter upon the subject. Mr. PETER MOORE said he would endeavour to bring on the motion referral to by•the Right lion. Secretary, and would make it as short as ever any motion was made in that House. E.:VOLISH ROMAN CATHOLICS. Lord NUGENT, in rising to present a petition from the Roman C of England, praying the removal of those political dis abilities which affected them, made a few observations in support of the prayer of the petitioners. He said that the petitioners re ferred to history for their character; they brought their case before the House in the most respectful manner; and, in their own words, relied " upon the wisdom and justice of Parliament," whilst they solicited the total repeal of the laws which now affected them. lie concurred with the lion. Member for Westminster (Sir Francis Burdett), to whom the Roman Catholics both of England and Ireland owed so much, that the interest of the petitioners would be best consulted by not pressing a discussion at present. He had therefore only to conclude with hoping, that, when the discussion came on, the House would do its duty on this great question as it had before done. After a few words from Mr. NV. SMITH, the petition was read, and ordered to be printed. SEAMEN'S HOSPITAL. Mr. CALVERT moved for returns of the money received by the Nierehints and Corporation of the Seamen's Hospital.-- Ordered. PRICES OF FOREIGN CORN. Mr. E._WODEFIOUSE moved that an Address be laid before his Majesty, praying that Cie fullest information should be laid before Parliament relative to the communications received from his Majesty's Consuls abroad on the subject of the prices of foreign sorb and grsin. Mr. Secretary CANNING said, that if the lion. Gentleman suggested any mode by which the object he had in view could be better effected, than by the present arrangements, his Majesty's Government would most willingly accede to it. Mr. WOOD thought the motion should include an inquiry into the cost of raising corn. IMPORTATION OF CORN BIM.. Mr. HERR lES suggested that the Orders of the Day should be disposed of, before the motion of his lion. and Learned Friend (the Attorney General), in order that no deity should arise in their progress through the Upper House. He should therefore move the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Importation of Corn Bill. The Bill was then read a third time, and passed. NVAREHOUSED CORN BILL. Mr. HERRIES moved the Order of the Day for the third read. ing of the Warehoused Corn Bill. The Bill was road a third time. and passed without observation. WESTMINSTER. IMPROVE.3IENT DILL. Mr. HERMES moved the Order of the Dry for the House resolving itself into a Committee on the Westminster Improvement Bill. The Speaker having left the Chair, the Bill passed through the Committee, the !louse resumed, and the report was ordered to be received to-morrow. COURT OF CHANCERY. The ATTORNE Y.GCNERA I. said he rose, in pursuance to a notice which he had given on a former night, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to carry into effect the measures recommended by the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the proceedings of the Court of Chancery. The House was aware that after the various allusions which had been made to this subject, both inside the walls of that House and outside, it became necessary for him to enter at some length into the consideration of the manner in which the Commissioners had performed their duty, as wcll as into the nature of the measures reeommended by them for the adoption of Fat ' 'lament. In stating the nature of the measures recommended, he feared he should be led into a Ind tiplleity of dry and uninteresting details ; but when the Muse recollected that these details related to the reform of the highest judicial establishment in the kingdom —when they recollected that the question involved so much of the property of the kingdom and its best interests—he hoped, however dry ana uninviting the subject might be, the House would bear with him. (Hear. helm) tie had heard many observations in and out of Parliament on the constitution of the Commission. In. deed he had heanf it asserted in that House that nothing good could arise from the labours of such Commissioners. It had also been sail by an lion. Gentleman, that it was quite ridiculous to expect any good results from a Commission an constituted. The inquiry was long; it involved much technicality and matters of great WI. THE BRITISH PRESS. yortante, end if being deeply conversant with the subject, having great acknowledged experience, and great talents, rendered those gentlemen who were appointed to the Commission obnoxious to the charges made against them, the objectimn urged against the con stitution of the Commission applied with full force. In his opinion It would here been utterly , impossible to have selected an equal number of persons who had longer experience or greater talent tip. plicable to the particular subject than the persons who had been appointed. But it had been said that, admitting the vilifications of the Commissioners, their prejudices and their interest were so mixed up with this question that It was impossible the investigation could lead many euccersful or importantresult. In reply to thischargs he should content himself with referring to the Members of the Cos. melon then present, sitting at either side of the ileum, and he con. Micro!) , appealed to them whether, in the course of the inquiry, the investigation had not been conducted with the most unexceptioq. able fairness, candour, and liberality. Though he had not the honour of being a member of the Commission, he was not an In. attentive observer of its proceeding'', end was well acquainted with the manner in which the inquiry was conducted. Upon every sug. gestion of an abuse existing requiring a remedy, a full and deli berate inveatiga.ion took place. And he appealed to the members ofethe Commission, as confidently as before, whether, when it was established that an alteration would be useful, the inquiry into the hest mode in which that alteration could be effected was not aluo conducted with the same liberality and candour, and whether the tame facilities were not afforded. Ile thought, therefore, he could confidently assert that there was not only no objection to the con. stamina of the Commission, but there could be ere reasonable _objection to the tone, the temper, and the spirit in which the pro ceedings were conducted. He would now advert to some of the accusations which he understood had been thrown out against the form of the Report which the Commiesioners had laid 0.. the table, or more properly which the Commissioners had presented to his Majesty, and which, by his Majesty's command, was laid on the table. It was objected that the Commissioners had appended to their report a vast bulk of evidence, as if their object was to clod the subject, whilst a little resection would demonstrate that theft i motive was to render it more perspicuous. In fact it was nom& sible for the Commissioners to have taken any other course but shah which they had pursued. He would venture to say, that if they had omitted to affix the whole body of evidence, the day after the Report wee laid upon the table some Honourable Member would have introduced the subject, by expressing his wonder that the evidence from which the Commissioners had formed their condo. stoma was not submitted. and would conclude by moving that Mt evidence 'should be laid before the House. If the Commit*. sioners had pursued another course, and submitted a part of the evidence, that *Melt they considered important, and that which contained the essence of the whole, and to which they desired tepee daily to direct the attention of the House, they would then ha* been charged with garbling the evidence. There was no &hernia tive left for them, then, but to submit the whole body d evidence to the coneidepation of Parliatnent, in order that the grounds upon which they bad recommended certain reforest might be distinctly known. The course pursued by the Commis.' sioners, in publishing the whole mass of evidence, could not boob. jectionable to some Hon. Gents. opposite. The Hon. Member foe Wincheleea ( Mr. Brougham) could not object to it, for upon the appointment of the Commission, he said he hoped Government would not be satisfied with a Report, but thatevery particle of the evidence upon which that Report was founded should be submitted , to the House. Before he proceeded further, he wished to put the House in possession of the manner in which the evidence was taken before the Commissioners. In the first instance the attend ance was requested of these who wereebost calculated, from their experience and knowledge of the subject, to afford information, but the Commissioners did not exclude any evidence whatsoever. Whether an individual thought torposeessed valuable information, or complained of some abuse which he undertook to state, the Commissioners heard his evidence ; and to prevent mistakes, after the evidence was taken down by a person appointed for that put. pose, it was transferred to the witness to revise and correct his own evidence, that no mistake should possibly take place. (Hear, hear.) He asserted with perfect confidence, that from the commencement to the end of this inquiry, there was the most anxious dente on the part of the Commissioners to enter fully into the details of all real and fancied abuses, to detect them if they ex isted, and to discover all eases in which unnecessary de lays and expenses occurred in the proceedings of the Court a( Chancery. Having stated the manner in which the investigation was conducted, it was of material importance to glance at the objects to which the Commissioners directed their attention. It had been said that the jurisdiction of the Chancery Court ought to be altogether abolished ; that It was not founded upon the common law of the country ; that it was an encroachment upon that taw, and ought to be got rid of. If this doctrine wasodmitted the labours of the Commissioners had been misdirected. If the jails. diction ought not to exist, there was no necessity for inquiring into the details of the practice, and the course of proceedings adopted in the Chancery Court. He (the Attorney-General), however, thought that It was ab olutely essential that such a jurisdiction as that pos. sessed by the Court of Chancery should exist, and that we could not get rid of such a jurisdiction when the state of property in this country was attentively considered. He could easily point out various circumstances under which the absence of such a juridic. tion would lead to the worst consequences. All the real property In this country, it was well known, was vested in trusts, in in. finite variety. A great proportion of the personal propetty was vested in a similar manner, either in trusts expressed or implied, which were also infinitely various in their natures. Now he asked was it not necessary a jurisdiction should exist toe punishing a breech of those trusts, and compelling the faithful performance of duties, in which the interests of the country were so deeply involved ? The jurisdiction of the common law was not sufficient in all cases ; and it was necessary to go through the several steps of their pro ceeding', to judge of the real objects the Commissioners had in view In their inquiry. For instance, in a cage of copyright, the party whose right was infringed had no redress at common law. True, he might recover damages for the actual injury sustained ; but this was by no means a sufficient check, nor could a prohi. bitten issue but from a Court of Equity. Such a jurisdictioe as the Court of Chancery must therefore exist. There was another class of cases in which sect' a jurisdiction was most advantageous. Me meant that dam dependent upon the performance of a specific illoetract. In smelt cases, If the contract was broken, damages• might be recovered, it was true ; bat these were often found very Wequate. The person who had broken the contract might have absconded, he might have been in prison, and there was DO other jurisdiction that could compel the specific performance of the letter and spirit of the contract but the Chancery Court. There was another class of cases—accounts between parties. In this large class of cases the common law had no jurisdiction, nor was there any other jurisdiction but the Court of Chancery. He ' was not now talking of the manner in which the jurisdiction ought to be exercised ; but he was j ist'tied in saying that mach juriMic tion as that possessed by the Court of Chancery must be exercised somewhere. There were an infinite number of cases to which he had not yet adverted, where the jurisdiction of such a Court was absolutely necessary. The Common Law Courts had no jurisdic tion, unless the injured party complained of is fraud having been effected ; but they could not compel a fraudulent instrument to be abocelled, which was part of the jurisdiction of the Court of Chan. wry. This j arificliction also affected the rights of infants, of mar. ited women, and a vast variety of cases which the (Courts of Common "Law had no jurisdiction over. It was to be considered, then, whether. rich a jurisdiction must not exist, or whether it could be dispensed :with. It then came to be considered where such a jurisdiction should be vested, and by what Court it ought to be exercised. It must either be vested then in separate tribunals, or it must be en. grafted on the Courts of Common Law. He knew it was the opi. nion of some persons that if the business of the Chancery Courts was merged in that of the Courts of Common Law, it would be bet. ter. But see to what this would lead. We should have to double. the Courts of Common Law, and what would be the advantage of such an arrangement? The two systems of law were, so distinct, sad the proceedings so dissimilar, that the Coulee would of neces sity appoint one day for equity and another for law. rhos them would nominally_ be only one tribunal, but subatnntially there would be two. Besides, there was another consideration. It was a question whether, Rem+ an arrangement was made, there would be an opportunity for sufficient attention and study on the part of those who administer justice in the Courts of Law. The Courts of Equity, too, were in that ripened state, and so many of the eases brought before those Courts depended upon the principle In cases laid down, that it required nearly as much study for the administration of justice in Courts of Equity as in Courts of Law. The probable Onmsequences then would be, that we should Ice some Judges ex dislyely for common law and some for equity. In such a state of things there was no rule to guide the House but one, which he thought it would not be wise to imitate. It was well known that, until the close of the last century, the Court of Exchequer had a combined jurisdiction—the jurisdiction of a Common Law Court and of a Court of Equity. But what was the result of such a union ? That every suitor who wished his case to be triad at com mon law, went to the Court of King's Bench, and every suitor who tad an equitable case, resorted to the Court of Chancery. ( Hear.) .This was an instance which ought not to induce the House to douroy the present institution. The inconvenience of' a combined jurisdiction in the Court of Exchequer was found to be so great, that supon. Gentleman at the other side of the House brought in a Bill, which caused a substantial separation of the two jurisdic tions. The Equity Court was held in one place, at which the Lord Chief Baron presided, and the Common Law cases were die. Cof in another Court, where the other Barons sat. He thought . 111 now proved that an equitable jurisdiction remit not only exist, but that it must exist in separate Courts: and if such a tri bunal must exist in separate Courts, he assumed that no material thaw could take place in the mode of proceeding by bill and sower upon oath ; unless such a jurisdiction possessed this power it was useless. The detection of fraud, and the unravelling of Many secret transactions, depended on this power. The juris diction then, he repeated, must exist ; it must exist separate; and ha be useful, it must proceed in the form which it now did, by bill I and answer. The House ',mid observe how this applied to the point to which the Commissioners directed their attention. They could not direct their attention to remedying the abuses supposed to exist in the Court of Chancery, if they had not laid it down that the Court must exist separately, and the proceed. legs be carried on by bill and answer. Upon these prin ciples they were enabled to make conclusions, and pointed their attention to the delays and expense of the proceedings in Chancery. By assuming them principles, the Commissioners were enabled to say, let us examine a proceeding in the Court d Chan. eery from the commencement to its final issue—let us tom Ms va rious courses and windings, awl if exuberant It may boreunadred, and if there be any unnecessary expense, that ereebee_emby be saved. This WS the course pointed out by the twammossanees. and this course they pursued Ishii a Ishoss, seal, mad taiiaatry, which had never hiss earpoposi la amp NNW Asgairy. Ohm) He had indulged le dime feasial aboarvaine.. Pertinatill babe tits impact imesisilogill• they were not introduced idly, but for the purpose of showing how absolutely necessary it wars tee the Commissioners to direct their inquiry to the points they had done, in order to come to any advan. lagenue practical conclusion. Ile did not mean to enter at full length into the details of the proceedings of the Commissionem,. but would draw the attention of the House to the principal points to which they had directed their attention. The Commissioners began very wisely with the euhpeens requiring attendance. It was complained that this stibricena was so worded that no unlet. tered man could understand what was demanded of him by it, The Commissioners saw no reason why this practice should con. tinue, and recommendsd that it should be so arranged, that the subseena should clearly and distinctly inform the person to whom it was directed, what it was the Court wanted him to do. It was represerreti that unnecessary delays took place as to appearance, In the town the time allowed for an appearance was short, but If the perann subpreeaed resided in the country it was long. Undo' ' the present practice. in the latter ease, nearly a half year might ex-. te d r and ded thatpire t h h e e n t ee im a a n a a n n o pe we a d ran fi c , e r w a as rpe m s e ra d h e c . ea T a lr au t i : d om b rati a is t s .h io r n ea el ia s that appeanmees should be entered in all cases as Noon as possible. The appearance of a person in the country was not to be immediate. like that of persons in town, but it was to be on a certain specified day. rniler the present practice, if the party did not appear,. he was liable to be taken into civeody of the Sheriff, and thrown into prison. A writ of Habeas Corpus might then issue, and if the party refitsed to enter an appearenee, he might be thrown •into the Sleet. After two subsequent proceedings, he might be brought to the bar, and an appearance entered by order of the Court. The Commissioners conceived that all these proceedings were untie. cea.ary, and might be dispensed with, and they recommended that all this delay and expense shotild be saved, and that after a party has been returned in custody if no appearance had been Obtain an appearance should be taken, as at common law. The next stage was the time allowed for putting in an answer after an appearance. There.was at present a certain time allowed for putting in an an swer. Now it was important that this certain time should not be too long. The Commissioners considered that the answer should be put in in the shortest possible time, consistent with the nature of the case, and that ten weeks should be allowed to put in as answer, if the party resided in the country end eight if in town. There was another point-in which much delay occurred, and to' `which the attention of the Commissioners had been directed. Ace cording to the present practice, when the defendant neglected to put In his answer at the end of the time allowed by the Court, a writ of habeas corpus was iseued, and the defendant was brought up to the bar of the Court. But he might still refuse to put in his an. ever, whereupon an alias habeas corpus 'need ; an if he should yet refuse, a pluriea habeas corpus, as it was called, was iraued.-.- Should the defendant refuse after all to put in his answer, he was remanded, and at last was called up to attend at the bar of the Court upon an alias pluries ; and if be still persisted not to obey the subpen& by filing an answer, the bill was taken against him pro confh*o. Every body must perceive that. all this machinery was unnecessary. Why should the defendant be called up repeatedly to the bar of the Court, merely to repeat his former refueal to obey the oubpeena. The Commissioners had therefore fonsidered what was the. shorten time proper to be allowed to the defendant, in which to file his answer; and having fixed that time, if he should refuse to put in hit answer within the period prescribed, then they said that the bill ought to be taken against him pro confilso.-- A Again, if the defendant was not taken upon the habeas corpus, and the Sheriff returned upon the writ, non eel inventor, then there CMG another piece of machinery into play. Upon the return of non est inoentns, an attachment was issued, then proclamations were made, then a Sergeant at Arms, and finally a sequestration. However proper these things might have been formerly, they were obvious!, unnecessary at present; the Commissioners therefore, had struck out most of tibia machinery,. but at the same time taking care to give the party as much time as Justice required, in order that he might not Ignorantly disobey the order of the ,Court. If , after all, the defendant did not make his appearance, then it was that the bill was taken pro confirm. But let it be suppeeo that the defendant had put in his answer. It was we known that the answers of defendants were continually evasive. This being so, the plaintiff must of necessity have the power of compelling the defendant to give clear and specific answers to the. questions put by him. If, therefore, the answer was evasive and in. sufficient, the consequence was that the plaintiff had a right to ex cept to it for insufficiency. This every person must be aware ma ttC essential and most important stage in the proceedings. News gess cording to the present course of practice in the Court of Chinon", , what was it the defendant had the power to do on these exceptions being made? Why, he might contend that his answer was an dent; and upon this question an argument took place before one of the Masters of the Court, who let it be supposed should decide that it was insuf f icient. The defendant might then immediately appeal to the Vice.Chaneellor. Having got the cane set dime foe argument, perhaps three or four tenns intervened before it came on for hearing. Finally, it was argued, and the Vice-Chancellor (he would suppose) confirmed the 3Taster's report. The defendant was still not satisfied, and he therefore might appeal from the Vice. Chancellor's deciaion to the Lord Chancellor; and after another considerable delay, the question at length came on to be argued, and the Lord Chancellcr, he would suppose, confirmed the decision of the inferior judge, pronouncing that the answer was defective. But this was by no means final, for the defendant might yet appeal to the House of Lords, and a year, or a year and a half, might elapse before the question was decided by their Lordships, The decision at length, perhaps, of their Lordships, was, that the answer was insufficient, and that a further answer must be put in. The defendant had the same time to pat in his further answer as he had to put in his original answer. Here then was a new source of delay. The further answer might still be insufficient, the plaintiff might again file his exceptions, the question might again be argued before the Master, and. in short, the whole thing might to succession go through the same round as he had already de. scribed. Now, he did not mean to say that defendants always availed themselves of this source of delay, but they unquestionably had, according to the present practice, the power to do so. Per. haps, after the seaand round of appeals, the answer was still pro. nounced insufficient, and that a third answer must be put in. Now it was not imperative that a third answer should be sufficient ; but the defendant might, if he pleased, put in a third answer intention. ally Insufficient ; and again for the third time might the same round of arguments, decisions, and appeals, be observed. It was only after it had been for the third time decided that the answer was in. sufficient, that the defendant was, at the fourth time, bound to put in a good and sufficient answer. From what he had stated to the House it was impossible not to perceive that all these things led to great and vexatious delays, and to great eirtaenee. All these venom; circumstances having engaged the attention of the Commissioners, they had considered them to afford a very proper ground for improve ment. This course of proceedings upon which he was now comment ing had, however, existed ever since the time of Lord Bacon, duelist the long period of Lord Chancellor Nottingham, of Lord fiemees, 'Lord Hedwicke, and Lord Camden, down to the present time. The Commissioners, after the greatest attention, had decided to emus., • mend that the decision of the Master upon the sufficiency or inn& ficiency of the answer should be final. But they did not stop there., for after the Master should have decided that the plaintiff's exeep... tions to the defendant's answer ought to be allowed, and that the answer was insufficient, they had made another determination, namely, that the Master should prescribe the time when the further answer should be put in. This was also directed with regard to the exceptions that might be made to the second answer. The Com. missioners had further determined, that the third answer should be conclusive and satisfactory, or otherwise that the defondant should be committed Into custody. They had therefore abridged the time of the proceedings as much as was consistent with this moat Important part of the progress of the cause. He was aware that there existed a great diversity of opinion upon this point, namely, whether the Master's decision should be final. It was, however, not now material to consider that question. The House would have an opportunity to discuss it at a future atage of the Bill which he proposed to introduce. But he would repeat, that the determination of the Commissioners, after a great deal of anxious consideration, was, that the decision of the Master should be final, unless the Master, from any circumstances of intricacy, or from any other cause, should be of opinion that it was plotter that it should be referred to a Judge belonging to a higher tri bunal. With this check and reservation, the Commissioners bad determined, that, in ordinary cases, the decision of the Muter should be final on the subject. He would beg the liouse to mark how much the Commissioners had, up to this potnt, abridged the delay that at present occurred. He regretted to occupy the anis. tion of the House with eo much detail, but he "assure that if ' Ciehtlemen would go into them as be had done, they would pee. ceive 'and be convinced that the Commissioners could not have I done more than they had effected. He would now proceed to an. other point. It sometimes happened that after au answer was poi in, the cause was substantially at an end. The plaintiff might be satisfied that he could not proceed further, as the an swer might be complete and decisive with respect to the whole merits of the case. What was the course that was then pursued, according to the present practice? After the cause was sibetantially over, when the plaintiff could not take another step in it, yet the Bill could not be dismissed for three quarters of a year, and the defendant could not obtain relief from it, or remu. neration for the costs to which Ire had been exposed. But even at the end of the three quarters of a year, any order for dismissal was not conclusive upon the plaintiff; for after the expiration of that time he might, ifhe thought proper, take a further step, by which his bill might be prevented from being dismissed for Om quarters of a year more. All that he had to do was to file a replication, which would create"' further delay of half a year; making it in the wholes year and a half, after the cause was substantially over, before the bill could be dismissed for want of prosecution. Then, after the application was made for the dismissal of the bill, all that the plaintiff had to say in reply was," I undertake to speed the cause," and he obtained the time of another term before his hill was finally dismissed. This surely was a caste that called for a remedy. (Hear, hear, hear). He admitted it, and every body must admit it. dttnhhlia e d:a r du l tp i niii s i a io tfao p oit a tunhneinnut f lis:ere h wa frinaeabiketer report referencete dertoi Comm issioners t.asm .(Hear, hear). He was merely stating, but rather more in detail ,lers or tcat a hecasouL ll uiuse t iel h ,a h tt Le d whtTereas t hb ei: cya elese l ec ul_ y rec ove e r ie th e e e pt e t d y ad be op i die e. ini miele on . that and bas.iuwnh:ismabmterti,salite:dettlisniessita.ted4hreo(r,,athmey. etibetantWiliemled, ant that the Commissioners had directed attention n gross ot. to t h e remedy cuilat.dli ca, the h t v :dom i e d l a . ahemrntent a saonerd l I voneeer i tr,r i eal t ie dc.ik,ie t i,ere h rte atieawchtrsiaTeaun,nr,nethwesaocedtatb,anesicgenayro Commissioner, tyb o aolm, t e4nnaw h t hisdtem e ,t r amii otshtete consistent in v :dhe i te t i n: ieww, t r i wpihhgetei w ahan deasd l i b l;. ‘ d hru e h they had also attended. Alter the delft) , had occurred in the p .e o party was upon the eve of haring the Bill dismiesed, all then' th e party had to do was to any—" I am advised to amentrlhe and upon the payment only of nominal costs, amountin g to a few shillings, the cause might by this amendment be fact begun de nava, and the whole intricate machinery he ha d described be worked over again. And to th in right of amendmen t d there was no limitation, for the party had an indefinite pow e° , delaying the cause, provided, at the proper stage, he took rep o . - a h te r i r t m e m r s i e t n i h eel f. e to ca t s l u a m s y e t , the power of ameut!ment should be Laken efts; had fixed at the replication ; ambling of which they ream mended that no amendment shouldn't allowed, without the ' :, m ; should show some substantial grounds why the Court should sUn , P' him to amend. The power of amendment, ba it observed, was a mag , emeatial power to the plaintiff, because all amendments were made in consequence of the answer that was filed, which answer meth d ff ihblicei i l sc olu. los itdh e aßrteu so mtthot m eil e teplwa fac hartisys ts nbietess is hi • bill should which therefore necessary e r abused. As a matter of couree, then, the plaintiff ought to have right to amend once ; bin after that, the Commissioners c on . sidered that he ought not to he allowed t o d o so, sitenn, making out a proper case before the Court. But te en was another most essential check given by the Commissioner, to the delay that it was at present to be complained as of frequent recurrence. As the practice at present stood. the plaintiff was allowed to amend without paying costs. But the Cure. misnioners thought that the plaintiffs should in all csee l pay ay costs of the amendment. This they thought would operate is strong check upon patties in making amendments unnecessaril y, and with a view only to obtain time. Ile beeped the H ouse not to misunderstand him on this subject. He had pointed out the d e . lays that might take place in a suit. If the party was cis to be vexatious, he might make use of these various modes of pen. evading as instruments for the purpose of effecting an injustice. But he did not mean to say that this was very frequently d one . there were, he knew, instances where this power had been Ter; grossly abuse:it but if only rine instance of injustice had occurr e d, IL was su ffi cient ground for the House to em a emceed upon; an d eufficlent reason why this machinery should be put an end to by the House, if they saw that it could be dune with out i n j ur y to the system of equity that it was essential to uphold. He had thus brought the cause down to the lame, when the ell and answer was perfect, and had endeavoured to thew what the Commissioners had done to prevent ;he delay. Nothing mom could have been effected ; the subject would not admit of more being done, if they were agreed that the jurisdiction of the Court ought to exist; and he would again repeat, that in that case the Commissioners could not have done more than they had effected. Be was of opinion that they had pursued a wise course, and had done properly, and was persuaded that every person who at all considered the subject would agree with him in that opinion. The Hon. and Learned Member for Caine (Mr. Abercromby) must approve the course pursued by the Commissioners, because he remembered that on a former occasion that Hon. Member mid that he was satisfied a great deal of good might be done by the Special Committee proposed by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Williams), in abridging the proceedings of the cute up to the time of the Issue, and that it ought to be a direction to the Committee to pay attention to this subject ; that he hod beta informed by many Gentlemen conversant with Chancery practice, that much delay unnecessarily took place in the early stages of the suit, and that therefore, in his opinion, no subject was more worthy to engage the attention of the Committee. The Commie. stoners had proceeded precisely in the course thus chalked out be the Honourable and Learned Ventleman, and it appeared to bins that they had done it in such a manner as to deserve .the support of the House. If the House would indulge him, he would state the whole course of a Chancery suit in a very few words. (Hear, hear.) The plaintiff first made his complaint by filing a Bill, an answer to which was pat in. The ' parties might, if they thought proper, go to a hearing upon the bill and answer, but either party might have evidence ex. amined. That evidence was taken before an Examiner, in writing, and then the case—bill, answer. and evidence--went before the Judge. The Judge then heard the case, in the course of which it very frequently turned out that there were questions of accounte end of debts to be ascertained ; and a variety of other points that could woe be well investigated in a Court of Equity, frequently arose. The Judge, therefore, would direct those points to be referred to the consideration of the Master. The Master then proceeded to inert. tigate these subjects, would have the witnesses before him, and make his report upon the points to the Judge; and then, after alt this, the cause was set down for find :rearing, and the Judge, after the question had been argued, would make his decision. Such was the course of a Chancery suit. He would now revert to that stage of the proceedings, up to which he had traced the course at present pursued in a suit at equity. In the detail he had given he had pur. sued the cause up to the issue. Another important point that oc curred was the evidence. This was a subject which he was quite sure had engaged the attention of his Hon. and Learned Friend (Mr. Williams), and very justly and properly too. When the parties were at issue, and evidence was deemed expedient, the wit. nesse' were taken before the Examiner, and there examined area long intertogramies previously prepared, and not viva wee before the parties, as was the case at common law. It was formerly se important inquiry whether these examinations ought not to be car ried on viva vote" and he confessed that on that oreasion all his pre. judices were against the course of proceeding pursued by the Court of Chancery. He remembered to have said, Cast having ead so much experience of the advantage of viva vote mooeedises over any other course that could be adopted, he could not understand, tire reason why a different system should be pursued in a court o( equity—why, if it were necessary to ascertain facts, with a stew to the ultimate decision of a cause, a vivo veer examination should not be allowed in that court as in the courts of common law. He, however, was now ready to declare that, after having heard the evi dence before the Commissioners, end after the fullest consele. ration, he had et length become a comsat to the practice that at present prevailed in the Court of Chancery t and he thought that to change twat system foe any other, would not only be tin. attended with any beneficial - results, but that it would be predue. tiye of very great and serious injury. For in the lieu place (always speaking with reference to the principle he had laid down in the bo. ginning of his address to the House, as to the necessity of opal: log the present jurisdiction of ,the lend ebiltleellOr, the evidevee could not by possibilieybe beard before the Judge who was to de. tide themuse ; that was, it could not be so heard, without en. limey new modelling the Court, and doubling the number of the, Judges ; therefore, unless the House were determined wpm is tircly altering the whole system of the Court of Equity, no adios. tage could arise from the proposed alteration in the mode of taking evidence. If the party who was ultimately to decide was not d. lowed to hear the evidence, but that it wit to be taken by some either Individual, almost all the benefit of viva voce exam,nattoa would be lost. He was quite sure that if evidence were to be so taken, and so reported to the Judge who was to decide, that when. ever there was any thing like a balance of conflicting testimony, it would never be allowed to lie decisive of the case but the Court would still send the cause to be tried by a Jury; so that, without gaining any advantage by the change, a great eddi. tional expense would be incurred, and a much longer series of ex. amination entered into; for there would arise the question of ad. Missibility of witnesses before the Judge below, which of itseli would produce great delay in the cause. He had had opportunity of seeing evidence of this kind produced before a Judge, which had been taken before Commissioners of Bankrupt; and what with the examinations, and croeseexaminations of Counsel, anil the adjournments from day to day, with the calling in of fresh wit. messes to corroborate or rebut evidence that had been already given, the system pursued led to an interminable length and to inextricable confusion, upon which no satisfactory decision could be given. But this course would be continued almost perpetually, for the parties would, by supplementary evidence, hare the orpor tunity of leniehening the cause in a variety of ways, to which no assignable limit could be given. Plausible, therefore, as the pro position for any change might in the first instance appear, and which to his mind and experience it did Appear to be; yet when tl,e subject was sifted and examined, it would be discovered, as he was now convinced, that its adoption would be productive of no ad. vantage, I b:s w t, ae on re t rri he ar con kab t i m e contra ry, before the Commissioners, and who was of great professional ex. pertence at the Chancery bar (he alluded to Mr. Be ll, who was now retired from the profession) upon being caked whether stated. person uetiv e wohroalbladthebe evils examined h e had be was ever dissatisfied with the decision of the Judge upon e . question of fact in the course of his experience in the Court of Chancery, he replied that lie never remembers such an instance *here the Judge undertook to decide the question. But he added , whenever it came to a matter of doubt and measure of degree of credit due to the evidence, an issue was always directed: This was the result of the experience of a most acute and inte rs Sett mind. It was a remarkable circumstance that this question • bed been discussed in another country. The same topics's!: 'paned, the same view of the case taken, and the same ennelo.d drawn. According to the institution of the state of New York. et , great alterations could be made either in the constitution of the state, or in the administration of justice, by the ordinary legisla tive enactments ; but if it was proposed to make any great alteratio n ° either of those cases a convention was entered for that pitrPoite: • • Four or five years ago a convention was called to Inquire r state of the laws. At New York the common law country) prevailed, modified by recent statutes of that state. Th Court of Chancery alio existed, and was established precisely °P °ll the name system with that of this country. A proposition was made at the convention to examine into the administration dilute* In the Courts of Common law and Court of Chancery. On this examination taking place it was proposed to abolish the Coat_ Chancery, or ?Atha to unite it with the Common Law Courts. As Hon. Member of th e Convention discussed the proposition great length, and with considerable talent and ingenuity ; hut it wa s at last decided that it was more wise, more expedient, and more dent, to continue the system as it at present existed ; and it r s also decided that the examination of witnesses In the Court to should be conducted by interrogatories, and n ot vita (similamtoto _ this Inc e . Judge who had presided in that Court a great many rum, great talent, had delivered his opinion on that neat"?' he (the Attonsey.Ommeral) would mad, bicause,!! i in so remarkable a degree with the opinion of the Brat he had just before mentioned—Me Bell. The name of Learned Judge was Kemp, and he stated that " during the the establishment of English jurisprudence in the suit! fork, the psesent mode of examinstion had prevailed; during the period he bad had the honour to the Court of Equity, be did not wake& If! complaint, cc that it wag wog gongind that yaw r I delay thus afforded le the_ plaintiff was but reasonable. And here Chancery al i he would beg WINO ila Weft this obserfration, that there was a con.. voce. AJu siderable difference WWlea the proceedings in a suit in Courts of and of grea Equity and as aetlips ateetinsis law. In common law there were but which he one or twoplaia Lehi telniheress in Coons of Equity the coincided ii issues were ' y was often involved, a great authority h 1 many r Weerent Interests were coneerned, the Learner and alt i Ze ligt df t &il were to be arienged and &tided period of tl ' "Pen ; Mel Wag aid r:SelhParison b , Woods between the of New Ye 1 duration ow in at cammaa law and a sit is a (Wart of and — that 1:1118.12 He bad dast*party tealtlimpies a hilt dls. peed& in ter ilittre - Usk epez sod shift-Immo abeam mai had a basin/ a o to a as •e of 1 A