The Sun. — London, England, 1828-07-18 00:00:00

LFgi.slattire might deem expedient. The voters should then enter one by one in succcission, taking with them their four preceding half-yearly receipts for taxes, indorsed with the name or names of the candidates they vote for, and subscrihe,d by their own, which they should leave with the church wardens, who either by themselves, or by other assigned coadjutors, inhabittuts of the place, must, by his or their further übscription on the tax le ceipts, identify the vrson of 'the votc:N, tvho must then pass forwa r d out of the 0110 door, and thus leave no interruption to the rapid progress of the election- The candidates might each have an agent at these booths, to see the identity of the vets: verified. The reetivers of the assessed tans, or theh agents, should also be present, to - vhom, after the agents of the candidates, - and the sub-sheriff or other appointed officer had espied the indorsements on the receipts, the receipts themselves should te handed, that he may subsequently verify them by reference to his books, after which thty should he returned to the parties who delivtttd them. Thus, I conceive, the stletts'sful candidates might be proclaimed in many instances in the day of elec tion, and at latest in the day following: The 34 general principle, that the representative slimed have time to leant his profession, could nor be accomplished either by Annual or Triennal Par liaments ; and if any alteration in the period be ad , visible, perhaps the term of five years may be found the most eligible. Newcastle, July 16, 1828. NORTHUMBRIENSIS. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, THURSDAY, Jui.v 17. The Amendment (India) Justice and Bombay Marine Bilk were read a third time. The New South Wales Justice Administration Bill was committed and the Report received. The Irish Towns Watching tind Improvement. Bill was read a third time, . • ' Sir A. GRANT and others brought . up the Cus toms Amendment Regulation and the Naval and Military Annuity Pensions Repeal Bill ; the .Coti solidation Sla;•e Trade Acts ; the . Irish Deserted Children; the Lambeth Charity Estates '; and seve ral Private Bills; the Cinque Ports Bill was com mitted and report received. IRISH PROMISSORY NOTES MIL. Earl SHAFTESBURY moved the third reading of the Irish Promissory Notes Rill. The Marquis of DOWNSHIRE, before this motion was put to the vote, begged to state that he was totally unconnected with both the Bank, (against which this Bill was sup. posed to be principally directed) and every other Irish Bank, but he had upon public grounds to raise an objection to the passili of the Bill; and that the House might not be taken by surprise, in stead of moving that the third reading be post poned till this day three months, he gave notice that he should make such motion to-morrow night. The Duke of WELLINGTON had brought this Bill into the "House under the impression th a t it contained useful p rov i s i o n s to Ireland, bet he could have no objection, agreeable to the Noble, Marquis's wish, that the order of to-day should be discharged, and the third reading of it stand over. Lord GODERICEL -tiext moved the second read ing of the Funds Corporation Bill, and proceeded to state its objects, as well as the grounds on which he thought the House ought to give- it their sanction. He (Lord Goderich) looked Upon the application of corporate funds to the carrying, ; on of contested *lettions, as materially .interfering with the freedom of election. One case of complaint, which 'he be lieved had been brought before their Lordchips dur ing the last Session of Parliament, was that of the Corporation of Northampton, who had Modestly, indeed, when compared with others, applied the sum of 1,000 . 1. to support. their favourite candidate. Another case to which he felt it necessary to call their Lordships' attention, related to . the:Corporation of Leicester, the circumstances of whichsvere not disputed, but had been admitted,, and oven justified by the Corporation. The Corporation of Leicester, at the last general election, had- taken great interest in the election of that borough ; anti, .in furtherance of the views of the individual candidates for whom they felt an interest, had applied the :sum, not of 1,0001, not of .5,0001., they did not even confine themselves to 20,000/., but , had actually expended the immense sum of .27,00 W ., Now, if a right could be established for the expenditure of so enormous an amount to such a purpose, he. Would be glad to know upon what principle could be disputed the right of expending a much greater sum, or in fact the whole amount of their :fundS,.iii the seine way ? And if it were fit for Corporations so to apply these funds, why was it not so for those in whose hands were lodged the funds of the counties, and why should not 20,0001. or 30,0001. of that fund be, in like manner, applied at county elections ; or upon what ground could they object to two or three counties uniting and Making up a Joint 'Stock Com pany for their mutual advantage.—(A laugh.)— Upon these grounds he felt it his duty to recommend the second reading of the Bill. The LORD CHANCELLOR had looked into the Bill with someattention; and felt it his duty to give it all the opposition in his power.' His Noble Friend appeared to him to have fallen into one mis apprehension—nainely, of the way in. which Corpo rations stand in relation. to the property with which they may be entrusted. They stood upon the same ground as an individual who became a trustee for any given amount. In both instances the trustees were liable for any abuse or misapplication of their funds. One of the grounds upon which the Noble Viscount moved the second reading of the Bill, seemed to be the manner in which the Corporation of Northamp ton conducted themselves at a late election ; but he believed that if the circumstance alluded to was fairly investigated, it would be found to be con sistent with perfect propriety. The fact was, that a mutual understanding had been entered into be tween Sir C. Hastings and Mr. 0. Cave, and the Corporation of Leicester, that they would indemnify the Corporation for the funds advanced to meet the necessary expellees of the election. • Now, subse 7 quently to this, and after the election was over, Mr. Otway Cave, whether with propriety or not lie would not undertake to say, receded from such an agreement; and it was in consequence of the default upon the part of Mr. Otway Cave, and because of his not choosing to pay, the part .of the expellees agreed to, that, the Corporation of Leicester was now deficient so large an ,arnot t at,., He would deny the assertion that the freedom oft election was de stroyed by the system. He,satrmo difference in a Corporation applying part of its fonds- for the sup port of a Member to represent them, thatithat of a Peer of the realm or a wealthy Covalibtter Seth* in' the same manner. Upon .these grounds- be felt - it his duty to oppose the Bill ; he ~.Vould,. therefore, move as an amendment,, that. it be:l - read a second time this day three moral* Lord R 0 S SIAN *ported the Bill. • Lord ELDON..*aa late Noble ,Lords would pause before they gave 4eiti,sanetion!to. a measure which could be productive, no' good, and might be attended with much evil. Lord CALTHORPE . thought that - 2d their Lordships rejected the present Bdl, they, would be' reserving to the Corporation, not th e right of ap plying their own fund, but the rightef abusing their trust, which they seemed much inclined to do. The Earl of CARNARVON supported' the Bill. Lord GODERICH felt called uPon• to - say, in - consequence of what had fallen from his - Noble Friend (the Lord Chancellor) that Mr. Otway Cave had never been a party to any such b ar gain as that which had been alluded to. The only agreement he had made, was to share the expellees of the elec tion with the other candidate. The first intimation he had of the arrangement referred to, was a demand of several thousand pounds which had been exp`en ded at the election, and which he very properly re fused to pay. The LORD CHANCELLOR hoped it would nut be supposed that he intended to throw any im putation on the character of Mr. Otway C a ve—h e had no such intention. The House then divided, when there appeared For the Amendment 4l Against it MajOritp • Their Lordshipsthen -7 - " l6 ."jrned. • HOUSE OF COMMONS; TH C ASDA Yalj L Y 17. ' Mr. C. GRANT moved for a New Writ fer the borough of Bletehingli, in the Tetim 'cif the Right Hon. 'W. Larnb MI6 has accepted the Stewardship of Or. , :chiltern Hundreds.- Mr. BRIGHT presented petition from !taut Bruce, of. the city of Bristo4 retpecting his claims on the French gOveiiinient. Mr. MANNING moved for an account of the ex perfdtsineurred during the last Session of Parliament, relative- to the Penryn Disfranchiseinent Bill.— Agreed to. Lord J. RUSSELL brought up the report on the Criminal Commitments Bill. The Lunatics' Estate Bill was read a third time. Mr. C. GRANT postponeil the notice of motion given by Mr. R. Grant, relative to the claims of Mr. Cowrie and ethers, on France, until to-morrow. Mr. WM: SMITH presented a petition from the inhabitants . of Newport P;►gnel against slavery in the Colonies. Mr. MANNING said that a similar petition had been presented from Dover, to which was added the following prayer " That all bounties might be with: drawn from Slave produce, and that the use of rum might be abolished in the navy." He thought it right to remark that it was somewhat strange that these attempts should be made to discourage our trade with our \Vest India Colonies. The Hon. Gent!mien then contended that there were more Christians in those Colonies, comparatively speaking, than in England, and , that the slaves were much better treated than was supposed. After a few words .from. Mr. WM. SMITH, Mr. BERNAL deprecated all discussion, and said that he was convinced that all measures of ameliora tion must come through the medium of the local ad ministration itself. The petition was then ordered to be printed. Mr. LAPEL moved for certain returns connected with the borough of Queenborough, but spoke in so low n tone of voice that we could not ascertain their nature. Sit. H. HARDINGE asked the Hon. Member what was the object of his motion. Mr. CAPEL said, that a deliberate attempt had been made to starve 300 or 400 people, unless they would sign a paper to abandon all the privileges to which they were entitled. After a few words from the SPEAKER, the Hon. Member withdrew his motion, • but gave notice that he would again bring it forward to-morrow. SILK TRADE. Mr. TYLER gave notice that Le would earl• in the next session move to have the whOle qUastion of the Silk Trade taken into consideration of the House. STATE OF THE LAW. Mr. D. W. HARVEY presented a petition from a gentleman of the name of Honeywood Yates, complaining - of the present state of the law. The petitioner said that he was entitled to estates in Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, and Wiltshire, which estates• had been purchased by the late Mr. Ricardo, who was so well aware of his' having a defective title that he left by his will the enormous - sum of 50,000/. to protect his purchase' should the petitioner impugn his title. This- was a large sum, and calculated to deter any opponent from litigation, however just his title, and, according; to the present state of the law, although Mr. Ricardo.' Could bequeath such a sum for such a purpose, yet it was not only illegal for a solicitor to enter into any - arrangement with Mr. Honeywood, by which the former might have a por 7 tion of those estates in the event of success, in con sideration of advancing the necessary monies for such a suit, but it was . aetUally highly penal to dO 'so. The commission upon the state of our laws might take thitisubjeet into its consideration, but if it did not, he should:himself, next Session of Parliament, bring in a Bill upon the subject. The • ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought the petition ought not to be printed, as it contained an imputatitin on Mr... Ricardo. Mr. .HARVEY said he left it to the discretion of-the-ffoitSe whether the petition should beprinted or not. Mr. Ricardo, by bequeathing such a sum for such a purpOse, gave prima facie evidence that his title - was: insecure, and the petitioner complained that the law was - so expensive, and its proceedings so uncertain, that it amounted in fact to a denial of justice in his case, for the preliminary proceedings were so expensive that he was deterred from corn mencing. After a few words from Mr. Hum:, the petition was ordered to lie on the table. BENEFICES' RESIGNATION BILL. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved the Or der of the Day for the third reading of the Bill. Dr. LUSHINGTON objected to the principle of the Bill. ,By this Bill a Clergyman of the Esta blished Church was rendered capable of being di 'vested of his benefice. The consequence was, that after a Clergyman had enjoyed a benefice for a few years, and arrived at the age of forty or fifty, he was likely to be displaced by a young man of. four or fire-and-twenty, who was related by blood to the patron. The Bill showed a total disregard to that bond which should exist between the pastor and his flock. It was calculated, he thought, to do a se rious injury to the Established Church, and upon these grounds he could never accede to the principle of the Bill. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the validity of bonds of resignation had long been dis puted in our Courts. There was a great deal to be said on b(ith sides, but he confessed he could not forego his conscientious scruples against the prin ciple of the Bill. However, it was intended to quiet doubts, and legalise a practise which generally .prevailed. Nevertheless, he had rather have left the 'law as it is. Mr. GORDON supported the principle of the Bill: he hoped the whole question relating to si mony would soon be brought before the House. Nothing could - be more absurd than laws that enabled a patron to dispose of the next presentation whilst the incumbent was . _ living. But if the incumbent was dead the patron,if he disposed of the next pre sentatiOn, would be liable to all the penalties.attend ant on : simony. The SOLICITOR -GENERAL 'defended the principle. of the-Bill, which he admitted' was-not, one of unmixed advantage. After a few words from Mr. SUGDEN, in sup port of theßilli-it was read a third time and passed. BARILLA. , Mr ROBINSON moved for returns of the quan tity of barilla, pot and pearl 4sh;imported into Great Britain from all parts of the world, distinguishing the respective -countries whence imported, from 1817 to 1828, together with a statement of the rate of duties payttble thereon. Also for a return of the quantity of•soap exported from Great Britain from 1820 to 1828.—Ordered. PREROGATIVE COURT: Mr. HUME rose to present the petition of which he had given notice on a ' former ap peared from the petition that in 1821 a person leaving property . to the 'mined Evans had died, amount of 1,7001. to 1,8001. It happened, unfor tunately, that he left two wills, one in favour of his niece, and the other in favour of an adopted daugh ter. Yee could not say whether the second will had been made under.' the impression that the first bad been destroyed ; but so it was, that in. December; 1821, a person named Evans proved under one will, and received probate. The present petitioner, how ever, conceiving that he, in right of his wife, was the' legal heir, instituted proceedings in Doctors' Commons to obtain probate of. the will. One of the grounds of complaint set forth by the petitioner was, that he had been four years and a half a suitor in that Court at an expence almost incredible, with- Out obtaining redress. And here he begged leave to point out the vicious practice of that Court; he used the term vicious, because he felt that the prac tice of any Cci'rt sjught.t'd be '3o Wheie; suingiii to recover a sum of 1,800/., a sum of 2,500/. was expended. Such a Court he held to be a nui sance, which ought to be done away with. Mr. Peddle stated in his petition, that he commenced proceedings in 1821, and that in 1824 judgment was given against him, and in favour of his oppo nent, but without costs, Which sheaved that there existed some doubt as to the. legality of that oppo7 nent's claim' So urongly Itrfo this feeling impressed upon " hi?; PrOtorg, toller and son, that the elder Mr-Toller told petitioner that he was dissatis fied with the judgment pronthinced, which he con sidered corropt, and recommended the petitioner to appeal to the High Court of Delegates, who would be had no doubt, set it aside. This course the peti tioner adopted, under the impression that it would t-quire but a short time to decide the appeal. The proceeding commenced in July, 1824, and in 1826 the Court of Delegates confirmed the, judgment of the Prerogative Court, but without costs . , which again created an impression that the decision wag bad. the following September, a Bill. was sent in by a gentleman, described by .his Hon. and Learned Friend below him as a petty-fogging attorney.—Now he would state, that lie had from two or three most respectable quarters, received information respecting that gentleman's character, and he found it-un blemished. Mr. Toiler sent to plaintiff a bill amounting to 687/. 195.; for the first expences, and 384/. as the expence of the appeal —making a total of 10721. The other parties paid upwards of 1600/. expellees ; so that, if the decision remained un changed, they would have only 150/. or 2001. re maining. It appeared by the proceedings that his - Hon. and Learned Friend (Dr. Lushington) had, in the firsf instance, been retained by Mr. Peddle, the petitioner; but it was found that lie was subse quently retained by the opposite party; and he found amongst the charges of expence a most extraordi nary item—the adverse attorney having refused to give up the papers, the matter was referred to Dr. Arnold, and the expences of that reference were charged by Mr. Toiler. This, he conceived, was sufficient to show that:his Hon. and Learned Friend (Dr. Lushington) was not free from the abuses of that Court, any more than the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who presided in it. The proceedings in the Court of Delegates having gone by, next came the settlement of accounts. Mr. Peddle applied to Mr. Toiler for an explanation of some of the items, which application was refused. The petitioner then prayed, by affidavit, that his soli ci tor, might be allowed to attend, but the application was refused. Another application was made to the Court, in which were the statements of Mr. Toiler, as to the 'decision of the Court, but the Court refused to receive the af fidavits, and only asked Mr. Toiler if the allegations were true. Mr. Toiler replied in the negative, and the Court rested satisfied with his simple assertion, in opposition to the oaths of three individuals. The petitioner consequently came up to town, attended the Court, and asked for the table of fees Proctors were allowed to charge. He found none, and with his solicitor, Mr. Walker, made affidavit referring to the 135th and 136th Articles of the Canons, which it was contended, required that a table of fees should be hung up conspicuously in the Coort. It seemed to him (Mr. Hume) that on the 'l34th Article of the Canons depended many of the abuses of the ' Court. 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 establish ed in 1597. The 136th Article provided, that a table of fees should be hung up openly in Court ; and it was declared that any Registrar who should fail to hang up this table of fees should be suspend ed until he executed his duty in this respect; and if a Registrar allowed it. to be removed, for such offence he should be suspended froth his office for six months. Mr. Peddle attended with his solici tor, and could find no table of fees as required: he made affidavit of the fact, in order that the Registrars might be suspended, according to the terms of the 136th Article of the Canons. Notice was then given in the Assignation Book in the regular manner, of an intended motion on the subject for the Bth of Joly, When it was stated that the Counsel for the petitioner would pray the Court to suspend the Registrar until the table of fees was exposed as was required. The day arrived when the petitioner was prepared by his Counsel to open his case, but the Judge stopped - him at the moment he was about to begin. The Hon. Member, from the notes of the short-hand writer, proceeded to state what occurred on that occasion, when Sir John Nichol refused to allow Dr. Lee to proceed, on the ground that the papers were entitled in a cause not before the Court. When Dr. Lee rose to ad dress the Judge on the subject, Sir John Nichol re• fused to hear him, and filially desired the officer of the Court to remove him if he did not resume his seat. After reading several passages from the peti tion relative to this part of the case, the lion. Mem ber adverted to the general complaint contained in it relative to the monopoly attempted to be esta blished and preserved in the Prerogative Court. The Canons required that no Registrar should 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, carried on business to a great extent, and were ac tually called upon to tax the costs of each other. The ties of blood and connection must operate in some way or other, and when a man had a cause decided against him, he might have reason to la ment that he did not employ a Counsel for whom the Court might feel a partiality. Mr. George Jen ner, according to the assertion of the petitioner, was nephew of Sir John Nichol, Registrar of the Arches, and . Deputy Registrar of the Prerogative Court, be sides holding two or three other offices; and in op position to the express Canon carried on the busi ness of Proctor, under the firm of Jenner, Cooke, and Jenner. Mr. Cooke was dead, and Mr. George Jenner was, in fact, now the only surviving member of the house. Mr. Dynely was also a nephew of the Judge ; and if no actual connivance could be established, suspicion must unavoidably attach to parties so circumstanced and connected. After stating among other things that a memorial had been presented to Sir J. Nichol, praying that the table of fees mentioned in the Canons should be placed in open Court, which had been passed over without notice,- the Hon. Member concluded by saying that it was not pOssible, at this late period of the Session, for . the HouseAo enter into' a minute inquiry upon the subject, but it was a question whether Govern- Ment ought'neit theMselves to order an investigation by,Other means than .a. Committee of the House of Commons. The question was then put that the petition be brought up. Dr. LUSHINGTON deeply laMented the ~nec essity be Was under of troubling House at any length ; but he was. confident _ it would - extend its indulgence to him, 'when it Was recollected that to him was committed`-the jUstifiCation'of a Right lion. and Learned Judge norpresent, who had long been a Member of the lionse, had belongedto the pro- fession' of which an ornament for*between 40 and 50 years, and after filling, the office of King's Advocate; had for nearly 20 years been. Judge of the Prerogative Court. Of Canterbury._ -Had the conduct Of.theßight . Hon. Judge been liable to im , putation, and had he even expected that the charge .would be preferred in the way in which it had been brought forward, still it was not the ordinary course for.the Member who had undertaken the case to come down on the day he had appointed, and then avow that he was not'prepared to g.o into the subject. Sere he was, that although the Right , Hon. Judge owed much to the House , he was, not indebted to the Hon. Member for Montrose for, the uncourteous and unceremonious manner in. which-he bad entered the notice on the proceedings of the House, and afterwards postponed the statement of the case set out in the petition. The Hon. and Learned Gen tleman proceeded to eulogize the zeal and industry of the Right Hon. Judge of the Preiogative Court, in whose Court, he could speak from experience, there were no arrears ; all the cases were disposed of at furthest within a month or six weeks of the time 111th they were set down for bearing.—(Hear.) —As to the expressidits which he had used on a former occasion, in reference to an itiditidual who)* he accused of misconduct, he would not hesitate w repeat, respecting that individual, feeling that he was justified in so doing from the course that had been pursued by that individual (Mr. Walker), as be had stated that on oath which was not true.— After stating that the decision of Sir John Nichol had been affirmed by the High Court of Delegates, thus confirming the propriety of his judgment, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman stated, that after this case had slept for 17 months, the services of the Proctor, Mr. Toiler, who had hitherto conducted the case, and against whose conduct of it in any respect there was no ground of complaint, were waived, and Mr. W. Geary, jun. was e mployed. — Respecting this individual, he would only remark, that he had been suspended from his functions three times—once by Lord Stowell, and twice by the _present Judge of the Prerogative Court. He repeated the name of this individual, as he was de sirous to distinguish him from other persons of the same name. With respect to the advocate selected on this occasion, who was Dr. Lee, he would o nl y remark, that looking to his extraordinary conduct for the last six years in the Courts in which he appeared, very considerable doubt existed among many who wit nessed that conduct whether he was of sound mind. In the affidavit made by Dr. Lee it was stated that he was refused the table of fees which he main tained ought to be exhibited. Now, in reference to this table of fees, be would just remark, that in 1597 a table of fees which the Registrars and officers of the Court should receive was drawn up by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Subsequently, however, in 1724, under an inquisition issuing from the Crown, fees were regulated; and upon the regulations that then took place, no. increase except, he believed, of 6d. in a single instance, had taken place. When Dr. Lee required the table of fees to be exhibited, he was presented with the Re port of the Commissioners, in which the fees of the officers were fixed ; but with this he was not satis fied. If what he required was a table of the Proc tors' fees, be required that which had never been in existence. At no time had there been such a table, so that it could not be justly made a ground of com plaint that the table had not been exhibited, when information respecting the only table of fees which had existence at all was forthcoming at his request. An offending Registrar could not be suspended by the Judge, but only by theßishop himself. The Judge had no authority to suspend a Registrar. The affidavit next charged the Registrars with taxing their own bills. Now, the practice was, that the Registrars never taxed their own bills, but always referred them to the other Registrars, who had no interest in them. —(Hear, hear.) The last complaint was, that Proc tors were appointed to the office of Registrar; but this had been die practice beyond the memory of man; and it was indispensably necessary that they should be persons acquainted with the business of the Court. He (Dr. Lushington) submitted that the Right Hon. Judge, in hearing this case, had only discharged his bounden duty, and preserved the decorum of the Court. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then adverted to the statement that some of the deputy Registrars were relatives of the Learned Judge. The fact, he admitted, was perfectly true; and he was happy that he had it in his power, by some letters written many years ago, to exhibit the character of the Right Hon. Judge in its true light. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then read several letters which had passed between the Rev. Mr. Moore, in whose gift .the office was in 1817, when Mr. Dyneley was appointed, and Sir John Nichol. The letters strongly expressed the anxiety of Mr. Moore to appoint an efficient officer. It was singu lar but true, that though the Right Hon. Judge was thus confidently consulted, Mr. Moore was in utter ignorance of his relationship to Mr. Dyne ley, until the fact was avowed by Sir John Ni chol himself. There could be no doubt of the fitness of Mr. Dyneley for the office, and it had never before been imputed as matter of blame to any person having patronage, that he had used it to pro mote the advantage of his relatives when duly quali fied. It had never been made a matter of censure to Lord Ellenborough that he had appointed his own nephew to be Master of the Crown Office. Lord Kenyon and other Judges had never hesitated to bestow the offices in their own gift on their relatives when they were fit and proper persons to hold them. When he heard the Hon. Mover talk of the extra vagant fees of this Court, and object to the remune ration of a Judge, whose whole emoluments were but 3,000/. a year; and who, after discharging the arduous, difficult, and complicated duties of that office for twenty years, and being now nearly seventy years of age, was yet not entitled to a single shil ling on his retirement, and received no greater re ward than the wisdom of this House fixed a century ago, for the salary of the Judge of the Prerogative' Court, when he had not a tenth part of the duties to perform ; he (Dr. Lushington) must say, that it did become those who made complaints of this na ture, to be provided with some evidence in support of them. As to all that had been said regarding the table of fees, be had heard it with ineffable contempt. He lamented that the Hon. Gentleman should come with charges against a person filling an infinitely higher station than himself (Dr. Lushington), sad whose feelings, as he had not been so much tossed about among contending parties, were pro bably more easily wounded. He had always been politically opposed to the Right Hon. Judge, but he felt it his duty to bear his testimony to the unspot ted purity of his judicial conduct. Mr. D. W. HARVEY considered the facts of this case of sufficient importance to justify the presenta tion of the _petition, and -to demand Parliamentary interposition. He thought there was no ground for the charges against Sir John Nichol, but there was another branch to which the attention of the House should be directed, and for the reasons stated by the Learned Doctor himself—namely, that no redress could be at present had for these abuses. This party complained, that being a litigant in the Eccle siastical Court, for a sum not exceeding in amount 1,7004, he had bills'delivered by his Proctor, exceed ing the sum of eleven hundred pounds, in which there was one item of 3031. The petitioner proposed to tax these bills, and he was referred to the Registrar of the Court, but, as the Learned Doctor had stated, not to aid the petitioner, but to create a prejudice against him—being an ignorant and unlettered man —he requested that, the taxation of costs might be superintended by a solicitor. • Now he (Mr. Harvey) would like to know what honest reason there could be for refusing this request.? The bills consisted of many sheets, and the items were scarcely intelligible, and some of them extortionate. The Learned Doctor, in defence, statedlhat• the Registrars never taxed their' own- bills: But surely there . never was such a " lame and impotent" defence: It was true they did not tax their own hills, but they did tax each other s.—(Hear, bear.)—All this was glossed over. by the mutual praise uf the parties. The Learned Doctor indeed, did not praise himself ; but when the Attorney General rose; the House would have a full-length picture of the talents and virtues of the Learned Doctor, 'as he had draWn Of the Right Hon. judge The ptinCiple was Tickle me, Toby, and: I'll tickle laugh).—So it was with" these R eg iStrars. " You tax my bill liberally, and I'll tax yours so; but, for . God's sake, dont let in an attorney to see the mode in which we protect our interests, and maintain the farce of our extravagant charges."—(Hear.)--rßut the Learned Doctor stated that there was no table of fees. That was, a good ground for the petition. The Learned Doctor had exposed. himself to merited . rebuke for 'his attack ors the' character of Mr. Wal ker. While he was reprobating any insinuation a c .g o a u it r i t st: v t i h ti e character of a a-year, a J i tidge opm ‘h power to presided in toprovidefo a r his cousins and other relatives, how came he to for get that the character of Mr. Walker was impor tant to him.? A more unwarrantable attack had never been made. The ATTORNLY.GENERAL thought that the answer of his Hon. and Learned Friend (Dr. Lushington) to what had been stated by the Hon. Alember for Montrose, was most complete and tri umphant. He: perceived that the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) was busy with his pencil in taking a note of what' was said, and he trusted that by so doing he meant that he was about to retract what he had said-- Mr. HUME—Never. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL.---The Hon. Gentleman said " Never ;" but he believe:l t hat in that case he would have to divide by himself only, and be the only man to condemn the Right Hon. Judge.— (Hear, hear.)—But he trusted the Hon. Gentlema» would not persist. in such a course, and after all, he had too good an opinion of the Hon. Gentleman's seusorium, and of the real strength of his head—(a laugh) ---to suppose that he would persist, especially as he had, by the speech of his Hon. and Learned Friend (Dr. Lushington), been made acquaihted with the real - facts• of the case. He hoped the warmth of the evening would relax the. feelings of the Hon. Member,. and that he would melt on. the subject. After a few words from Dr. PIIILLIMORE, Mr: 11. Davis, and Mr. HEM; in reply, the question, " that the petition do . lie on the table"..was put, and ne gatived without a iiivision. - Mr. HUME said he would bring-oh the subject to-morrow, and he -should then move for a Return of the Fees received in that Court. LAW COMMISSION. Mr. D. W. HARVEY wished to know whether the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of the Law, were to have any office or fixed place of meet ing, where persons might give evidence upon record, so that they might ascertain whether the Report of the Commissioners agreed with the evidence they received. Mr. PEEL thought it necessary that the Com missioners should have some place where evidence might be received and documents kept. POLICE OF IRELAND. Mr. H. GRATTAN withdrew his motion relative to the production of papers upon certain transactions connected with the Police of Ireland. BOROUGH OF LEICESTEft. Mr. 0. CAVE rose to make his promised mo tion. The Hon. Member said that the accounts ordered to be laid before the House,. relative to the Gaol and House of Correction at Leicester, were in a form so false that it was impossible to take the, steps necessary to show that the erection of the Gaol and House of Correction were totally unnecessary. These buildings obliged a small part of the town to submit to a taxation so severe that he knew a case . of a man who, having purchased a house, was in duced to forfeit the deposit money, rather than sub mit to this new assessment. Appeals against the accounts were also to be made before magistrates who had expended the money. It was a gross case of extortion and petty tyranny, and the petitioners had no other hope of redress than in the interference of the House. The Hon. Member concluded by moving, that the petition should be referred to a Se lect Committee. Mr. PEEL said it appeared to hiM that the Hon. Member had been . put forward by a party in Leicester, to bring before the House all their local contests. If he saw any intention to conceal any froin the House; if he saw on the returns any evasions; if the returns had been false; or if he had seen any of the privileges of the House evaded—he should have been ready to. accede to the Hon. Member's motion. But he did not- think that any grounds had been laid for acceding to the motion. The order for the returns applied to all rates for the gaols, &c. This " &c." was very indefinite ; and it would be much better for the Hon. Metbber to amend the order, and procure an amended return, than send the petition to a Committee. The peti tioners complained of the gaol being built, but for this the magistrates were not to blame; but he (Mr. Peel) had brought in a Bill to provide for building certain new gaols,. and -Leicester was .one of the towns included. - - -He would recommend the Hon. Member to procure- an amended return; 'for be did not think this a case to call for the interference - of the House. Mr. H. GURNEY hoped that` another Bill Would be brought-into that House more complete than the last, and he should suggest it r asa subject well worthy the Right Hon. Gentlemans attention. Mr. 0 TWAY CAVE explained. In the course of his explanation the Hon. Member observed, that he had not brought forward the motion because it originated with the party of the borough of Leices ter which had sent him to the House. It had been signed by almost all the inhabitants. His election had no more to do with the petition, than had the election for East Retford. If he had come down to the House with solemn plausibility, ingenious can dour, and well-balanced cadence, and on that Eke— tion Bill had declared he knew nothing of the Dukery, and that that-borough was under the in fluence of the Duke of Newcastle, he should de serve as much to be believed as those were, who falsely imputed personal motives to him for the mo tion he had submitted. - He would accept the pro posal of the Right Hon. Gentleman, and amend the motion for a return. . _ Mr. MABERLY said the law was in such a state with regard •to corporation funds, that something ought undoubtedly to be done. • • Mr. Secretary PEEL explained. There had been some phrases used by the Hon. Member for the borough of Leicester, which might apply, said the Right Hon. Gentleman, to others as well as to me; but there was one Word—falsely —Which he could not mean to apply to any thing which fell from tne —(Hear, hear.)—lf he did, I hope he will now re tract it. Mr. OTWAY CAVE—I understood the Right Hon. the Secretary of State, and I am in the pre sence of the House, which will correct me if I mis state; but I understood the Right Hon. Gentleman to say that my motion originated in my own party feelings, as regarded the late Leicester election. If it was meant that my motives were personal, I can not retract what I have said. To impute personal motives to me was most unfair, and I conceive false. The SPEAKER—I can most solemnly assure the House that, had I conceived it possible that the Hon. Member had used any expressions which had a personal application to any individual, or any words that conveyed such an application, and. much more what had passed in the House, I should have instantly called him to order,. and asked for an apo logy and explanation.—(Hear, hear.)—The Hon. Member had used words which I declare most so lemnly I did not think were capable of the interpre tation he has ;Mw given to them. The Speaker re sumed his Chair, by calling for Mr. Otway Cave. Mr. OTWAY CA V E —I ho p e a nd trust I did not say any thing which w as personally offensive; I teepßelliigligt the imputa tionlion. Secre never had any intentio n of offendin g any Member of this House. .But, if personal motives are imp u t e d to me , adopted. o therN say Ifofh j' tary will say he d i d n o t u se the words in the sense I' took them, I Will retract my words. The Right t l h k an no : I v ia. t no I Hon: Secretary argued that I hadTersonal motives, but I bad no personal motives, and he had no right to say so. If the Right Hoa. Secretary will,say that he meant not to attribute personal motives to me, I will make such a reply as shall be Satisfactory to the House. The SPEAKER—The Hon. Member rmist see that lie has not conformed'to•What I conceive,to be the call of the Hattie.. I say agairf (order !),'that did not 'conceive it. possible that elation. Member meant the: words.be used,should be liable to the in terpretation he has put on them...l cannot believe that any Hon. -Member, unless he say that be so in tended theinthat he "meant to'apply•them to any individual in the House ' • an d he owes it to hini- Self-73e, owes it to the House to say, that ; these -Words were not Meant, When used by him, to be personally offensive to. any person. The Speaker again called on Mr. Otway Cave. On taking his seat— Mr. OTWAY CAVE rose, • after a shore time, .and said, I .am .quite ready to ask pardon of the House, but I conceive the attack Was fiat made on ~,, me. -And / have only to say, that ,my observation . were made in the same sense that the observation s were made on me. The SPEAKER—Order, order ! (Some (Alia Member being about to rise, he said attend to the Chair.) The Hon. Member knows that the pit' vileges of this House cannot be trifled with. Those privileges and the Members of the House will not suffer that any personal offence should be given t° individuals in the House. The Han, Member wit • not. be the first rom an to set the privileges of the 110n.,e at defiance. What is consistent with the privileges of the House, and what the Haim' think right, I demand.—(Cheers.) Mr. WM. SMITH rose to speak, but th e SPEAKER called him to order, and• then pt c '' eeeded—l am under the correction of the House: , but as the first time the Hon. Member was calle d' on for an explanation, which I think - he is imps . ' ratively required to. make, he has not done so, the House will insist on an explanation, and that Hon: MeMber shall make reparation , to the House' must, again, call for an explanation ; and if the, Hon. Memb er d oes n ot m a ke an explanation, I shah think it. my .duty to name him to the House. V° again called on Mr. 0. Cave. Mr. OTWAY. CAVE—If the words of th e Right Hon. Secretary were not meant as I w oke stood them—(" No, no," from . the Ministerial b ide of the House.) —I can only say that I understood them to impute personal motives :to me. I re peats that if they were not so meant, I meant no offence. The SPEAKER—The House must see, and the Hon. Member must see, that an apology is still ev i • petted to 'the House. There was a necessity to cal l for an explanation at the outset. It is my duty, and the House is bound, to call on the HOn. Membe r not only for an explanation, but for an apology. The Hon. Member has used expressions that obvious ] }` demand it. I can assure the Hon. Member, that neither the House nor his own honour can be satin' tied unless he do. His duty will not ,be completed , . nor his honour satisfied, if he do not make r epot' time That is the call of the House, and the Hee Member knows what is owing to the House. The Hon. Member must comply with the rules of the House, and will best consult both his duty and eha' teeter in doing so. The SPEAKER—Mr. Otway Cave (a pause.) The SPEAKER—Mr. Otway Cave (a pause.) OTWAY CAVE—Mr. Speaker, if I bS' said any thing contrary to the usage of this Houser or disrespectful to the Chair, for such expressio o I am perfectly _willing to apologize to the Hous e f i and to you. The Hon. Member here took his hat, and wet about to leave the House, when The SPEAKER rose, and called " Ordef' order!" The Hon. Member must not add insult t° the offence already offered to the House, The Member must know, that any irregularity used I ) ), one Member to another Member of - this House, an offence not only to that Member, but to the whole House; and that any apology, explanation, e' retraction entered into, cannot be partial, but offence in all its character, and all its bearings, mu, be retracted. ThiS I hold to be the sense and fe e '' ing entertained by the House on this subject."; (Hear, hear.)—When any Hon. Member has ma d use of expressions. not permitted in this House, 11 : cannot be allowed to draw any distiectiOn .betweet any one Member and the House at large. Otway Cave—(A The SPE AKER—Mr.Otway Cave- 7 -(A pausei Mr. OTWAY CAVE—I am not aware, Sir,, having, in what I have said, drawn any distincti e° with reseeet to any Hine - MeMber of this HO° Should any thing further than what I . have statedl required of me on the part of ally Hon. Memberit have only to say, that if . that Hon. Member stand up and disclaim any personality -to me, I be ready to say that I meant - nething personal him. I have said or done nothing more than I c is reined and e to y to myooluv, s n ir,l ani,read honourande y h t a o r , ac ipo te i r o . gis / e t : the House but surely the House will not expect more of ° it , until the Right Hon. Member has explained " observations. The SPEA.KER,—The House must perceive th e theikorr. Member's retraaation is: - partial,. w here , it ought-to -be =general. and unqualified. It is t, e duty of this Mouse, and more particularly of t r ,, Chair, to take care that no Hon. Member shall placed in such a situation that his honcnir orpersoy i ‘ r character shall be injured; and I now repeat, u ll6 , e a the direction of the House, that thi` surest waY preserve the hon Our and character- of any Membe r is by conforming to the regular-rules and forms Il e ; ecribed by Parliament. . ,Mr. Otway Cave--V pause.) - - Mr. SPRING RIPE begged to assure his go a l' Friend,'-the . Member for Leicester, that he, as impartial - witness, could perceive no Offence - in W 19 : 1 had fallen from the Right Hon. Member for 00 0 ' -(Hear, hear.) Dr. PHILLIMORE and Mr. R. COLBUI concurred in this opinion. Mr. ()TWAY CAVE—Sir, after what has bq l :, stated by the Hon. Friends around me, it would 17 , impertinent in me to hesitate any longer in o fferig an explanation and apology in'the sense you requi r/ it.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. SPEAKER—Mr. Secretary Peel. Mr. Secretary PEEL—Sir, it was out of m, power to 'qualify or explain any impression used 1 1 me towards the Hon. Member, after the terj " false" had been applied to me. If I.had apPlir such an expression offensively to the Hon. Membr; I should, without hesitation;have apologized to 1 1 , for it. But it was impossible that I could set V, example of retractation, after what had f a ll en from Hon. , Member. The Hon. M e mb er havift" however, adopted your suggestion, I can have hesitation in saying, that I never used any exprv o sion towards him in an offensive sense. I am, fro 6 my situ a ti on , obliged to watch over many mess O 1 in this H ouse , an it may be that I occasiontl i e express my opinions sommhat warmly, but as anything like personal offence, I do assure the noir that it ne - ver once entered my mind.—(Hear.) Mr. OTWAY CAVE then withdrew his motio . h l P ,, giving notice at the same time that he should . morrow move to have the returns made from 1 ,1 tester amended. NATIONAL DEBT BILL. The National Debt Bill went through a Cod mittee, in which an Amendment was introduc, into he Bill, by the CHANCELLOR of the D,, CHEQUER, limiting its Operation to the sth of Jl i ; 1829, unless a previous provision were made to t contrary by Parliament. The Report was order to he received to-morrow. IRISH BUTTER BILL. The Irish Butter Bill was read a third time passed. of, T a l other nd t Or of r o f the before Day Tlv e were h, e t he o'clock spo se tph o e House adjourned. Duke Ihe of CUMBERLAND left town ) I° ,( terday morning, on a visit to the KING, at the 1 1°1 Lodge, in Windsor Park. to° The Duke of C AMBRIDGE rev i ewe d t h e ,f battalions of the C o ld stream R eg i men t o f F oo t GuariP , which his Roy a l Hi g h ness i s C o l one l, i n H y d e P ar k, ye10,„ te ,,.0 'day mornin g . Th e Roya l D u k e v i s it e d t h e Th ames V i " nel in the afternoon. • este Viscount GRANVILLE arrived in tOWAy- ,4 day afternoon from Paris, on his return from his .einr, to the C our t o f F ranc e. His-Lordship left Paris en I l k day, and travelled to Dieppe, where his Lady and hi s-LO ship's children were staying for the benefit of. ses-hat ° to The Noble Viscount, soon after his arrival,,procee 4 ° e", f the Foreign O ffi ce, and bad a conference with ' the 0 11 : 1 • AliZanzEN. . ger . A Cabinet Council was held ,yesterday noon at the Foreign Office, which was attended Pi,; a t r # the L oan CHANCELLOR, the Duke' of WeitarlGtoif, 101.. BATHURST and ABERDEEN, Lord ELLENEOEUDGIIf Secretary PEEL, Sir GEORGE Muaßitr,' the ' LOR of the EXCHEQUER, Mr. }knaves, 'and 1116 Vz sr i , FITZGERALD. The Ministers assembled about two . -and gat in deliberation near.two hours. • Sir FREDERICK LAMB visited the 'D ik e WELLINGTON yesterday, at the Treasury. Pe be 111; as