The Sun. — London, England, 1842-04-29 00:00:00

and to accord yen to ) bring, and he tpplied House, 'ere that By the papers, ie party ae. not be ntempt e them mition.) himself, !uments , ard the to their aeration dressed induce vhat he )inion ? d that . from ) true 3. Gen ;o hear I notice e much than to t had judg itt to be. ?rued in , :umeuts he had ) could tt done, l that Df the now to There should order papers )ecause et the the evening signed, of the of the Drity of gretted e deei- I have lad not ide the jection fall to us pre' )f such isoner, tody of the ad' to con pearea Sported • to the an in: which must • mot Iked it ificing onduct to Jet T well, Wyse' arable the the ; hould any s story sely, lo ers out ;e that an y, e akeig r e Wag lit 0f 01101 tl scre en having last. had been cleared up. Above all, he thought it was the a '}' of the Hou-e to support the authority of its Committees. L After a few wealth from Mr. REDINUTON, which were ' 4l udthle in the gallery, 1) 84 ' PEEI7. had more than once said how much he die theee appeals tO the House of Commons from the Corn „,,,'tteea. He thought the Committees should decide all these _aestion, themselves. The appeal, however, had been made, ; , 1 (1 it was the duty of Members to decide what course it would 7,,,fittiug for them to pursue. It was a most important duty, "'u was one entirely of a judicial nature. It should be rernern ?sreet that this was a question affecting the liberty of the sub tt; it affected the liberty of the person who was brought up their bar; and therefore every other consideration except use of a purely judicial nature ought to be excluded.—( Cheers. ) ,1 4 the first place, he assumed that the Speaker's warrant ts. valid. The Committee had acted upere it as "egrl document, and he was therefore bound to consider it l• egal. Such being the case, they were hound to consider conrse the ought to rsue. Ihe Speaker had issued Summons, an y d the Committee had reported that he had e 'sohe. ed teat summons. He supposed that the Committee nut' to imply. that the witness had wilfully disobeyed the ?Peaker's summons for the purpose of defeating the ends of :tatice. He (Sir R. Peel) eeuld not be supposed to know dlat had passed before the Committee, but the witness had been examined at the bar, and had given his own account of ,!le transaction. He (Sir R. Peel) was at liberty to refer to the evidence which had been given at the bar, and he must l aY that the evidence given by the witness at the bar was un ,ltisfactory.—(Loud cheers.) The witness had the papers for Teee or four months in his possession, much about the time LUe present Session was about to commence ; and when it " 3 likely a petition, against the election would be p r esented. —(Hear, hear.) At that period the witness ht. those documents to another party, the Chairman of the n Committee. The impression which the witness made :Pon his (Sir R. Peel's) mind was that Captain Ward did not t eat admit having received the papers. It appeared to him 4 t there th ere some grounds for doubt in the matter, and on It hat account he thought it inexpedient to release him altoge ther. I t was a d v i sa bl e t h a t t h ere s hould be an opportunity t i aell of considering the question. Unless the detention of t he witness could be sustained in point of law a habeas c orpus would be moved for, and the prisoner would be dis charged without any remonstrance on their part. From the e 41 lure of the testimouy given at the bar, and the doubt 'Pittainieg respecting the totedansaction, he could not re tencile it to himself ischarge the prisoner. He t hought that they were bound to support the Committee. Th ey compelled members of it to discharge an obnoxious duty, ' t ut(' they oug ht, therefore, to support them in the discharge of hat d uty. O n t h a t g round he should give his vote for con tinuing the witness in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. M r , O'CONNELL would be far from saying anything li hieh would appear like presumption on his part, but he cer ia'uly must say, that he differed from the opinion given upon t he matter by the Learned Solicitor-General. Notwithstand -log the authority .of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, he 01r. O'Connell) could not bring himself to proclaim for one i moment that the warrant was not a perfectly legal one. , he present was really a monstrous case, and ought not to be 'tittered away. The moment the summons reached the wit k'ss, he was bound to take care of the papers lying in his custody, for the purpose of producing them. After a few words in explanation, from Mr. C. BULLER, Which were quite inaudible, Mr. CHRISTOPHER said that all proceedings with re !art! to election petitions, ought to be taken entirely away 'rem this House.— ( Hear, hear.) They had seen enough that !'elting to prove that he was right in thinking so. He did u v ot regret that these proceedings had taken place, for he that very soon, whatever might be the opinion of this f ellow-subj ects the people of England would no longer suffer their 'now-subjects to be committed to Newgate, or kept in the , ti stody of any person whatever, when under similar circum awenies there was no Court of Justice in the country who venture to do it.—( Hear, hear, and " divide.") , Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House di 'uleel, when there appeared— For the adjournment Against it Majority On our return to the gallery we found, , Mr. THESIGER addressing the House. He wis h ed to ex plain the grounds upon which he voted in the majority. He c onsidered that a motion for an adjournment would have the effect of discharging the prisoner. He should vote for a direct htoti on for the discharge of the prisoner. He asked any Ho nourable Gentleman whether, if they entertained a doubt of t he validity of this warrant, whether they could avail them helves anything by an adjournment? With respect to the pri kmer's being detained in custody, he could tell the House that they were not a responsible body. If they inflicted an injury ' ll. l the man, he had no redress. If he had keen committed by au illegal wrrant from a Magistrate, he could have an action f ie damages_; but under a decree of that House he had no t ,ttiedy. Therefor& feeling as he (Mr. Thesiger) did, he 'heal certainly not vote for the prisoner being detained in eustody. M• r. WARD said, the Honourable and Learned Gen ueman had cleared up a great doubt, which had ',listed during that debate. From what the Hon. a nd Learned vehtleman had stated, the House was in a most extraordinary kL anomalous position, which applied to all former election trdings. The House had committed several persons be and this question had been reserved for the S o uthamp ton ~se' s . and they now attempted to throw a s hield over this wit ness. who, he must say, had said enough to make him appear `u a very suspicious position.—(Cries of " No, no.") If this Ulan had been the most consummate trickster in the world, most hardened and determined trickster, he could not have acted in a better manner than on the present occasion, and he !teal done the best hecould to defeat the object of any inquiry. leelieving that this witness had distinctly refused the production papers which the Speaker's warrant required, ho ( Mr. Ward) should give his vote for detaining him in, the eustody of the Sergeant-at-Arms until those papers were produced, laving it to the Solicitor-General to follow out in any way he "ose theuestion as. to legality which had been raised. The Laded Solitor-General had referred to cheers which had "°wed from the Opposition benches certain answers which witnes s had given. He (Mr. Ward) must remind him thatthat lied taken place before. Mr. CHRISTOPHER said that what had fallen from the Hein. Member for Sheffield, had only confirmed him in the °Pisrion he had before expressed. He was convinced from the 1144 in which the former and the present inquiries were tarrie,l on, that before the termination of the Session, they It'ould have the same scenes enacted night after night.— (llear, hear.) He was convinced that it was neceesary to try these cases before some tribunal which would be considered feimpetent, and possess the confidence of the public.—(Hear. hear,) He was desirous to maintain the privileges of the !louse, but he would never give a vote to oppress one of his countrymen.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Sir GEORGE GREY wished to observe, in reply to w hat 'tad fallen from the Learned Solicitor-General, that the war 'Etat, although issued on the 10th of September, was issued Renerally for the witness's attendance before the Committee, without reference to the time when the Committee might sit. '-onsidering the doubt which had been expressed en the sub- Pet, h e thought a short Bill should be introduced to define t he nature of the Speaker's summons. Si r J. TYRRELL said, in his opinion there were grave 'gel doubts on the point, and he was surprised at the conduct 4 1 teose who had been such great sticklers f or the liberty of the subject. He was surprised to see such conduct connived 4 t by the Hon. Member for Sheffield, the Hon. Member for „ k'oeis, and the Hon. Member for Finsbury.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. O'CONNELL said he thought there was a great die tile:tiers between the advocacy of bribery and the utterance of that species of deception which would make it impossible.- I. lear, hear.) Did the Hon. Member mean to throw any witpn this summons? It was not upon that ground that t he ness had resisted it at all, but having been employed a 3 ", 4 agent to expend 3,000/. — (No , no.) He stated at the bar that 3,000/. had passed through his hands in that cheque , buak.—(Hear, hear.) Now, why had they not that cheque -1 ? Were Gentlemen to be deluded with the idea that this !us a bona fi de case of a man who had forgot w hether he had ueen summoned or not ? If it had been a nisi prius case he (Mr, O'Connell) would have asked him when did he for g et ' t ? Now, what aid the witness do with respect to the docu kents? Why, he kept them, from three to four months, he !lid not give them to any person he could name ; he said that it w as some person that was at some time in his employ, but whe ther he was so now he could not tell. Those document' s howed the, expenditure of 3,000/., yet they were kept out of • and then Gentlemen talked of the liberty of the subject. " 11 ( Hear hear.) Why, wits it not a notorious fact that bribery ad taken place to a great extent, and if parties were not punished it would be carried on with impunity. He believed . that the present case was one of the most monstrous that i l s ud evi r come before the House, and it proved Z . , unfit that House was to investigate such questions. He o• ught the present system worse than the last ; the first ques elOu rMni asked was, who was the Chairman, and the result of ▪ eennmittee was always . predicted from that circumstance. °oll a state of things ev,,s most melancholy. Some Hon. ` - 'entleman 'of influence ought to bring in a Bill to have a Ittlaried Judge—( Hear, hear)—appointed to "preside over Cheese Committees, where, at times , some of the nicest points of ;aw were raised. He trusted this su gg estion would not be L i'lrown out in vain, but that some one at either side of the ouse would bring in a Bill for that pu r p ose, so that it mi ght ,"'" Sin longer a matter of reproach to the Ho u se that Hon. r '3entlemen could not be trusted on t heir oaths. Nothing could 'e ineiv lik ily to countenance immorality in the public at large 'Than the prevalence of suchetbelief. Mr. S. WORTLEY wished to suggest that the Right Hon. lenticular, was wandering wide from the question, though he (Mr. \V'.) agreed in what had been expressed by him on the l i t tdeject. But the question actually before the House was, whe therthey were justified in retaining the person ca lled to the ZIP' in custody, in consequence of his having disobeyed the "Jecept. contained in the warrant issued by the Sp eaker, in `ue case of the Southampton Election Committee. Ho must, t, the -same time, say that, if ever there was a t ri b unal be 'Ore which a point of law could be discussed satisfactorily, it Wits the House of Commons. He app rehended that, in the .Plesent case, they stood in the position of a court of justice ; tun 'he Speaker's warrant having bee n called in q uestion, the ''Peai;er, as the proper of f icer of the House in the matter, • took the proper steps to enable him to come to a decision, 4 ,N1 having pronounced that decision , the y were j ustified in f ollowing it up. Mr. C. BULLER thought that the House had nothing to " in the present case but follow up the action of the Corn kittee in committing the ,witness to custody. Such was t he intention of the sta tute res p ectin g Election Committees. The Hon. and Learne d Member here read the portion of th e A c t a pplicable to the cas e, and then went on to say— ;;Zuw the Chairman. of the Committee, by the direction of Ze Committee, hid delivered this m an into cust ody ; he ha d ,`,ut"tt " come before the House and re p orted what had taken ee • and it appeared to him (Mr. C. Buller) that the course e_ P she ' House to pursue was to receive the Report of the Chairman, to confirm his authority, and continue the impri 'hUment until the evidence should have been given. Mr. Sergeant JACKSON said, he was at a loss to under. s tand w hy, if the Hon. and Learned Gentleman were right, ti le Committee were called upon to report to the House at all. "( Hear, hear.) Either the warra nt was valid, or it was ie .'ultd. If it were valid, the man was bound to produce what fax required, arid, in case of refusal, the Committee were 'telt in committing him ; but if it were invalid, in what !osition would the matter stand ? Why, if they continued the " , prisouinent of this man until to-morrow, in all probability a 'tit of habeas corpus would then be issued. M r , ROEBUCK said, it appeared to him to be a great mistake to suppoee, that when the House had once de termined to commit a person for contempt, the Queen's Bench ‘;'oeld interpose its authority by issuing a writ for his release. ,i'he Queen's Bench would never consider on what ground an Zelividual had been committed , if the tribunal itself were le g al. now - desirous as he was to bow to the authority of the Hon. and I,, , ,imed Attorney-General, lie would suumit to him this • s q epose a witness had been hound over to appear, arid the .11 '€. was reepited. The form of that House was to respite the ""e generelle's Mr. TIiESIA3 ER—The recognizanees would he respited. s Mr. TLOEBUCK s aid the ordinary form of the House was r'e'spite the case whether or not, sand to adjourn the conside• r ation of the case for a certain time. He would put it to the lion, an d Learned Gentleman opposite whether, when a case " this sort was adjourned, they also adjourned, or, in legal titrase, respited any summons which might have been issued. l he warr ant being served it was sufficient warning to the in dividual that he was to come before th e Committee with certain d ocuments. He had no excuse on the ground of morality.— ' tlear, hear.) And he should like to know what excuse he had ' point of law—a poled they never heard of till the present -Low% Lord STANLEY said he agreed with the Hon. and Learned Member who had just sat down, that this House was not a proper tribunal to decide legal questions.—( Hear.) He would himself consider this question without any party feelings, but with a desire that real and substantial justice should be done to all parties, and that the authority of the Honse should be main tained.—(Hear, hear.) It appeared to him that, until she Honse was perfectly satisfied that the warrant issued by the Speaker was illegal, the presumption of the House ought to be that it was a. document of legal authority.—(Hear.) lie was the more disposed to form that opinion because, though the question came by surprise on the House, it did not come upon the Speaker by surprise, because he had taken the opinion of the professional adviser of the House on the subject. And he was disposed to lay greater stress on an opinion given by a lawyer out of the House than one given by a lawyer in it, who had not time to consider the question in all its bearings.— (Hear, hear.) He confessed he did not consider the answers of the person at all satisfactory, and the Committee having come to the opinion that it was necessary to ask the sanction of the House for their proceedings, they wished to have him remanded. Now he would not give any vote affirmatively or negatively on the point oflaw, but he was prepared to give his vote, if the Committee thought it necessary, for detaining, not for committing, this individual in the custody of the Sergeant at-Arms, until the substantial justice of the case was made out. But if the Chairman should to-morrow state that the witness had appeared 'without farther compulsion, and that he did not apprehend that the man would absconil, then he (Lord S.) would support the Chairman if he should move that Mabson be released; 07 he (Lord S.) would support the Chairman, if that Hon. Gentleman should think it his duty to move that the man be detained until certain other witnesses had been ex amined.—( Hear. ) Sir V. BLAKE was understood to say he considered the Speaker's warrant an illegal document; but, as the man had submitted to it, he had better be kept where he was until he was wanted. Nlr. H. HINDE reminded the House that, while they were boasting of supporting the views of the Committee, in reality they were net doing so. The report of the Committee in structed the Chairman to move the House that Mabson be com mitted to Newgate, but this application the House had repu diated.—( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Hinde) thought his motion for the adjournment of the debate would have best settled the question for the present. Now, he must vote against the motion. Sir W. FOLLETT said he thought it right to say a few words on this case now, as an Hon. and Learned Gentleman had taken a view of the case to which he (Sir W. Follett) could not assent. The question before the House was, whe ther a Speaker's warrant having been issued during the last Session of Parliament, with reference to an election petition tried in the present Session, a witness who did not now attend under it was guilty of contempt ? Now when the warrant was read, he (Sir W. Follett) certainly did not think it was a legal document.—( Hear, hear.) He was not then aware that all previous Speakers' warrants were liable to the same objection, but now he understood they were.--( Hear, hear.) His opi nion was, that the warrant had expired last Session, and that it should have been renewed during the present Severn. This was his feeling, but he was unwilling to speak in a more determined tone on the question, since he had just heard that the Speaker and the Hon. Gentlemen opposite had submitted the subject to counsel under whose deliberation it was now. He should not think, however, that he would be justified in voting now that the prisoner should be discharged on the ground that the warrant was illegal—(Hear, hear)—but he thought that the matter as to the illegality of the warrant ought to be set at rest.—( Hear, hear.) It was a question whether the whole machinery as to the issue of these warrants did not require amendment. —(Hear.) It was proposed to commit the prisoner for contempt, whereas the Committee had reported that he had disobeyed the Speaker's warrant, which was an of of a peculiar character, and different from mere contempt. In fact, the Report of the Committee did not fully inform the House what it had to decide on.—(Hear.) He would admit that party feeling was shown on such occasions as much on one side as the other, and he considered it a very unfit tribunal to try those questions.—( Hear, hear.) He did not think that any purpose would be served by committing this man to prison. But he thought means ought to be taken to ascertain whether the prisoner bad really transmitted the papers to Mr. Ward or not. If it shoul I be found that he had done so, surely the House would feel some regret if, after having committed him, it were found that the man had not offended at all, He thought the ends of justice would be satisfied by ordering the witness to attend the Committee, without keeping him in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms all night. That he thought to be the most fitting course to pursue, unless there were reasonlito apprehend that the witness might abscond. If he were ordered to attend before the Elec tion Committee to-morrow the matter would be freely gone into, and, in the meantime, the question respecting the legality of the warrant would be investigated and be put at rest, at least as far as legal opinions would go to the deciding of such a question. Mr. C. WOOD complained of the conduct of the Hon. and Learned Member for Woodstock in reviving the debate after every person in the House had thought it had been concluded. The Hon. Chairman of the Committee had left the Committee under the impression that the witness was to be committed to the custody of the Sergeant. at-Arms for the night. The Learned Solicitor-General himself had, in the early part of the evening, recommended the adoption of that course, and the First Lord of the Treasury, who took so honest and straightforward a course upon all questions respecting the trial of election petitions, had declared that he considered the conduct of the witness unsatisfactory, and had given it as his opinion that he ought to be detained in custody. In fact, with the exception of the Member for Newcastle, no one had spoken who had not agreed that it would be proper to retain the wit ness in the custody of the Sergeanteat-Arms. In no debate on questions arising out of any proceedings before Election Committees had he (Mr. C. Wood) ever been actuated by party feeling. He had always, to the utmost of his power, supported the authority of that tribunal which the House had chosen for the trial of these questions, and he was sorry to see so many Gentlemen coming forward, principally, he must say, from the other side, for the purpose of questioning the autho rity of those tribunals. He regretted to see Honourable Gentlemen, Members of that Committee, coming forward to express opinions adverse to the decisions of the majority of that Committee, and he was also sorry to hear what bad fallen from the Learned Solicitor-General on the subject, ignorant as the Hon. and Learned Gentleman must have been of what had been the conduct of the witness before the Committee. The witness had never questioned the legality of the warrant; he had appeared to it, and he stated, .as a justification for his not bringing the papers, that he had incautiously parted with them. He had parted with possession of'those papers under circumstances that threw suspicion on his conduct, and he (Mr. C. Wood) agreed with the First Lord of the Treasury in thinking that it would sot be right that this man should be set at liberty to defeat the ends of justice. Mr. GODSON said, the lion. Gentleman who had just sat down, and the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had pre ceded him, seemed to him (Mr. Godson) to adopt a strange notion. They toll them that that tribunal, if it numbered a majority of one, which, therefore, became the act of one man, could commit one of her Majesty's subjects to' Newgate.— (No, no.) This was the extent of the argument urged on' the other of the House. The Committee had not sent that per son there for refusing to answer questions, but for non-pro duction of two classes of papers. Either these papers were of value, or they were not. He (Mr. Godson) was prepared to argue either way.—( Laughter.) The re were two classes& papers. One was documents being mere counterfoils, and not drawn except in one instance by the witness. These counterfoils merely contained the names and the date. Well, what seas the other? Why, merely three tradesmens' bills—in all, fifteen bills. If these papers had been lost, the Counsel might have inquired into their contents. These tradesmens' bilis were sent to the Chairman of the Election Committee, and after wards lost. He (Mr. Godson) should vote against the wit ness continuing in custody, as there ha.. been already three inquiries before the House of a similar nature. He believed the application ha 3 been made in that instance by the Counsel for the petitioner, in order to act on the nerves of the rest of the witnesses.—(Laughter. ) Mr. HUTT would not reply to the argument used by the Hon. and Learned Gentlemen who had just seat down. He was sure they were sufficiently replied to by the good feeling of the House.—( Hear.) With that remark lie would leave the obser vations of the Hon. Gentleman, and he (Mr. Hutt) felt ex tremely sorry to be compelled to take part in that debate, be cause he believed that it would be more decorous in Hon. Gen tlemen to abstain from taking part in that discussion.—(Hear. ) The lion. Gentlemen on his side of the House had fully believed that the discussion was a an end.—(No, no.) He stated what was the impression of Hon. Gentlemen on his side the House. He found himself compelled to address the House in conse quence of the observations of the Hon. and Learned Gentle man. He could assure the Hon. and Learned Gentleman that he (Mr. Hutt) s was by no means exempt from the censure the Honourable and Learned Gentleman had been pleased to throw on the Honourable Members on his (Mr. Hutt's) side of the House. He (Mr. Hutt) when he was at the head of a Committee, found himself in extreme difficulty. He was called upon to exercise judicial functions of the highest na ture, at the same time having no knee ledge whatever of the case. With regard to this particular ease, he would state to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman and the House the motives under which he acted, and the reason why he could nor agree with the Hon. and Learned Solicitor-General. 112 was con vinced, from what had taken place in that House, that the wit ness had wilfully disobeyed the summons of the. Speaker. He was likewise convinced, both by the circumstances charged be fore the Committee, and what he had heard in that House. that the witness had been actively engaged in diverting the course of justice. Under these circumstances, he felt it imperative on him to agree in the motion, that the witness should not be permitted to go at large without some degree of punishment. He did not entertain this feeling from any party motive what ever ; but because he believed that the witness had been guilty of a dereliction of duty ; because he believed lie had endeavoured to defeat the ends of justice, in disobeying the Speaker's warrant. He (Mr. Hutt) therefore considered he ought not to escape without punishment. The SOLICITOR-GENERA L explained. He could assure the Hon. Member that he never had had the slightest idea of imputing any thing but the purest of motives to the Committee. Lord HOWICK said, he understood the expression used by the lion. and Learned Member to be, if he remembered righ!lv, "that he thought the Committee had acted preci pitately." Several Hon. Members,—No, no, " prematurely." Lord HOWICK then must have been mistaken ; and if the Hon. and Learred Member said so, he (Lord Howick) must bow ; but certainly that was the word understood by him (Lord Howick.) Well, then, the Hon. and Learned Member had said, that the Committee had acted prematurely. Now he (Lord Howick) thought that, in a case of that kind, such an opinion, and coming from him, involved a censure on the Committee.—( Hear.) That censure he (Lord Howiek ) must take the liberty of saying, in his opinion was not quite proper for the Hon, and Learned Gentleman to give, unless upon the strongest grounds, which he (Lord Howick) did not think existed in the preseit case. He (Lord Howick) looked at this ease as it appeared upon the Report. Looking at the case as it appeared on the face of that Report, he con sidered the Committee acted with perfect propriety. —( Hear. ) It was alleged that at the late election for Southampton there were papers used which were required by the Committee. For the purpose of obtaining these, a Speaker'; warrant was served on the party holding them, to produc e these p a p ers to the Committee. N ow 'it was perfectly notorious to Honour able Gentlemen who had attended those tribunals, that it was of the very greatest importance that that order should be served upon the witness as speedily as pos • sible after the election, to prevent the person holding the papers from making away with them. Many Hon. Gentle men opposite sneered at the Reformed Parliament, and talked of bribery being store prevalent now than before. He (Lord Howick) had heard sneers of that sort, but he thought it would best become Hon. Gentlemen who desired to put a stop to a system of bribery, to co-operate with those who were endeavouling in every case to bring it completely to light. Now he thought that of all th e proceedings of this sort that had come before the Comm ittee, th is was that one whi ch re q uired investigation. The witness had been summoned to the bar, and his defence to the charge of not producing the papers was that he had forgotten to take care of the documents. Now he (Lord Howick) asked whether a statement of that kind could be true coming from an old electioneerer, one calculated to kaow what was of importance and what was not, and knowing that proceedings of this kind were likely to take place, whether he would be likely to forget documents of this description. He could not believe he would. Even if no warrant had been served, if the witness wilfully kept out of the way information required by the Committee; eve* if a Speaker's warrant had not been served, he was guilty of the offence of contempt, as it was called. He refused to produce these papers, which were essential to the ends of jus- THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, APRIL 29., 1842. Cm. He (Lord Howick) could not agree to that person being relieved from custody, and he should, there ore, support the motion tor his detention. _ _ Mr. BORT IIWICKsaid, he would detain the House but a very short time. He thought that darkness had been pro.. duced by an excess of light. if the question had rested on the recommendati.n from the Committee, to be acted upon, aye or no, his voice would have been a3e. But the Noble Lord was not in that position, but had departed from the recom mendation of the Committee—viz., to commit the witness to Newgate ; but the effect of the Noble Lord's argument was a certain amount of censure on the Committee. 'This was not a question of precedent. The question was simply, what were the grounds on which he ought to say aye or no to the motion of his Hon. Friend. Those grounds were whether the prisoner at the bar had given a bonu fide answer •to the questions put to him. He (Mr. Borthwick) was of opinion, alter fully considering the matter, that he had not done so ; and upon that ground he should vote that the pri soner continue in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. ( Loud cries of " Divide.") Mr. MUNTZ said it was not a question with him whether the warrant which had been issued was a legal one or not. It was sutfci•ent for him that the prisoner had attended to it. The question was, under what circumstances he had come to that bar ; and judging from what he had himself said, it ap peared that three months after having received the warrant from, the Speaker, he gave these papers over to some person who denied ever having received them: This House might be credulous, but they must be credulous indeed if they believed all that man had said. Believing that he had done all he could to deceive that House, he (Mr. Aluntz ) should certainly give his vote for detaining him in custody.—(Divide.) Mr FLENIING said that he had had extensive dealings with Mr. Mabson—(Loud ironical cheers)—as an ironmonger —(Cheers)—and he had always found him a most honourable and respectable man in all his proceedings; and if he could be guarantee for him he would gladly be so..—( Hear, hear.) Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when there appeared— For the motion Against it Majority for the motion EXCHEQUER BILLS BILL. This Bill was read a second time. SCOTCH JUDGES. Mr. WALLACE said, that in rising to bring be fore the House the subject of which he had givett notice he was desirous of impressing upon the Right Hon. Baronet that he did so with an earnest desire of improving the administration of jus tice in Scotland. He was quite aware how unwilling the House was to hear so dry a subject as this, and he should, therefore, feel it his duty to proceed quickly as he possibly could, and rather to refrain from expressing the opinions which he himselfenter tained, that he might bring before the House the opinions oa the subject expressed by others. The Blithe proposed to bring in was absolutely necessary, if the Courts to which he alluded were to he improved at all ; because it was quite evident, from the Report which he held in his hand, that the improvement of the Scotch Courts could not be effected without the inter ference of Parliament. He had found, in the course of the evi dence taken before the Committee, that no measure could be effectual without legislative interference. Another object he had in view, when he moved for the Committee from which the Report to which he had referred emanated, was to see whether or no the number of Judges could not be reduced ; and he must say, circumstances had since then lei him to believe that there would have been no occasion to fill up the vacancy which had since taken place. His best course would, perhaps be to read from the Report those parts which he thought bore most conclu sively upon the points which he wished to present to the House. He believed that Report was drawn up either by his Learned Friend the late Lord Advocate for Scotland, or by the Chair man of the Committee ; for though he ( Mr. Wallace) moved for that Committee, and gained it too, he was not permitted to be the Chairman. That great ques tion was too important, as they called it, for any Member not connected with the Government to preside ; consequently, the hie Under-Secretary was elected Chairman, and he ( Mr. Wallace) sat as one of the Committee. In the course of reed ing the evidence, he wished to say decidedly to the Right Hon. Baronet and the present Government, that he did feel he was strongly pressed by those who had other views to read that evidence. There were certain views entertained by the ll'ght Honourable Chairman, which went to wards a very small improvement, viz., that the Judges should be required to listen more patiently to the arguments of Counsel. It had been very well observed in that House, that it was a hard case that the Judges of a Court of such high re spectability as the Court of Session should be ac eused of not giving that due and fair attention to the arguments of Counsel which they deserved. He had found that really the Judges were more 0: less liable to that censure, and that they had since found it necessary to pay more respect to the arguments of Counsel than they had hitherto done. Though it had been alleged by the Hon. Member for Stamford that he (Mr. Wallace) had never done any good at all in bringing 'these questions before the House, he was sure that his Hon. Friend would concur with him that a great deal of good had already resulted. Now, with regard to the Report, he thought the best course he could pursue would be to read at once to the House the most important points which it contained. He should first say, however, that he looked upon the Report as being considerably one-sided, inasmuch as the Gentlemen opposed to him on tile Committee were almost all members of the legal profession ; and he had not found them at all anxious to improve those Courts in which they themselves practiced. He did not mean in making that statement to impute any parti cular blame to those Gentlemen ; he believed that no class were impartial where their own interests were concerned. It was so with the East India monopoly and all other monopolies. He had no hesitation in saying that the Supreme Court of Scot land was now the worst constituted Court in the world. The En _dish Court of Chancery formerly deserved that character ; but since the reforms in that Court, the Supreme Court of Scotland stood forward pre-eminently as the most expensive, the most dilatory, and, he might add, the least satisfactory, in which the law was promulgated in any country in the world. Those were atromg expressions, but he used them advisedly. He believed that he would hereafter be able to prove his asser tions ; if, as he hoped, he should be allowed the means of in stituting an inquiry into the subject. He would read to the House a passage from the Report to which he had alluded, which would confirm, to a certain extent, at least, the opinions he had expressed. The Hon. Gentlemen then read the fol lowing passage from the Report of the Select Corn mittec oat Supreme Courts in Scotland, dated May 28, 1840: "It would appear that complaints exist as to certain parts of the procedure before the Lords Ordinary in preparing the record. This matter was brought before your Committee in so far only as it affected the time and labour bestowed by the Judges ; and while your Committee see no reason to withdraw the preparation of the case from the superintendence of the Judge, they have no doubt that, preserving that superintend ence for all useful purposes, the system might in many respects be imprnved, so as not only to save a great deal s f judicial time, but what is much more important for the suitor, pre vent delay and expense in the progress of the cause. It does not belong to your Committee to suggest any particular mea sures as proper to be adopted with this view, the improve ment generally of the form of process not being before them. But they think it proper to remark, that many of the evils complained of, and for which a remedy is most required, have arisen from this, that the form of process introduced by the statute of 1825 was not equally well adapted to all forms of suit or subjects of litigation, on the one hand; and that the Court, on the other, was so tied down by the express terms of the sta tute, as to prevent them from introducing, by acts of sederunr, or rules of Court, such modifications as would be not only advantageous, but necessary, in several important classes of cases. It will be seen by a return laid before Par liament, that the time daily cccupisd by either division of the Court does not extend, on on average, much beyond two hours a day, and of thst time some part is always occupied in disposing of orders and motions of no great importance. Some of the witnesses have stated that on the Lverage, this part of the business occupies at least one. third of the time during which the Court sits, reducing to less than one hour and a half, if their statement be correct, the daily sittings of the Courts. These aro circumstances which strongly • mark the present existence of former complaint; but, without going through the evidence in detail, your Committee are com pelled to state that, in their opinion, the system introduced in 1825 has not been fully carried out in the proceedings of the Inner House, and that dissatisfaction justly prevails as to the administration of this part of the judicial system. It is very much in consequence of this, and of the sittings of the Court in public not being extended under a system, intended to sub • stitute, as far as possible, oral for written argument, that an opii.ion has arisen in many quarters, and apparently with reason, that the number of Judges in the Court of Session is too great for the business it has to discharge, and that by abridging the vacatiensof the Court, and prolonging the periods of its daily sittings, the whole business might be done by a re duced number of Judges. Dissatisfaction has been the con sequence, and it may be that this has been among the causes which have recently occasioned the diminution of the business of the Court of Session. It appears, too, it has produced, indi rectly, very considerable results, by influencing, in some degree, the form of making up the Records, and introducing a form different front that intended. An opinion has been expressed that hearing of causes has become more full and satisfactory than formerly ; but, on the other hand, the small amount of time given in public to the perform ance of judicial duty appears by Parliamentary returns, anti the evidence, not to have been augmented. Your Committee are, therefore ' not justified in concluding that the dissatisfac tion which has so long prevailed has materially diminished. arious propositions were made by witnesses as to relieving the Courts from motions of course, and from difficulties con nected with the attendance of the bar in different Courts. It is clear that motions of form occupy small portion of time in the Inner House, though no doubt a considerable por ion of the time during which either division actually sits at present. Much the more important suggestions relate to the extended sittings of the Court—to the necessity of their sitting during a much longer time—every day—'o their sitting on Monday, and to their availing themselves, if necessary, of the power to prolong the Session. If it should appear that a greater por tion of time than can be given during the present terms is re quired for fuller discussion and a proper dispatch of busness, it ought to be obtained by curtailing the vacations, whether as re gards the Outer or Inner Houses. The Court of Justicary frequently sits on Monday; but they do not see that that circum stance necessarilly interferes with arrangements by which that day might be gained for one or both divisions of the Court. A great deal might be accomplished by the divi sion% sitting on alternate days, or at all events by using the Wednesday occupied in the business of the Teind Court, which, though important, is not extensive. If it w ere necessary, it might be proper to enable the Court of Justi ciary to sit at Edinburgh, with two Judges, or with a single Judge, as on Circuit. Without altering the slays on which the Court met, a great deal of time might be saved, and usefully employed, by bedding the meetings of the Judges upon those occasions when the whole Court is called upon to advise re gularly, exclu,ively upon Mondays, or the Wednesdays appro priated to the sittings of the Teind Court. These, however, are matters of detail, upon which your Committee thought it unnecessary to enter at length, being satisfied th it even we hout Legislative interference, and under the existing powers of the Court, there can ba little difficulty to adopt such arrangements as would give great additional time. Arrangements, however, may be necessary beyond the power of the Court, in which case recourse must be had to the intervention of Parliament." Now, it appeared that the Court sat only two hours a dat, and that for a limited number of days. He would put it. to English and Irish Gentlemen how unsatisfactory must be the proceedings of such a Court? He should observe, in addition, that viva voce witnesses were not examined before the Court. In criminal matters alone witnesses were heard; while in civil cases, every thing was done through long printed documents. That was their Judge•matte law, and he could conceive nothinc , so much opposed to the spirit of a free people. He should inform the House that the labours of the Scottish Judges at Assizes were of the most trifling descrip tion. The proceedings at Assizes i❑ Scotland were reduced to a mere farce. They had in that country most excellent local tribunals, which tried all but the gravest offences. Those tribunals were presided over by sheriffs, who were men well acquainted with the law. The labours before the Judges of Assize were thus rendered so light, that the provincial papers were in the habit of describing them as mere trips of plea sure, during which they paid convenient visits to their friends in the diflerent towns. He would next advert to the informa tion lie had received from three gentlemen of the highest know ledge and respectability, whose names he would not then mention, but which he would readily communicate to any Hon. Gentleman in private. The first letter he would read contained a description of the state of the Court at the present pe , iod. The Hon. Gentleman read the letter, which was addressed to himself, as follows : " Edinburgh, March 30, 1842. To Robert Wallace, Esq., from Esq. . " The Court was divided into two Chambers in 1808. At that time the Lumber of causes brought into Court in a year was about 2,500.--(See Parliamentary Return; No. 241, 1824.) • ..The number now (1641) brought into Court in- _a year is on) , 1 500. —( See Itettirns.) 'this show.; a failing off of 2-sths. But this does not show the whole elect case in real business, for iii addition there is to t e noticed the increase in decrees in absence, which . oceupy almost no time. . In these eases there is only one enrolment, and at the first calling, the whole matter is disposed of in a quart -r of a minute. It is only the decrees in fore that can give an idea of the real business. Now the decrees info:o in 1608, when the two Chambers were instituted, were in number about 1,500. At present they are only about 600. So that while the total business has been Steadily decreasing, the real business has been still more decreasing by the increase in decrees in absence. It is, therefore, no exaggeration to say that business has decreased one half. If, therefore, two Cham bers could do Cie business in 1808, one Chamber could (In it. now when it is so reduced. It is well known that the two Chambers when they had cleared off the arrears which had ac cumulated, but not sooner, began to sit only for about two hours a day for 113 days in the year, and even now, under the influence of the lash, applied by the late Pa liamentary inquiry, they don't usually sit above three hours a day. . There is n good reason why the Court should not sit at least thirty days more, and two hours more each day if neces , ary. But it is believed that the business would not require such long sittings; even with only one Chamber. This can be made plain by figures. The present prolonged sittings at three hours a day, fur 113 days, give 339 hours for each Court yearly—say, for both, 678 hours in the whole year. Before the late Parlia mentary inquiry, the sittings were only two hours a day, or 452 hours yearly. If the sittings were prolonged 30 days—that is, to 143 days in the year, and to five hours a day. we should have 715 hours from one Chamber, being 37 hours more than the present volt:wed sittings of the two Chambers. Can it be seriously maintained that sitting for 143 days at five boors a day would be too much labour? Let the sittings of the English Judges answer the question. There would still remain an ample portion of each day for reading papers. besides more than half the year for vacations. If the excess of 37. hours by one. Chamber sitting 143 days for five hours be deducted from the assumed daily sittings of that time, it would not much exceed 4i hours. 't his, with the constant decrease of business, as shown by the returns for many . years back, demonstrates that the time has now arrived when one Court of Review may safely be abolished, and thereby the d e l a y s an d consequent ex pense arising from the present faulty system, and from the want of senior counsel both in the Inner and Oater Houses, be removed, or be greatly lessened, and the still more grievous and unseemly evil of conflicting decisions emanating from the two co .ordinate Courts of Review be put an end to." The next letter he would read to the House was as follows : " Edinburgh, March 30, 1842. " Sir—There can be no doubt that your Committee did much good, and that the Bar, and particularly the Whig clique, although slow to acknowledge this, cannot deny it. Their horror at reduction is rational enough, and we must not be too severe upon them. As you have obtained- for them a great increase of courtesy from the Bench and enlarged pa tience in hearings, they in return should ha v e the courtesy to acknowledge your services frankly., But this improvement in patience of course lengthens the hearings, and thereby aggra vates one of the crying evils of our Courts, viz., the difficulty of getting eminent counsel to debate ac- in the Outer House, without interruption, by being called away to the Inner Houses, or indeed to get the leading Counsel at all, after the advisings begin in the Inner House. This great evil can only be remedied in two ways, either by restricting counsel to one division of the Court, or, what would be far more effectual and better everyway, by having only one Inner Chamber. I see the same evil much complained of in England, and the abrupt way in which Lord Denman terminated the sittings last term must have made even counsel themselves feel the inconveniences of their practising in so many different Courts ! ! " The two divisions sit about one hour longer daily since your Committee—that is all—and they have had less work to do last year than in any former one. I have not }et seen returns for the year ended in July, but from the printed Rolls I have no doubt of this fact. One division could now overtake the whole work with perfect ease. The bankruptcy business being almost' all done now in the Sheriffs' Courts, has greatly thinned the Rods; and decrees in absence, which occupy little or no time, are still increasing.. The adjustment of issues before the Jury clerks does not now occupy so much time as formerly, ai they are better acquainted with their duties, and very few causes are tried, sowing the continued unpopularity of the institution, as at present consti tuted and conducted in Scotland. As to leading Counsel, we have very few. Mr. M'Neil is clearly at the head ; the'. Messrs. Rutherford, Anderson, Wood, and Robertson—five in all— a poor array certainly from which to supply a bench of 13 Judges. I am more and more convinced, that one Inner House is suffi cient for all the business, and this is the effectual remedy for the difficulty in getting counsel to plead cases continuously in the Outer House. Had it not been for the Church cases, the Inner House would have been quite out of work this winter, so that the Kirk's squabbles have been a godsend to cur Courts, for without work, the job of keeping them up, would be too bee even for Peel's majority. I remain your faithful servant." The next letter he would read, was also addressed to him by a professsional gentleman of the highest respectability, and was as follows " Edinburgh, Bth April, 1842. " The number of well employed Counsel at the Scotch Bsr does nut exceed twenty ; and the leading Counsel are five, viz., Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Solicitor •General Mr. Dean of Faculty Wood, Mr. Adam Anderson, and Mr. Patrick Ro bertson. The first two are, and have long been decided leaders; Mr. Wood and Mr. Anderson nly lately ; that is since your Select Committee sat. •At the most you will see there are only five. Whilst such is the number of leading Counsel, and the well-employed Junior Counsel are not above fifteen, but say twenty, in order to be within the mark; the Judges are thirteen in number, subdivided into two Courts of Review, of four Judges in each, and five Lords Ordinary, who sit separately, and four of them daily. Thus, there are daily six Courts sitting, at precisely the same time, besides which there are issue clerks sitting for the aojustment of issues to lire tried by Juries, who require to be attended by Counsel ; anti the' leading Counsel are also chiefly tmpluved fur this purpose; theretore, it may be said, truly, that there are seven tribunals sitting daily. There are a number of English Counsel in the Louse of Commons who can well understand the bearing of there facts, and I think you might place the matter before them in a forcible light, by putting to them-1. Whether they think thirteen Judges can be required to despatch the business prepared for their decisions by a Bar, which, reckoning the well employed Counsel, noes riot count twice their own number? I should think that English Counsel, accustomed to sec what is accomplished in the English Courts, will be satisfied that the Scotch Judges must be greatly underworked, or that assuredly there is something very far wrong in our system.-2. Whether it is possible for a Bar, reckoning no greater number of well-empkyed Counsel than I have mentioned, can efficiently supply seven tribunals sitting at the same moment. They will be able to answer this from their own observation ; but the actual results, the con fusion, the delays, inconvenience, and obstructions which are thereby occasioned, arc given in evidence to prove the fact.- 3. Whether it b' reasonable to expect that such a Bar can supply a Bench, consisting of thirteen Judges, with lawyers of real eminence ? In point of fact, it h the great bane of ;he Scotch system and the Scotch Courts, that we get so many in ferior men placed on the Bcneh, where first rate men only should sit. These are the simple views of the case which occur to myself; and I think you may gl ee effect to them in such a way as to come home to the understandings even of men un acquainted practically with our profession." He would cow read them an extract from a letter in corrobo tion of these facts, from his Learned Friend the late Lord Ad vocate. He had other letters, which he should not detain the House with then, but if they were at a ll necessary in re ply, h e should go into them particularly. The Hon. Member then read the following extract from a letter from the Lord Advo cate, Rutherford, to Mr. Cranstoun, dated London, August 10, 1839 :—" No one who knows the low esteem in which, from many causes, our judicial institutions are held, could doubt that if such a Bill * had been introduced, it could not have been carried, but must have led to defeat, not less unpleasant to you than the Government. There was a reluc tance in supporting us, even where you might least expect it." He then read an extract from a letter from Lord J. Russell to Mr. Cranstoun, dated 14th December, 1839 :—" The alterna tive for the Government to consider, therefore, was the aban donment of the clause, or the loss of the Bill. So fer as my own personal opinions were concerned, the loss of the Bill would have been the preferable event. I had some doubts as to the increase of salary to the Scotch Judges, and it was only in deference to the sentiments of those better acquainted with the subject than myself, that I did not snake a reduction of the number of Judges an indispensable part of the measure." This extract (continued the Hon. Member) he considered a very strong authority. The Noble Lord said, it was only in deference to the opinion of others that he gave up his own in favour of a diminution of the number of the Judges ; and whose opinions did he refer to? Let him beg the attention of the House to this, that the witnesses brought by the Noble Lord to give evidence, were all expectant: of office, with on or two exceptions. Two had been made Judges since, and he had understood at the time that his Hon. and Learned Friend was himself on the threshold of a very high appointment. If that was out true, then public notoriety had misled him ; he was in nobody's secrets; no one confided them to him.—( Hear, hear.) If they did he would never have kept them a moment, and therefore he never got any from either side of the House. He got secrets in •the same proportion as he did favours—lie never asked for one, and therefore never got any ; if he got the secrets of others, he should never keep them, and therefore he neither had one nor the other.—(Hear, hear.) But he could show that there had been juggling among parties who ought not to have been con cerned in such matters ; they had been kept from him, though he was considered a decided party man, who might have voted on a party question, merely because it suited a particular purpose to carry a particular object. But this was not a party objet*.—( Hear, hear.) That was legitimate with Members of Parliement, but this was not a party object. Here were the Core .house job papers, and he would pl ace them in the hands of any Hon. Member. During that session there were only four Judges doing the duty o f e i g h t; two were incapacitated from bad health ; one of them was declared to be in such a state of weakness not of mind, for he was of perfectly sound mind— but he was in such an extremely weak state of health that he could not do the duty of the Summer Session The other object ' lie had in view was to follow up the course adopted by one of the most distinguished m en who ever sat as Pre !Went of the Supreme Court, Sir Ilay Camp. bell. in his Bill of 17 85, for reducing the number of the Judges from fifteen to ten. He thought it a very rational proposal, and was supported by the authority of Lord Jeffery, in the Edinburgh Review. He had before him a list of the amendments he (Mr. Wallace) moved in the Report under discussion, but he would not detain the Helve with reading them wished to show the necessity of enabling the Court to do that, which it could not do of itself, and which was alleged to be absolutely necessary. FT --e therefore moved a series of amendments, eleven in number, and he had shown what evidence had brought out on the question.he merely He had now stated, in general terms, the object he had in view ; and he mightnot t more favourable with ie confidence;ellthemm'itbgr w eat •spcttu e the ?pi n i on of the pu bli c was the situation of the Courts that' his was. They denied entirely that there was a better dispatch of business, or more wise decisions, and they com plained most bitterly of having two Courts sitting at the same time on questions of the same nature , trying causes on the same day, and having from the two Courts contradictory decisions. They complained, justly , of two co-ordinate Courts having four Judges, as they would be sure to give con tradictory decisions. No one in the House could deny that fact. Where there were four Judges of equ a l powers, they would he sure to differ in opinion, and the consequence was the Scotch Judges were continually having unseemly differ ences of opinion. With regard to the!lnner House Judges, they had little or nothing to do as compared with the other Judges. He should be glad to have a Bill introduced which would give them at once three or four months in the year for their vaca tion ; reduce the number of Judges to nine or ten, and they might require four months; they no w took seven ; but how did they take it ? They took first three weeks, then two months, and then four. In the Scotch Courts busi ness was despatched by papers. They did not have witnesses produced in Court, oral evidence was not taken ; nor was there any cross •examivation of witnesses by Counsel. If they did this, they should not require five Judges ; but • A Bill for the increase of salary. it was owing to the infernal system of papers—( Oh, oh)—it was the ..infernal system of Judge-made law that enforced the nece sity of so many Judges. What was the result of the system in the House of Lsrds? There were k3OO appeals to the House of Lords, from England. Ireland, and Scotland —( Hear, hear.) Let the Gentlemen who cheered bin , guess what was the share Scotland bad of these appeals ? They had GOO appeals out of 800.—(Hear, hear.) This was out of a population of two millions and a half, and thus a well-informed nation was made to appear a litigious one, from this confounded system He had done his duty its bringing the question forward, and he would defy any Scotchman, with the exception of members of the legal profession, to say that he had not justly stated the case. Before he sat down he might refer to the opinion of the Honourable Member for Glasgow, ors the last occa sion the question was brought forward; the substanc,., of it was this he said he was no lawyer, he represented a large city, mixed largely with the inhabitants, and he stated that there was a great feeling of disgust and dissatisfaction with the Superior Courts. Gentlemen who knew the Hon. Member must feel that it must be an urgent case that made him speak thus on such a point as this. Hu was satisfied that he had shown a good case for being allowed to bring in a Bill. He beg to state that he was called on to do this by the late Govern ment; on the last occasion he brought it forward, he was asked why he did not not ask for leave to bring in a Bill, and the [lon. Gentlemen opposite cheered the suggestion. The Bill would be a very short one, and he could not believe that the Right Hon. Baronet would refuse his assent to the bringing in the Bill, by which alone the grievances could be remedied. The Hon. Member concluded by moving fur leave to bring in the Bill. An HON. MEMBER here called out, " Sit down," Mr. WALLACE rose with some warmth, and said that he would not allow any man to tell him to sit down. He should like to see the man who would take off his hat and say that to him —( Hear, hear.) Sir JAMES GRAHAM could assure the Hon. Gentleman that he had no reason'to complain of a want of courtesy on his part, because, on a former occasion, he had, at his (Sir James Graham's) request, postponed his motion on account of the absence of the Lord Advocate. In the continued absence of that Learned Lard, it was his ( Sir James Graham's) misfortune to have to encounter the present motion, without his able assistance; and such being the case, he:should have hesitated on determining as to the expediency of not renewing his request, had he not felt certain that in resisting the motion he might rely, upon the support of almost the whole House.—( Hear. ) His (Sir James Graham's) opinion on the subject had been supported by the labours of a Committee selected most impartially from both sides of the House, and when he con sidered the names of same of the Members who sat on that Committee, he could not conceive a tribunal more likely to arrive at a sound conclusion, or one more entitled to the con sideration of the House. In that Committee many divisions bad taken place, and upon every occasion the Hon. Member divided alone ; the subject had therefore undergone meet dis cussion. The Hon. MeMber had not stated to the House what great changes had taken place in the judicature of Scot land. The Exchequer and Admiralty jurisdiction had been abolished, together with many others, and the duties of the Judges of those Courts were now transferred to the diminished number of Judges. Now what had been said by the late Lord Advocate on this subject? He stated before the Committee that after so many exteusise changes, that which was really necessary to Scotland was some pause in those changes. Lord Chief Justice Clerk had given a similar opinion. The Hon. Gentleman had spoken contemp tuously of the manner in which the criminal justice of the country was carried on, and the manner in which the Judges conducted the Circuits. Now, for his own part he must say that he thought the manner in which the business was con ducted, amounted almost to perfection. . In discharge of his official duty, he (Sir J. Graham) had constant communication with the Judges in Scotland, and he would undertake to say a more proper discharge of official duty, could not be found in any part of the United Kingdom. The Honourable Gentlemen had stated that the Courts of Law in Scotland were regarded by the people almost with disgust. The Hon. Gentle man's motion was confined to obtaining leave to bring in a Bill to diminish the number of Judges. 'I he Hon. Gentleman founded his motion on three anonymous letters. Now, he (Sir J. Graham) would rebut those three letters by reading the evidence of three witnesses that were examined before the Committee. The first was the late Lord Advocate. the second was the present Lord Justice Clerk, and the third the present Solicitor-General for Scotland. The Hon. Gentleman had read pretty largely from the Report of the Committee, but there was one passage that bore •n the motion which the Honourable Member had studiously avoided reading. That passage was concurred in by all the Members of the Committee . except the Honourable Member, and it was to the effect that the business of the Courts could not be carried on by one division alone. With respect to the doubts entertained by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) as to an increase in the salaries of Scotch Judges, he (Sir James Graham) certainly shared in those doubts ; but he differed, and con tinued to differ, with the Noble Lord relative to the number of those Judges. He (Sir J. Graham) was satisfied that the business of the Court of Session could not be con ducted satisfactorily to the people of Scotland if the Judges were diminished. In the practice of the Court, written evi dence was done away with, and oral evidence had begun to be generally resorted to, and every requisite reform was being brought into operation. Mr. RUTHERFORD, who was inaudible throughout the greater portion of the observations he addressed to the House, was understood to say that he was greatly surprised to find any dissatisfaction expressed with respect to the administration of criminal law in Scotland. The conduct of the Hon. Gentle man ( Mr. Wallace) was a specimen of the nature of the oppo sition got up against the Scotch Courts. The Hen. Member had no means of informing himself personally respecting these Courts, but he gathered a series of what he considered facts from persons on whom he thought he could rely, and then on such information he came forward in that House, and in lan guage the most reprehensible censured the proceedings of the Supreme Court of Scotland. He hoped there would he a pause to further change. Though he quite agreed that the Court of Session had many faults, he thought that its business was conducted in a much better manner than it had been; though still low, it was rising in pubic estimation. With these views, he could not support the motion of the Non. Member. Mr. WALLACE rose to reply. There were thirteen Judges in the Supreme Court, and not more thin twenty well-em ployed counsel. That fact stood uncontradicted. 'There were seven Courts all sitting at the same time, and only five leading counsel to serve them. This, too, was uncontradicted. It required little algebra to show that this was not a proper state of things. —( Loud laughter.) Now, with respect to the Committee appointed to investigate this subject, thir teen witnesses had been examined. Six of these witnesses were looking out for Judgeships. Two of them had been made Judges. Three Of them were expecting to be made Judges. Now that was the farce which had been acted in the Committee. How did they get rid of the East India mo nopoly, and the West hulls monopoly, and all other monopo lies? Were they in those cases guided by the testimony of those who were interested in the monopoly? Nothing could be more absurd, unsatisfactory, or disgusting in the opinion of the people of Scotland, than the administration of justice in the Supreme Courts in Scotland. Nothing could be more satisfac tory to them than the administration of criminal justice in the County Courts. In the one case it was placed on a cheap foot ing, in the other on an expensive and bad one. The Judges did not sit in the Supreme Courts more than four months and a half in the year. He was perfectly satis fied that, with the exception of those parties who were inte rested in the present system, he would receive the approba tion of his countrymen for bringing forward the motion in the stroxig terms which he had done. He did not complain of the administration of justice in the County Criminal Courts, but its administration in the Supreme Court was a positive farce. In Edinburgh there were three Judges sitting daily''on similar causes to those decided at Glasgow and elsewhere with one or two at most. So little was there to do they had to spread nut the business as much as possible. There was nothing to prevent the Sheriffs from performing the whole of the duty. He believed that the opposition to a change arose from those who were interested in the present state of things, and in this belief he would divide the House upon his motion. The gallery was then cleared for a division, when there ap peared— For the motion Against it Majority against the motion ..... 165 POST-OFFICE. Mr. WALLACE was again on his legs, on our re-admission to the gallery. The Hon. Gentleman said—Notwithstanding the adverse opinion which has been pronounced by the House on the motion I have just now made, I beg to move for print ing a return of what I call plunder by the Post-office. The question is, whether the return which shows ali the moneys, whether bills of exchange, or notes, or gold, or trinkets, or other articles, which have been lost through the Post-office shall be printed, and those who wish to see the return printed will vote with me. I air. now speaking of the return of 1837, which contains Tipages, filled with those abstractions rf money, bank notes, bills, &c. The return in 1838 contains 25 pages ; in 1839, it contains a still greater number; and in 1840, it contains 273 pages ; so that it appears this trade is increasing, and those who wish to encourage this trade will vote not to have these documents printed. My returns in 1836 exhibit abstractions to the amount of 600,0001. or 700,0001., but what is the amount of the new returns I do not know. The return is in three different parts, and the Select Committee for Printing have ordered that two parts should be printed, and that the third, which contains the items, should not. I suppose this has been caused by reasons of economy on the part of the Committee. But if I had been informed that the Printing Committee would not print the items, I would not have taken charge of the matter. In point of fact the return was originally moved for by Major Chetwynd, who took the same course which I have done. On looking over three or four pages of the return which is now to be printed, I find in each page that coins, bills of exchange, bank notes, money orders, cheqnes, drafts, chains, and patterns of silks, satins, and woollens have been abstracted, and I think a great cause of all this is owing to the Post-office authorities not registering let ters. I see two Honourable Members present who were connected with the Post-office under the late Go vernment, and who recommended improved registration. There is a great difference, report says, between the Poit-office and the Treasury as to registration, and I believe that the whole body of the people will thank the House for agreeing to my returns. The people never know what becomes of the money which they transmit by post; I believe the letter sorters, and letter carriers, and others in the Post-office, have got PO expert in abstracting money out of letters, that there is no safety whatever in the transmission of money through the Post-office, by letter.—( Hear.) I believe it is well worth the 'while of his House, to inquire into the subject, and the expense of the returns would be as nothing compared with the security which the people would feel if they knew (last trans mission through the Post-office was properly conducted.— ( Hear, hear.) There has been already enormous expmse incurred in the returns. As to the motion which I have on the paper, I am perfectly indifferent personally as to how the House may deal with it. The Honour able Member then concluded by moving—" That the return, showing the applications which have been made to the Post office for letters which were missing, and which contained money or money's worth, which return was presented to this House on March 4, be printed ; or failing in this, that a complete abstract thereof be made and printed along with the return, which was moved for in connexion with the above, and which was made to this House on the 18th of May, and hasheen ordered to be printed." Mr. H UME seconded the motion. Sir GEORGE CLERK oppo , ed the motion, and said that the petitions moved for would not be worth the expense. It would be an ui.necessary waste of the public money to furnish these returns, when there were already do cuments before the House, and accessible to the public, which contained all the in formation that could be afforded. Mr. V. SSIITII thought the motion of the lion. Gentle man much too extensive. It went much further than the re turn of the 4th of March. It also exce ded the terms of the motion the Hon. Gentleman made at a former time, which was for an account of the number of letters, from the sth of January, 1837, to the sth of January, 1841, frankest or unfranked, applied or not applied for, containing money bills, or other •property known to have been secreted by the setvants of the Post-office; but to the terms of that the Honourable Baronet now added the words " or money's worth." But then, by going into the " ap plications" for letters, the Hon. Gentleman would throw' a great deal of undeserved imputation on the servants of the Post office. Now, when persons applied for letters, and not getting . them, alleged that they had been lost in the Post-office, the fact was that many of the letters w ere lost between the writing and the delivery, and many more were lost after they_ were de livered to the servants of the applicants. He (Mr. V. Smith ) must oppose the motion in its.present shape, on account of the great expense it would throw on the public, and the Ilouse was bound to support the view of the Printing Committee, whose duty it was to practice economy as much-'as they might with' prudence. Mr. HUME said, no doubt. great abuses had been cum= mitted in the printing of returns.—( Ilea., hear, and laughter. ) But there was a great want felt by the public for such informa tion as was now asked far ; and if to this were added the ad vertisement issued by the Post-office respecting the safety of Post-office orders, and the ease with which they could be got, the value of the documents would be increased. But the whole mass of returns moved for by his Hon. Friend would be too cumbersome; he (Mr. Hume) would, therefore, recommend his Hon. Friend to accept the abstract which had been very properly offered to him. Mr. - BARING fully recognised the importance of. this sub ject ; but there would be great difficulty :n complying with the motion of his Hon. Friend: However, he (Mr. B.) thought an abstract would be of great value, and if the motion should have no other, result than to make people more cautious in sending money and articles of value through the Ptht-ottice it would be of great benefit. Ile trusted it would extend the practice of sending Post-office orders instead of money ; and indeed, considering the exceediu:;ly careless mariner in which money was frequently sent, it was too hard that people of the lower class, and scantily paid as many of the Post-office ser vants were—it was very unfortunate that they should be ex posed to the temptations they now were through this negli gence. He hoped, therefore, the advantages, facilities, and securities of the order and register sys'ems would be fully im pressed on the public. He admitted there might be some d,fects in the registry system, but it was a very difficult business, and it delayed the transmission of this letters considerably. He and his friends, for these reasons, fixed the fee at Is. at first, in the hope that when the machinery was extensively used and supported, they might be enabled to reduce it, which he hoped might soon be done. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER concurred in the feeling and wishes expressed by his Hon. Friend and predecessor. Nothing could promote the morality of the Post office servants more than that people should cease from the practice of sending money, and transmit Post office orders in stead. When the facilities were made generally known with which an order for any sum up to 5/. might be procured; he hoped the practice of tempting poor people would soon be at an end—for the practice of sending money through the hands of the poor men who were in the service of the Post-office, was a system of temptation which needy men could not always resist.—(Hear.) It should also, in fairness to this hardly worked class, be remembered that in the rapidity and quantity in which letters were sent, many of them, said to have been lost, were only mislaid by accident. As to missing letters the ap pearance was always worse than the reality, for though people would come to the office complaining that their letters had not reached, and though they would soon atterwards find those letters at home, they would not comeback and say so. He would suggest the return shoull state the number of letters missing in each month, and the money they contained or were said to contain. Mr. WALLACE, in reply said, that the advice which he had received from the other side, he had himself given ; the sug gestion would be found in his motion ; therefore, he had no thanks to give them. He would open one page by chance of the Return. (The Hon. Member here read a long list of notes and money which had been stolen from the Post-office.) All this had been taken in one day. He knew a great deal about the Post-office.—(Cheers and laughter.) He doubted if the Printing Committee knew any thing about it. It was a universal rule whenever a bank-note, or a sovereign, or gold passed through the Post-office that it never was returned. Nobody ever heard of any property of this sort ever having been returned ; but he would admit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when a letter contained a bill or property of that nature, which could be negotiated only with some dif ficulty, it miajit be recoverable, but there never was an in stance of a letter containing coin which was once lost having ever been recovered. He would appeal to his Noble Friend the Postmaster-General if such was not the fact. He had no doubt but that the Postmaster-General himself would not wish to see the return published. He (Mr. W.) thought it advisable to prohibit by law the sending of coin by letter. He would consent to take the abstract, although he felt that the ab stract would not give the information which the return would give. He believed the system of plunder was so complete, that the people at the Post •office knew every letter containing money , that nothing escaped from them. No money got out of the Post-office now at all. He thought it was absurd 'to defend the conduct of the Printing Committee. Members - Were treated in the most cavalier way by the Com mittee, and he thought he had just cause of complaint. He would accept the offer which had been made of the abstract, and withdraw his motion. _ _ %Ir. HUME wished to know whether it was intended to extend the time for receiving letters at the general receiving houses. At present none were received after five o'clock. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said time had at least been extended a quarter of an hour. Mr. HUME—That was only four of the houses. Was it likely to be expended to all? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could no answer the Hon. Member's question, but he could assure him that there was every disposition on the part of the Postmaster- General and of the Treasury to afford the public every facility in their power. _ The notion was then withdrawn. SURVEY OF NEW ZEALAND. Lord INGESTRIE moved—" That an humble Address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to order a Maritime Survey of the Coasts and Har bours of the Islands o f New Zealand." As a proof of the growing importance of New Zealand, he would mention tha in one year 152 ships had entered Port Nicholson, and during the same period 18 vessels had been wrecked on the Coast. This showed the necessity of having a survey in order to have correct charts. There was no department of the Admiralty more useful than the Hydroprapher's. As he did not wish to press suddenly upon the resources of that department he would qualify his motion by adding to it the words " when vessels can be spared for that duty without inconvenience to the public service." Capt. PECHELL was glad the Noble Lord bad called at tention to the subject. The Government, bethought, ought to explain why the survey had not taken place long :Alice. He agreed with the praise which had been bestowed upon the Hydrographical department of the Admiralty. There was no departmentbetter conducted, and none worse paid. The posi tion of the hydrographer's office was truly disgrauful, in a miserable garret at the Admiralty. At the time he was on the coast of America during the American war, there was fre quently an error of a degree of longitude in the charts of the American coasts, so that it was quite unsafe to trust to them. Ile was sorry the Noble Lord had listened to the suggestion which had been made to him, to snake the addition to his motion which he had done. In fact, there was no intenthin whatever to make the survey, It might perhaps be made in the course of the next twenty years, but it ought to be made immediately. —Agreed to. Mr. COWPER postponed his motion for calling the atten tion of the House to the state of the Greenwich Hospital Schools, and to move the following resolution—" That, in the opinion of this House, the schools attached to the Royal Hos pital at Greenwich should be open at all times to the inspection of inspectors appointed by the Committee of Privy Council on Education, and that Reports of such inspection should be an nually laid upon the table of this House"—to the 12th May. Mr. HUME postponed his motion for a Committee to in quire into the proceedings of the Commissioners of the National Debt, under the Act 9 Geo. IV. .c. 92. FINES AND RECOVERIES BILL (WALES AND CHESHIRE). Sir J. GRAHAM, In moving for leave to introduce a Bill " for remedying defects arising from the misprision of Officers in recording Fines and Recoveries in Wales and Cheshire, and for better recording the same," said, that under the ancient jurisdiction of fines and recoveries, there had been very gross neglect. When he said neglect, he used the mildest term, for he had reason to believe that some very im proper transactions had taken place in that depart ment ; so much so, that many titles had been jeopardised. In providing a remedy great care should be taken not to injure those titles which had been affected. This was a subject of the , greatest importance, and he had not introduced this Bill with out first consulting the highest legal authorities.—Leave was given. The RIGHT Box. BARONET also moved for a copy of the Report of Mr. Block, on the subject of fines and recoveries. —Ordered. AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BILL. On the Order of the Day being read for going into Com mittee on this Bill, Lord STANLEY said he hoped the Hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hawes) would postpone his amendment to a clause of this Bill until the third reading, and not take the sense of the House on the Report. As the Honourable Gentleman wished but ono discussion, he (Lord Stanley) hoped the Hon. Gentleman would consent to take it on the third reading. Mr. HAWES said he thought the Noble Lord had hardly done him justice, as he (Mr. Hawes) had already postponed his motion, and he therefore could not consent to further delay, but take the discussion on the Report. Dr. BOWRING said he believed it was generally under stood that the discussion should be taken on the Report. Mr. HUME said that he himself approve{4 of the clause, but he wished a discussion to take place, and he thought more jus tice ivould be done to the subject by discussing it on the Report. After a few words from Mr. Plumridge, Lord Stanley, and Sir C. Napier, • The Report was brought up, The consideration of the Report on the Colonial 1 3 ,,sungers Bill was deferred till Monday next. The Turnpike Roads (Ireland) Bill went through Com mittee. Report on Monday. The Timber Ships Bill was read a third time. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at One o'Clock. DUTCH MAIL. THE HAGUE, 26TH AralL.—The accounts dated the 22d Of April, received this morning from Berlin, respecting the illness of his Majesty King William Frederick, are not so fa vourable as those of the preceding day. The bulletin of the 22d is in the following terms : " During the course of yesterday there was no particular change in the state of his Majesty the Count of Nassau, and his Majesty was free from fever in the evening. The augast pa tient had, however, a very restless night, and was fatigued for want of sleep. v. His situation, however, is not worse, and this morning there was no fever. Up to this moment ( three o'clock in the afternoon) the fever has not returned, but his Majesty feels weak in consequence of the sleepless nights whic:i he passed." In the sitting of the Second Chamber to-day, several pro jects of law were received and referred to the sections, one of which relates to the intended marriage of her Royal Highness Princess Sophia of the Netherlands to his Royal Highness the . Hereditary Grand Duke of Saxe Weimar. AMSTERDAM, Aran 26. —1 n reference to the state of the British West India Islands, which is a matter of great import ance to our country, and to the disputes respecting the treat ment of the emancipated negroes, our esteemed friend has sent us an extract from the Gazette and General Zdvertiser of Bri ish Guiana of the Ist March, 1842. The extract says :— We are happy to announce on this day (the it of March) that the desertion of their work, which took place at the begin. ning of this year among the workmen, in consequence of an ill judged combination of the masters to reduce their wages, may be considered at an end. When we look back on the desertion of their work, we cannot help remarking on the very peaceable conduct of the labourers, who, though they showed a firm reso lution not to work at reduced wages, took care not to commit any illegal act. This may be ascribed to the naturally peaceful disposition of these people; they talk loudly, but seldom pro ceed to acts of violence, and chiefly put their confidence in the justice of the local Government, on which they implicitly rely for instruction and protection. Now that unhappy state of things is at au end there is no reason to apprehend that the crops will be less this year than the last."—Dutch Paper, April 27. THE METROPOLITAN PARLIA- MENTARY REFORM ASSOCIATION. A new Society, under the above title, has just been organised in the metropolis. It embraces some of the oldest, the staunchest, and the most distinguished Parliamentary Re_ formers. It has put forth a prospectus, and an address to the people of Great Britain, and promises, we trust a n d h ope, to unite the great majority in demanding a real representation. We shall take an early opportunity of further noticing this Society ; we must now, from the pressure of othe r ma tt er , dis miss it with a hearty prayer for i ts success. - .t , ..... if C- r- N. C T -,/, N ----) \ •:: •'. r , , HER MAJESTY'S DRAWI 11001 W. . . • . The Queen held a Drawing-roona, yester3ay afte won- r s St. Jame s 's Palace, which was yen: flume: ously at Majesty and Prince ~ V bert, arrived from 13uckiriglial4r fitte l / 4 1 ,/ „ , t attended by the Duchess of Buccleuch , Mistress of the itobrs ; 4 -9 •fl- \ the Countess: of D.tlhousie, Lady in aiting ; Lord Byron, Lord in Waitin , *; Hon. Capt. Hood, Grows: in Waiting ; Major-General Wemyss, Equerry in Waiting; the Pages cf Honour in Waiting ; Lord Co:ville, Lori in Waiting on Prince Albert, and Colonel Bouverie, Equerry in Waiting on his Royal Highness. The Lord Chamberlain, the Lord Steward, and the Master of the Horse received her Majesty and the Prince on their arrival. Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Gloucester arrivA, at tended by her Lady in Waiting. Their Royal Highnesses the Duchess of Cambridge, Prince George. and the Princess Augusta of Cambridge came, at tended be Lady Augusta SoMerset and Baron Knessibeck. - ller Majesty's Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms was on duty% in the State Rooms. Mr. George Philip Lee had an audienc r of her Majesty in the Royal Closet, for the purpose of ieeeivi g from the Queen the Silver Stick of Office, as Li, utenant of her Ma esty's Body Guard of Yeomen of the Guard, an I was presented to the Queen by the Earl of Beverly, the Captain of the Corps. The following prese.:tations to the Queen took place in be Foreign Diplomatic circle:— La Cointesse do Flahault, an I la Cumtesse de Roventlow, the Lady of the Danish Minister, by the Countess do St. Autaire, the French Ambassadress. _ _ Extraordinary and Mini s !. r Le Comteii:. liaczynski. Env , y Plenipotentiary to her Majesty the Queen of Portugal, by II e Chevalier de Bunsen, the Prussian Minister. Count Borkowski, lay Baron de Neumann, the Austrian Minister. The Foreign Diplomatic Corps present were—the French Ambassador and the Countess de St. Aulaire ; M. Van de Weyer, the Belgian Minister ; the Bavarian Minister, and Baroness de Cetto; the Sardinian Minister and Count Revel, Secretary of Legation ; Baron de Moncoryn, the Portuguese Minister, M. Fortique, the Venezuelan Minister ; the Russian Minister and Baroness Brunow, and M. de Berg, Secretary of Legation ; Count Kiehmansegge, the Hanoverian Mi. Miter ; Baron de Hugel, the Wurtetnberg Minister ; the Prussian Minister, and Madame Bunsen; Baron Charles de Casiltz, Secretary of Legation; Madame de llelfer, nett Baronne de Granges, and the Baru,. de Langen, Chambellan de Sa Majeste le Roi de Prusse; 'Mr. Everett, the United States Minister ; the Brazilian 31iniater, and Madame Marquis Lisboa ; the Spanish Minister and Francisco Pam. pillo, Secretary of Legations ; the Danish Minister and Countess Reventlow, and Baron de Brockdorff, Secretary of Legation ; Baron de Neumann, Austrian Minister, anti Baron Lebzeltern, Secretary of Legation • the Mexican Charge d'Affaires, and Madame Murphy; M. M. Mosquera, Charge d'Affaires of New Grenada; Fusd Effendi, Turkish Charge d'Affaires, and Mr. Salame, her Majesty's Oriental Interpreter. . . _ The Drawing-room was attended by the Archbishop o f York; the Lord Stewart ; the Lord Chamberlain ; the Captain of the Hon. Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms; Lord Hill ; Gold Stick in Waiting ; Comptroller-General of the Exchequer ;Viee- Chamberlain : the Treasurer of the Household ; the Comp troller of the Household ; the Judge Advocate-General ; Major_ General Sir Henry Wheatley, G. C. H. ; Keeper of her Ma jesty's Privy Purse; the Mater of the Ceremonies ; Hon. Sir Edward Butler, Lieutenant of the Hon. Corps of Gentlemen at-Arms ; Mr. S. M. Phillip:, Under Secretary of State; Marquis of Hunly, and Lord Dinoben, Aide-dc -Camps to the Queen ; Mr. Henry Robinson, Standard-bearer tof the Hon. Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms ; Mr. Ralph Gore, Groom in Waiting to h er Majesty ; the Attorney-General ; Major Hyde, Assistant Master, and Marshal of the Ceremotios Colonel Reid, 2d Life Guards ; Silver Stick ; Major-General Sir Edward Bowater, Equery to Prince Albert ; Sir Archibald Macdonald, Bart., Equery to his Royal Iligness the Duke of Sussex ; Mr. Burge, Q. C., Agent fur Jamaica ; Mr. Jam ea Bunce Curling, Clerk of the Cheque o f th e Hon. Corps of Gentleman-at-Arms ; Mr. Ellerthorp, Clerk of the Cheque of the Yeoman Guard ; Captain Seymour Sadler (in waiting), and Captain J. Parker Nuttall, Exons of the Yeomen of the Guard; Sir Benjamin Smith ; Lieut.-Colonel Sir Frederick Smith, Gentleman Usher to the Privy Chamber; Mr. Alfred Montgomery, Gentleman Usher; Colonel Godwin, Gen tleman Usher to his Royal Highness Prince Albert, and the following Duct' uss xs Socerse t,Roxburghe, Argyll, Leinster, Bed?nrd. Dla:tcncoN asst's—Ely, Lansdowne, Thomond, Abercorn, Camden. Ormoncle, Donegal, Downshire, Cholmondely, West meath, Dc Riario Sforza. COUNTESSES—PoWiS, Meaborough, ROM', Kinnouli, Jer sey, Camperdown, Cadogan, .Egmont, Do eager Sefton, .Nor bury, Lincoln, Listowel, Dunraven, Fortcscuo, Wte Grosvenor, Orford, Desart, Galloway, Dowager Clotnwel, Radnor, Clarendon, Euston, Dowager Chichester, Sandwich, Westmoreland, \Vinchilsea, Carlisle, Bridgewater, Haddingtort, De Grey, Baptiste Metaxa, Lisburne, Dowager Carnwath, Home, Bradford, Hillsborough, Eldon. Art.eoux.rEss ALltoti, Pollington, Maynard, Dowager Dillon, Hood, Ilohne,:dale, A.hbrook, Drunilanrig, Sydney, Duncan. LADIES— Mary Juliana Taylour, Denman, Ashburton, Wheatly, Pollock, Seale, Saltoun, Courtenay, Doaager, Cawdor, L. Hay, Rivers, Lilford, Ilerries, S. Savile, Dukinfield, Clifton, Henrietta Allen, (Howard) Douglas, Georgiana Toler, Wig,. ram, Vavasour, Charlotte Hill, H. C. Durham, Louisa Hughan, Charlotte Marsham, Emily Foley, Dymoke, Ibbetson, Yarde Buller, Mary Hoare, Caroline Maxse, Caroline Baillie Hamilton, (2) Cadogan, Shelley, James, Charlotte Herbert, Worsley, Elizabeth Duncan, Grant, Imhoff, Katherine Doug las, Hope, Parke, Palmer, Jane Grant, Jane Walsh, John Scott, Otway, Ed-Chichester de Saummarez, L. S. Churchill, Stanley, L. Tolleanache, W. Holmes, M. Grosvenor, Bruce, Fevcrsham, Elizabeth Butler, M. Monett, :Methuen, - Farquhar, Wale, E. Grosvenor, Ruthven S. Tower, 111. Phipp s , F. Fletcher, Seymour, 11. Howard, C. Talbot, E. Penna . :at:ler, M. Christopher, C. Fellowes, W. 13u:keley, E. Campbell, C. Strangwass, \V. de Eresby, Monteagle, Hamilton, F. Russell, B. Hepburn, E. Moreton, C. Stewart, Emily Posey, L. Her, bert, B. Graham, Montagu, Wa polo, J. Fitzgerald, M. Sommil'e, E. F. Drum,nond, Howard, M. HoMI, Gossett, Fraser, Evans, Laughain, M. Molvneux, S. Murray, K. Molyneux, A. Wilbraham, Stopford, X. Stuart. Ilammo d, Macfarlane, F. llowanl, L. Pole, Broad head, Montgomery, M .Wood, Hall, D. Gordon, William Powlett, Isabella Elope, Monson, Dowager Ridley, Stannus, Cross, L. Alexander, L. Otway, Camoys, E. Reynell, H. P. Clinton, Verney, A. Scott, M'Taggart, Brayhrooke, F. Cole, S. Ker, Lopes, Edwards, L. Cavendish, C. Morant, Sophia Rendlesham, Jenkins, Woodford, Pynn, C. B. Cave, C. A. P. Clinton, Mulcaster, F. Santini), J. P. Bouverie, Goldsmith Delarnere, F. Hotharn, L. Pelham, J. Wemyss, M. Pelham, Dashwood, C. Fitzroy, Gecrgina Grey, A. Vane, A. Loftus. L. Fitzroy, 11. Corry, Al. Howard, Letitia Aid worth, Johnston, John Russell, R . innaird, Lyttleton, E. 13 u 1_ tee), F. Somerset, Heytesbury, Dinorben, Maclaine, Elizabeth S. L. Gower, Peel, F. Vane, M. Vyner,ll. Cholmondeley, Col chester, Poltiraore, Kilmaine, Rudd, F. Egerton, M'Gregor. BA RON ESS F.S—Liotel Rothschild, Le Despeneer. BONO() R.ABLES—Anne Denman, Carolina Denman, Mrs. Keppel, Mrs. Howland Smyth, Mrs. George hope, Adelaide, Foley, Miss Montagu, Mrs. Godsal, Miss Maynard, Baroness Dimsdale, Miss De Court, Mrs. Frederick Irby, Mrs. C. Drummond; Mrs. W. Herbert, Miss Browne, Mrs. Hamilton, Jane Duneombe, Mrs. IL Trevor, Lady King, Laly Cape), Lady Williamson, Lady Borough, Mrs. Frederick Clinton, Mrs. Montagu, Miss Hood, Mrs. 'l'. Best, Mts. A. Cape), Sophia Thellusson, Mrs. Ileathcote, Caroline Montagu, Georgiana E. Flabaut, Mrs. E. J. Stanley, Fanny Hood, Miss Willoughby, Lady Pellew, Miss Eden, Miss Flower.iMiss Smythe, Emily E. Flauhaut, Miss Chohnondeley, Louisa Stanley, Mrs. Keith Stewart, Mrs. Vansittart, Mrs. Charles Bruce, Mrs. Maunsell, Mrs. Roos, Jane Lawley, Mrs. 11, Ashley, Mrs. Philips. Mrs. D. Murray, Mrs. C. Fitzroy. Miss L. Melville, Miss Stoner, Miss K. Stonor, Mrs. A'Court Holmes, Miss Fraser, Lady Legard, Mrs. Thornton Wode house, Mt s. Caulfield, Lady Brooke, Mrs. l'olleinache, :Mrs. L. Stanhope. MISTRESSES—Backhouse, Evans. Dering, James Russell, Fitzroy Kelly, Burge, Lawrence, Lyalt, Waymouth, Frederick, Augustus Fitzroy, H enry Manning, Montgomery, Guy L'Estrange, Er r i ng t on , M att h ew B ell, Edward ; Charles Mar joribanks, H oare , Ch ar l es Lushington, i\lills, Emerson Tennent, John Round, Hope Johnstone, Charles Edward Jer ningham, Macleod of Macleod, Charles Forster, Round, Bal four, Wilbraham Taylor, Assheton Smith, C. G. Wynne, Francis Walpole, Ormsby Gore, D. Watts Russell, Farrer, Hodgson Cadogan, Charles Craven, G. Lenox Prendergast. Powell, Wescomb, William Law, Robarts, Frederic Clarke, Poldero, Scholefivlcl, Alaberly, Long, W. B. Stopford, E. Prodgers, Ralph Adderley, Burr, Charles Shawe, Hamilton O'Hara, Von Gerstein Rubenstein, W. Pendarves, K. Lennox, 11.- Baring, Talfourd, Webster, H. Petre, I. Blackburn, \'. Pole, Hamilton Earle, Netherton Langford, Hebb, Butler, M. Martyn, I'. Pares, Richard Wellesley, W. Stuart, E. Bou verie, Bailey, William Gladstone, E. Ellice, T. Gladstone, Bashleigh, S. Standish, NA hervell, Ceti! Vane, Marlay, S. Murray, Morier, Hume, Charles Willshere, Henry Osborne, Story, H. Eyres, R. P. staples, M'Greogor, W. Smythe, Staniforth, D. Gaskell, Dashwood, D. Campbell, Parkinson, Mainwaring, :Mainwaring, Bailey, J. Bailety, J. Massey Stanley, Holt, D. Jefferson, Merle, V. Pane, G, Craig, J. Towneley, Mayne, Chi istmas, R. Hollond, Campbell, G. Bankes, De Burgh, 2ramst on, Ed ward Heneage, 14oberts, C. Statasfield, W. Verner, Gambier Parry, James De xar, Benjamin Oliviera, Page Beetle, Michel, St. John Jefferyes, T. Berney, Albert Goltismid, Sayer, Ram, Fitzgerald, Greene, A. Stafford O'Brien, Peter Purcell, W. Cornwall, H. Fortescue, Middleton, Disraeli, A 13agshaw, Ffolliott, 13. Maxw e ll, D ee d es, B i r i o te k h e, e ll 'A , l Fl cYne .K il' Kingston, Wilson P P atten, aine, J. Kennedy, J. H. Vivian, Morris, C. St. Leger, C. Stanley, Nightingale, Dodd, Foord Bowes, W. Nedham, Wallis, Elwood, Beckett, G. R. Smith. Misses.—Mary Wheatley, Sophia Wheatley, Miry .Pollock, Louisa Pollock, Louisa Honywood, Caroline Hollywood, Eliza beth Honywood, Prince, Harriet Kingston, Roma Burdett, Mary Lyall, Lucy Hope Johnstone, Alice Hope Johnstone, Hoare, Emma Law, Constantia Round, Balfoar, Selina Doyle, Charlotte Law, Sharpe, G eorg i ana C otes , Selina Cotes, Gertrude Godsal, Godsal, Farren, Baillio Hamilton, Douglas, Fitzroy Kelly, Nina de Riario Sitarza,„ Georgiana Roberts, Prendergast, D, ring, Jenkins, Coatis, Jane Backhouse, Catherine Backhouse, Pole, Eglantine Bal four, NVigram, Seale, Dimsdale, Charlotte tVynne, Cecilia Craven,. Wescombe, Ibbetson, Donna, Emma, Majoribanks, Mary Macleod, Shelley, Lane ham, Parker, Williams Wynn, Mark Phillips, Walpole ( 0 ), Peyton, G. Vernon Harcourt, Davys, Hamilton, Kinnaird, Dashwood, Hunter, Rashleigh, Mackinnon, Fanny Raw,on, Pierrepoint, Macdougal, Ca' ti,p bell, Hamilton O'Hara, C. Fuller Maitland, Sayer, Verner,Luey Wodehouse, Fanny Irby, M. Amelia Irby, Jemima Strode, ' A rk u .e g ' lst a Murray, Smythe, C. Johnson, M•Greoor, F. Maitland, Watson, Berney, Elizabeth Berney, Susannah Berney, Clara Lechmere, Herbert, Ridout, Jane Rashleigh, Story, Maxwell, Juli a M ax _ APTaggart, iford, C. well, St. S F t a . n J u o y h John ff , eKryeers., Frederick dt l ; t i ‘ e g k e Leger, Johnston,tia. Wellesley, Adelaide Seymour, F. Greville, Emily Gurney, Charlotte Somerset, K. Somerset, H. Beresford, SEI Etroillifoltlrd6,MClO:leet,trEy: v' l) a r y um ( m 2 On , (l G , Tre.nlf)r.itli'mtEno.ndll,laNiekilbsuonn,lek. Peva-int, Geale, Percy, Fellowes, H. Fellowes, Vansittart, Clinton, Probv, A Pe . a a r y o a n l e ', E N . v i a ) l a c c , k, W l : ac l k lo ' l L mes S , t°l Banked, R . Storer, A. Storer, Frankland. Montgomery, Alcoak, B. Alcock,Morris, E. Blackburno, T a lb ot, Fl 3 Talbot.e i r l i s o r° r eCeotil Scott, N3Vle tl Laura berr'; int IC I. e e l I I :ylor, J. Drum:no:id, Gosset, Johnson, E. Proby. Methuen, Bligh, F. B e ll as i s , II Ustiorne, Casamajor, Farquhar, May ne, Saunderson, E. Home, Fitz gerald, R. Wilson, A. M ontressor, S. Murray, C. C. Nixon, W. Rodd, Clifton, B. Usborne, K. Alorier , Montgomery, Hume, C. Monier, E. Pane, Guise, C a ulfield, Macfarlane.„ Winn, Higgins, E. Brocklehnrst, M Broderick, :Macdonald, Strickland, Add er l q. AI. Mayne, Will", E. Frankland, G. Coleston, Her bert, Philips, Ger ar d, A, S. mannsen, L E . l . C l o ' l t e g , o i t i t, al C L ra A v i e . n,. Gordon, Cross, Gore, MIL, r , Th a d:borne, Pa r k e , 11. I' . S tuart, M. P. St uart , M u l caste., bert, Alor an t, F . N ig h tingale . Cunn i ng ha me , 31, El y, E. T 1 Care, Meyn e ll, N ett l es h ". Pants, Vavasour. The following l a di e s had the honour of being present n l t o her Majesty : The Vimuntess Pollington, on bier marriage, by the Countess.. of Mexborough Mrs. Burge, by Lady Montagu Lady Mary Juliana aylour, by the Duchess of Somerset Mrs. Gay L'Estrange, by Lady Francis Ede Mrs. Errangton. by Lady liulkeley Mrs. Matthew Bell, by Viscountess Lleresford . L a dy Louisa Hay, by her mother, the Cowes*. of Lady Howard Douglas, by Lady Gardi;er Airs. Frederick Clarke, by Mrs. cit;arkse t J be .try,