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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, April 28. Their Lordships met shortly before Five o'Clock. Several Private Bills were advanced a stage. Lord Mahon, and others from the Commons, brought up the Copyright Bill, the Ifuish Champtiower Enclosure Bill, the Glasgow and Redburn Bridge Bill, the Shef field, Ashton, and Manchester Railway Act Amendment Bill, the Nottingham Improvement Bill, the London and Black wall Railway Bill, and several other Private Bills, which were severally read a first time. • CORN-LAWS, Lord CAMPBELL, in the absence of the Marquis of Breadalbane, presented seven petitions from various places in Scotland, against any duty in the importation of Corn ; and two petitions from the Couhties of Down and Londonderry, for a revision of the law relating to Mixed Marriages. LAW OF EVIDENCE IMPROVEMENT BILL. Lord DI NM said, he wished to mention the order of the day for the Law of Evidence Improvement Bill, and as there was some difference of opinion on the sub ject, instead of the Bill being reported to-day, he begged to move that it be referred to a Select Committee on Monday. —Agreed to. The Committee was then appointed, and the House adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 28. The SPEAKER. took the Chair at the usval hour. mcifFIELD ELECTION. Mr. Divrxr, as Chairman of the Committee, ap pointed to try the merits of the petition against the re turn for the Borough of Li3lifield, retorted to the House that Lord Archibald Paget was duly elected to serve in the present Parliament for the said Borough. BLACKBURN • ELECTION. Sir EDMUND HAYES, as Chairman of the Com mittee appointed to try the merits of the petition against the return for the Borough of Blackburn, reported to the House that Mr. Hornby was duly elected to serve in the present Parliament for the said Borough. LONDON AND BLACKWALL RAILWAY. On the motion of Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, the Bill for altering and amending the London and Blackwall Rail way Bill was read a third time and passed, after the ad dition of a clause by way of rider, to compel steamboats to land their passengers at Brunswick wharf. - PRIVATE BILLS. The finish •Charapflower Inclosure Bill ; the Glasgow and Redburn Bridge Road Bill ; the Sheffield, Ashton under-Lyne, and Manchester Railway Bill ; and the GreatTorrington Market Bill, were severallyread a third time and passed. The Broaiyard RoadS Bill ; the Argyll Roads Bill ; the Wicklow Harbour Bill ; and the Bill for Incorper atinm the North American Colonial Association of Ire land; were severally read a second time and passed. THE TARIFF. Mr. nux - rz presented a petition from the tanners, boot and shoemakers. and persons concerned in the leather trade of .Eirmingham, against the reduction of the, duty on foreign manufacturceleather. COLLEGE OF MAYNOOTH. Mr. PLUMPTRE .presented several petitions, signed by upwartii of .1,000 people, and thirty-five petitions from Wesleyan c-ngregations, against any further grant to the*Colle , re of Maynocth. BETTER OBSERVANCE 01 , ' THE SABBATH. Air. NEILL presented a petition praying the House . to pit.is' some legislative enactment for the better observ ance of the Sabbath. NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND). Colonel ACTON presented several petitions from places in Ireland, against the present system of National Education. and approving of the plan proposed by the Church Education Society. INCOME-TAX. Mr. GREF.NE presented petiCons from the attorneys and 'solieitors of Lancaster, complaining of the stamp-du ties. Which they had to pay, and praying that in the come-taX Bill provisions may be made suitable to their peculiar position, Mr. CHRISTOPHER presented a petition from Port Phillip, in New South Wales, signed by upwards of 1,000 inhabitants, praying for a local Government independent of the Government of Sydney. .11r. BLEWITI presented a petition from the rope rEa4ers of the port of London against the proposed :Item tion-s in the tariff affecting their trade. Mr. 'HOGG presented a petition from the Mechanics' Institute of Beverley, praying that places employed for the instruction of adults might be exempted from the payment of rates and taxes. - CHURCH EDUCATION SOCIETY. Mr. SHAW 'presented some petitions from Down and /it:trim, praying for aid for the erection of schools in connexion with the Church Education Society. . 1317 DE LIGHT. Mr. HODGSON HINDE presented a petition from a gcntlethan, who're name did not reach the gallery, stating that he was the inventor of the Bade Light, and that hearing a Select Committee was about to report to the House on the remuneration to be given to Mr. Gurney, for the benefit his Bade-light lamps had done the House, he (the petitioner) prayed that his petition Might be referred to the same Committee, in order that he might have an opportunity of establishing his claim. XTTORNEYg - CERTICFICATES DUTIES. Mr. S. WORTLEY presented a petition from some attorneys in the West Riding of Yorkshire, praying for the abolition of the duties payable yearly on attorney's certificates. READLSTG ELECTION COMMITTEE. The Members selected to try the merits of the peti tion against the late return for this borough, were sworn in as follows c—Mr. C. W. Hogg, Chairman ; Lori l::_iey mour,, the lion. henry Howard, ),Ir. Charles Buller, Air. W. T. Egerton, Mr. T. W. Bratnstone. The Co.Amittee will commence their sittings at eleven o'clock to-morrow. PIiNRYN ELECTION COMMITTEE. The followiaff Hon. Gentlemen were called over as the Members Of this Committee :—Mr. G. T. Brooke, the Hon. 11. 0; Cave, Mr. C. Wood, Major C. Cumming Bruce, Mr. J. Hardy; Mr. Scrope, Mr. C.W. Pack. Major C. Bruce did not answer, and the - swearing was put off a sherftime • Captain -PEC HELL presented a petition from twenty solicitors of Brighton, praying that in case an Income tax should be imposed, they might be exempt from the annual stamp duties ; also a petition . from :Daniel Phillips, of New Sarum, praying that as the half of the duty on corn was now taken off, that the other half might also be taken off.—(Laughter.) Sir R. H. INGLIS presented a petition from the in cumbent of Kingston, in Gloucestershire, praying the- Ilouse to amend or repeal the Tithe Commutation Act, and complaining of the conduct of the Tithe Commis sioners in Gloucester. Mr. W. MILES presented a petition from the At torneys of Somersetshire praying to be exempt from the operation of the Income-tax. PENRYN AND .FALMOUTH ELECTION. The Members appointed to try the merits of a peti tion complaining of an undue election for the boroughs of Penryn and Falmouth, were then called up to the table and sworn ; Major Cumming Bruce, who was absent when the names were first called over, having since entered tile House. The Committee. was appointed to meet at one o'clock to-morrow. SOUTHAMPTON ELECTIOI' COABIITTEE. Mr. REDINGTON brought up a Report from the Southampton Election Committee, stating that William Itous Nabson having disregarded the Speaker's warrant, orderin g him to attend before th e Committee appoint e d to try the merits of a petition complaining of undue election for the borough of Southampton, and to bring with him eertain documents in his possession, he (Mr Redington) as Chairman of that Committee had com mitted the said William Roes Nabson to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, to await the pleasure of the House. He ' was sorts, on the part of this Committee, to be obliged to appeal to the Rouse. In the present instance the party having been ordered, by the Speaker's• war rant., to produCe certain documents, which the Com mittee considered material, had neither produced those documents, nor assigned any adequate reason for not producing them. In consequence, no other course was left for the Committee than to appeal to the House to enforce the Speaker's warrant. He, therefore, as Chairman of the Committee, begged leave to move that William Bons Nabson be comreitted to the gaol of Newgate. Sir V. BLARE Seconded the motion. Mr. • BUCK, .as a member of the Committee, dissented from the resolution : come to by it, and protested against the course now adopted. Mr. .GODSON did not know whether, before the House came to a decision on the matter, he was in order in mentioning what had occurred in the Committee. He had been informed by the Speaker that no portion of the evidence could be mentioned, but he was not aware whether he could not mention the kind of docu ment .rospectitig whieli . it Was supposed the Speaker's summons "bad been diSobey e d. The SPEAKER said, that the Hon. Member had no rightto,referto the document, when it was not before the House. GODSON said, that as he could not mention the do cument, 1)t- the same reason he presumed he could not men- tion the excuse which the witness made fornot producing it. as not to be permitted to know that the document was not of any use at all ; but he was entitled to say, that, in his opinion, the document was of no value, and that ifit were not the excuse for not producing it was, as good as a man could give. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL understood that the ground upon which the witness was to he committed was • that he had disobeyd the warrant. Now he thought it was essentially necessary that the House should see the warrant, that they should know grounds the n witness es served w i t h i t, and upon what grounds it had been disobeyed, le•fore a warrant was issued for the committal to Newgate. As it was a contempt of the House itself, and of the a ethority of the Speaker, they, should 'know `teeter what circumstances the dis obcdii u e had tkken place. Be would suggest therefore, that the witness should he called to the bar of the House, and interrogated a s to toe grounds of his yyarrant. disobedience 6 , the fiEDL\TiTON, said he. had no, desire that the witnois should be treated more Imr&hly, than the forms of the . House req..t:reci. lie wa , i pet t'ectly willing to withdraw his motion in favour of the sug!:;estion of the lion, and Learnt - d. Gentlontan. The HuN. Mrtnitstzit then wit lei. 4; motion, anal Clerk. of the So ut h ampton propcked in its st ea d that the Election Committee be called to. the bar to produce the Speaker's ,warrant requiring the attendance of Wini, m lions `arson before that Committee. Shortly afterwards the Clerk of the Committee pro duced the Speali^r's warrant for the attendance of Wm. Rows Alabson al; the Southampton Election Committee. The warrant having been read by' the Clerk at the table, Mr. REDTNGTON then rnored that William Rous Mabson . shOnfd be hrought to the Lar of the House. The SOWITOR-GENERAL doubted whether the. warrant summoning the witness was regular, inasmuch as it was dated in September 1841.—(Hear, hear.) Sir G. GREY' said if this objection prevailed it would relieve the House from the trouble of trying any of the election petitions.—(Hear.) His Learned Friend must be aware that all the election petitions were presented in the short session in the autumn of 1841, and the warrants of the Speaker were issued at that time.—(Hear, hear.) He was quite surprised at the objection of his Learned Friend. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL had made no objection on the grround referred to by the Right Hon. Gentleman; but he doubted whether the warrant was regular; if it was not, the party could not be imprisoned. lie was not aware whether the summons was regular or not. The SPEAKER said his attention was drawn to the point at the close of last Session ; he then stated that it was quite a new; thing, and be tock the best means of informing himself on the subject, having taken the ad vice of the proper law officer appointed by the House to assist the Speaker, and he had assured him that he con sidered the warrant to be a regular warrant, and upon that opinion he had acted. The motion was then carried, and the Sergeant ordered to bring Mr. W. Rous Mabson to the bar of the House. Having appeared at the bar, the following questions were put to him : The SPEAKER-Do you remember on the 13th day of September last, receiving a %%arrant from this House, requiring your attendance before the Committee appointed to try the Southamp ton petition, and by which you were required to produce before that Committee all books, documents, writisgs, printed papers, bills, receipts, and orders for the payment of money, referring to the last South ampton election ?—I do. When were those documents last in your possession ? —I can't say exactly, but within the last three months Have you brought them before the Committee ?—I have not. Why have you not ?—Because I incautiously sent them to the Chairman of the Election Committee, and it appears that he does not acknowledge the receipt of them. Mr. THESIGER—Who was the Chairman, and what was his name ?—Captain Ward. Sir G. GREY—How long after you received the Speaker's warrant did you send these papers to Captain Ward ?—Three or four months after the 13th of September. Sir G. GREY—What made you part with them ?—I did it incautiously, and lost sight of the Speaker's war rant altogether. Sir G. GREY—Did you apply personally or by letter to enable yotr to comply with the Speaker's warrant ? No ; I am not prepared with anything of the kind. I made no application of the kind. Sir G. GREY—What makes you say that Captain Ward does not acknowledge the receipt of the papers ? —I have been told by a friend from Southampton to-day that Capt. Ward says he knows nothing about them. An Hox. MEMBER—Who did you send to Capt. Ward by ?—I sent a messenger, to ask for them, but I don't know his name. ' Mr. C. - HULLER--What documents did you send ? A cheque-book, and two or three little bills which I paid on aecount of the election. Mr. C. BULLER--,Did you send them by Capt. Ward's desire ?—No ; it was my own idea. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—How came you pos sessed of the papers ?—I paid some hills and remained in possession of a list of them ; having understood that all the rest of the papers were sent to Captain Ward, I sent him these. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Who directed you to pay these bills ?—The bills were paid from the Con servative Association. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL---Had Captain Ward anything to do with it?—No. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—This was on the 13th of September ; have yousince that day had any par ticular note or memorandum of the documents necessary to be produced before the Committee ?—Not since. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—You were called before the Committee the other day ; had you any inti nation of the particular documents you had to bring ? Not the least. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--Had you any op portunity of inquiring what documents would be neces sary ?—None. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Is the House to un derstand that since the 13th of September no person has given you any information as to what papers you were to bring with you ?—Not the slightest. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—When the papers were asked for before the Committee, was that the first intimation you had that you were to produce them ?—lt was. Mr. O'CONNELL—Have you given up all the papers ?—Yes. Mr. O'CONNELL—Then a memorandum specifying what papers you were to produce would be perfectly useless. Mr. GODSON—In the margin of the cheque book you mention, was there anything more than the date, sum, and name of the person to whom it was paid Nothing more. • Mr. GODSON- , ---Was that the same sum as appeared on the bank-book, when produced before the Committee? An HON. MEMBER objected to this question as the witness was incapable of answering it, and he was then ordered to withdraw. A short conversation here ensued betvieen Mr. Jarvis and Mr. Godson, respecting the correspondence between a cheque and the counterfoil, but as the Hon. Gentlemen ' seemed to have misunderstood each other, we do not ' give the details. .Sr. Mabson was then ordered to the Bar again. 11r. GODSON-Are you sure that nothing , more than the date of the sum of money, and the name A. 8., which would be in'the body, appeared in the counterfoil ? —I am certain of it. An HON. MEMBER —Did the counterfoil correspond with the body of the cheque ?—Precisely. Mr. THESIGER—What notice did you receive to attend the Committee ?—I received a nonce on Monday , night from Mr. Sharp, the solicitor, of Southhamp ton, quite suddenly. I was in London a t th e ti me . Mr. ! JACKSON—If you bad been at home when you received the notice, do you think you would have recol lected those papers?—l am certain I should. Mr. O'CONNELL—Can you procure these decu ments?—l cannot say. Do you say that you cannot?— I don't know. • Then you may?—l may possibly. By Mr. C. WOOb—To whom did you give these documents ?—I gave them to some of my people. To which of them ?—I cannot swear to which of them. Where ?—ln my own shop. I have some fifteen or sixteen people in my employment. Are the same people in your employment now ? No ; not all of them. Can you ascertain the names of the people ?--I might do so by inquiry. By Mr. WATSON—Have you never spoken to Cap tain Ward on the subject of those papers ?—Never. By Mr. Sergeant JACKSON—You were not required by the Speaker's warrant at the time to produce those papers ?—I was not ; if I had been, I would not have been so incautious as to have given them away. What was the amount of the bill ?—I should think the amount of the bill was between 151. and 161. By Sir G. GREY—What is the whole amount of the money which was paid on the cheques cut out of that cheque-book, the countermoils of which remained in your possession ?—I think something like 3,0001. The witness was then questioned by Mr. Watson as to who was the party to whom a certain cheque was de livered. - Mr. THESIGER objected to the question on the ground that it was not relevant to the immediate ques tion before the House. Mr. WATSON said that the question seemed to him to have a close relation to the subject. Mr. THESIGER said he apprehended the inquiry was not a proper one, as the object they had in view was to ascertain if the party had committed a contempt by not producing certain document'.—(Year.) Mr. WATSON said that they had been told the - cheque books were of no importance, and he wished to elicit the truth of that statement.—(Hear.) Mr. GODSON—It was only said that the counterfoil was no evidence.—(Cries of " Oh, oh.") The SPEAKER asked if the Hon. Member persisted in putting the question ? Mr. WATSON said that as it appeared to be the wish of the House, he would persevere in putting the question.—(" Oh, oh.") The SPEAKER then desired the question to be put in writing. Mr. C. WOOD said he hoped the Hon. and Learned Member would withdraw the question.—(Hear.) He agreed with the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Thesiger) that the question was not relevant ; but at the same time when a question was put, in consequence of one which had been asked by the Learned Solicitor- General for Ireland, as to the amount of the cheques, the answer had been cheered by the party oppo site.—(Hear, hear.) But the question which was put by his Right Hon. Friend (Si r G. Grey), showed that ' the thing was not so immaterial as they seemed to think. Every day's experience showed them the inconvenience of discussing questions v,hieh might be better discussed before the Commit tee.—(Hear, hear.) The only way by which these Committees could be made available was to treat them as legal tribunals, bound by the rules of evidence, as legal tribunals were. The only di&rence that existed between them was, that the Committee had not the same power to commit for contempt that those tribunals had, but were obliged to come to ask that House for power to do so. With regard to the person, it semmed to him that he ought to be discharged from custody, and left under the Speaker's warrant, the Committee pursuing the inquiry from the person to whom the documents were given, or from coo. Ward. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, he admitted that before they proceeded to set aside a warrant, they ought to be satisfied that the warrant was irregular, but he hoped the House would go along with him in consi dering that before they committed a person to Newgate, they ought to be satistied that the warrant was regular. —(Hear, hear.) lie for one considered that there had not been such a state of facts laid before the House as ought to induce them to send the witness to Newgate. It appeared that he had been served with a warrant from — the Speaker, dated the 10th of September, re quiring him to bring in his custody all letters and accounts of cash relating to the late election, and all receipts for money, and all other documents and papers whatsoever r e l a ti ng t o th e said election, therewith to be and appear . before the said Se lect Committee at such time and in such manner as he shall receive notice front the parties signing the same, or from their agents. Now, ac cor di ng t o the statement of the witness, he had received that warrant in the month of September, and until he came before the Committee he bad received 110 intimation as to what papers would be required. He (the Attorney-General) m us t rem i n d th e H ouse t h at such was not the usual course of proceeding with resp ec t to ordinary eases of common law. A man who was subpeenaed to attend a Court of Justice, and to bring with him a variety of documents, lad, accord ing to ordinary courtesy, an intimation given to him of the documents be would be required to bring, some time before he was called on to attend, and he thought that this witness, before the parties applied to the Committee to report his condie t to the House, ought to have, been informed some short time before that he would be required to produce such papers. By the warrant he was called on to produce these papers, at such time as he should receive a notice from the party signing the warrant. Unless he received some inti mation to produce those documents, he could not be described as having been guilty of a contempt. Now he had never been required to produce them at all.—(Loud cries of " Oh, oh," from the Opposition.) He repeated the man had been required to attend himself, but he had never been required to produce the documents at all:—(Restewed cries of " Oh, oh !") He heard the noise made on the other side, but he appealed to their judgment, he appealed to the candid consideration of the House, whether he had ever so addressed the House on a legal subject as to induce them to believe that he had ever given any but what he conceived to be a just and proper legal opinion ? Whether he had not always boldly stated that opinion, or whether he had ever shrunk from stating anything that he believed to be true from any motives whatsoever ; and he asked Hon. Gen tlemen who were then dealing with him, fairly to hear and judge for themselves if he ever had received notice to produce this document at at all. It would be much the better course to have the papers produced than to send the man to prison. Mr. REDINGTON said the Committee had acted in this matter to the best of their judg ment. It appeared to them that the warrant ought to be obeyed, no matter what might be the courtesy observed in other Courts. Counsel had shown that those documents were material, and the witness had stated that he had given them to another party, whose name he could not recollect. But the Committee felt that jus tice to the parties concerned would not be done, unless those papers were produced, and that they were bound to see the authority of the Speaker's warrant obeyed. He (Mr. R.) wished now to ask, in what position they were to stand. There was an order that this . indiVidual should produce those papers. At the time that order was served he was in possession of the papers. Were they not to get them, merely because he told them that he did not recollect the name of the person to whom he gave the documents ? What wcre they to do ? That evening a summons to Captain Ward bad been si g n e d, It would be most inconvenient to the business of the House to allow these papers to escape out of the witness's possession, and not to interpose the authority of the House, to prevent such a proceeding. He regretted that the question had been again raised after the deci sion of the Committee. As Chairman, he would have considered himself guilty of a neglect of duty if he had not brought the case before the House. Setting aside the injustice done to the parties, he thought the objection taken by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman must fall to the ground. He thought it would be a dangerous pre cedent to discharge a man who had been guilty of such conduct ; and he would therefore move that the prisoner, William Rous Mabsom, be committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms: Mr. C. BULLER seconded the motion. In his opinion the best safeguard which they could throw over the ad ministration of justice in these Committees was to con sider their report on each matter as final. It appeared to him very uuaise that when a Committee had reported that a witness had been guilty of disobedience to the orders of the House, the House should enter into an in quiry of such a nature as the one with which they had been edified that . night. He must say, that he thought the offence of this man was a very grave one, and if the House overlooked it their jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the Com mittee would be utterly trampled upon and set at defiance.—Hear.) The man in question had been ordered to produce certain papers. There had been a quibble raised about the warrant being issued last ses sion ; but he presumed that when the warrant had been issued in due course, no party would be allowed to dispute its validity by such an afterthought. It appeared from the prisoner's own statement that having received an order from the House to bring up certain papers relating to the Southampton election, he gave them all over to a third person without any precaution, other than giving them to a shop-bov. He received no acknowledgment from Captain Ward, and as far as the House knew, Capt. Ward having denied h av in g received them—he (Mr. Buller) would say on the face of the thing that he did not believe the prisoner's story. He did not wish to be harsh upon him, and he did not say that he disbelieved his story, but he must say that he could notimagine it true, when the only other party concerned in it denied what he s'..atcd. The fact simply was, that since receiving the warrant to bring all these papers before the House, he gave them to a third party, and did not know whether that party ever got them.-- (Hear.) - He considered that it would he sacrificing the honour of the House if they overlooked the conduct of a man acting in this way. He did say, that to let him go as a person who had behaved perfectly well, would be most derogatory to the honour of that House. He therefore seconded the motion of his Honourable Friend with, this specific object, namely, that the prisoner should remain in the custody of the Sergeint.at-Arms, until the Committee should have time to examine Captain Ward and any other necessary witnesses, to know whether his story was true, or whether he had flagrantly and purposely, in defiance of the orders of that House, put the papers out of the way.—(lkar.) Mr. HODGSON HINDE said that the Hon. Gentle man had stated that he had no reason to • suppose that the witness at the bar had acted under any mistake after the rec e ipt of the Speaker's warrant, He (Mr. Hinde) thought that there was no reason fur believing that the statement of the prisoner at the bar was not a bona fide statement, because if the witness bad chosen to screen himself, he. could easily have denied ever having had the book at all in his possession. Be thoaght that the statement of the witness was a bona fide one, namely, that he did not consider the documents material.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Hinde) therefore hoped the House would not censure the man, or detain him in custody, until Captain Ward had been examined by the House, and there was reason to suppose the statement was bona fide. The prisoner was in that situation of life which would ensure his being forthcoming when required. He (Mr. H. Hinde), therefore, hoped that the House would agree to the adjournment of that debate for a week, until Capt. Ward could be examined before the Committee. He, therefore,,moved, that the debate be then adjourned. The motion having been seconded, Mr. JERVIS said, he should certainly oppose the motion of the Honourable Member. He (Mr. Jervis) agreed with the Honourable Member for Liskeard, that this was a case of the greatest importance. It seemed to him that if they were to act on the prin ciple which they had adopted the other night, they would not take the garbled statements of one witness as to his own evidence.—(Hear.) The House was bound to place implicit confidence in the Committee, the members of which were gentlemen on whose honour and judgment they could place the fullest reliance, and who alone were able to form a correct opinion as to the credit of the witness. If that were not so, the wit ness had, to a certain extent, though in a modified form, been guilty of disrespect to the House. Did he hand over these papers in the course of his business? If so, why did he retain them for three months? and if he kept them for his protection, why did he not keep them now? It seemed to him, therefore, upon these short grounds, first, that the warrant was good ; attd, secondly, that there had been a violation of it. He therefore, vote for the rZtiOn — of his Non. the Chairman of the Committee. Mr. Sergeant JACKSON thought the House ought now to dispose of this matter. as it had sufficient evidence before it to do so. No person would go further than he would do to punish parties guilty of a contempt of the Houie, or who kept papers from its inspection which ought to have been produced. He, however, thought that the party it: the present instance had not been guilty of any contempt. The witness had stated that until he was in the presence of the Committee, lie was hot aware that he was bound to produce any documents, as nothing was said on the subject in the warrant. He should vote against the motion of the Hon. Gentleman opposite. Mr. LABOUCHERE reminded the Howe that the motion was not to commit Mabson to Newgate as if he had been con victed of bribery; all the House was asked to do was not to dismiss the man, and he (Mr. L.) thought that the courserecom mended by the Chairman of the Committee was the best, that was to leave the man in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms until the Committee had examined other witnesses relative to the same point. But from what he (Mr. Labouchere) had just now heard at the bar from Mabsen himself, his impression was that the greatest suspicion must attach to what he said. It was most improbable that such a man, having taken an active part in the proceedings of an election in a town, did not on re eeiving the Speaker's warrant minutely examine that docu ment : and after he had done so he sent the documents re- quired to Captain Ward, well knowing that he (Mai)son) would be required to produce those papers before the Committee. Fie should be sorry to find that the witness was at once dis- charged. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that it was always with extreme reluctance that he gave any opinion on matters connected with Election Committees. He was sure that all that had passed that evening would convince the House that they were not the proper tribunal to decide on such questions. He believed that the usual course which the House pursued in eases where there was not a contempt of a Committee, but a breach of the privileges of the House itself, was either to commit the party offending to the Sergeant-at-Arms or to Newgate. Suppose that, according to the original motion sub mitted by the Hon. Member the Chairman of the Committee, this person had been committed to Newgate, and that he ap plied to the Queen's Bench, what would be the consequence if the Court of Queen's Bench discharged him ?—( Hear, hear.) This House and the Court of Queen's Bench would again be placed in collision. That was a matter of importance, and, therefore, before they decided that the man should be sent to Newgate, the House should be satisfied that the person had disobeyed a legal warrant, and if he had been ordered to attend the Committee one session, and was committed another, he had very grave doubts of the legality of that proceeding. —( Hear, hear.) But if this were a proper warrant, and if the Committee were of opinion that these papers were designedly kept back—if that were the opinion of the House, then he thought he ought to be com mitted to custody. It appeared to him, that according to the ordinary course of Committees, it would be better if the Com mittee, in the present instance, had summoned the persons to whom the papers were given. But if they thought that the papers were kept hack designedly, he was of opinion that they ought to be bound by the decision of the Committee. The Right Honourable Gentleman had said that there was no power of getting at the truth unless the witness ,produced the document s ; b u t h e h a d surely forgotten that the Chairman had the power of issuing a fresh summons—the Speaker had the power of issuing a fresh warrant, and surely it was better that such a course should he adopted than that a person should be committed upon a warrant, the legality of which might be doubted. Mr. C. WOOD bad never intended that the man should be discharged. as if he had done nothing wrong. On the contrary, he believed the man had done wrong; but neither did heap prove of sending him to Newgate. He thought he should be kept in the custody of the Sergeant-at. Arms, until his con duct had been cleared up. 'Move ail, he thought it was the duty of the House to support the authority of its Committees. After a few words from Mr. REDINUTON, which were inaudible in the gallery, Sir R. PEEL had more than once said how much he dis liked these appeals to the House of Commons from the Com mittees. He thought the Committees should decide all these questions themselves. The appeal, however, had been made, and it was the duty of Members to decide what course it would be fitting for them to pursue. It was a most important duty, and was one 'entirely of a judicial nature. It should be remem bered that this was a question affecting the liberty of the sub ject - it affected the liberty of the person who was brought up to their bar; and therefore every other consideration except those of a purely judicial nature ought to be excluded.— ( Cheers. ) In the first place, he assumed that the Speaker's warrant was valid. The Committee had acted upon it as a legal document, and he was therefore bound to consider it as legal. Such being the case, they were bound to consider what course they ought to pursue. The Speaker had issued his summons, and the Committee had reported that he had disobe,yed that summons. He suppo se d th at t h e C omm i ttee meant to imply that the witness had wilfully disobeyed the Speaker's summons for the purpose of defeating the ends of justice. He (Sir R. Peel) could not be supposed to know what had passed before the Committee, but the witness had been examined at the bar, and had given his own account of the transaction. He (Sir It. Peel) was at liberty to refer to the evidence which had been given at the bar, and he must say that the evidence given by the witness at the bar was un satisfactory.-_( Loud cheers.) The witness bad the papers for three or four months in his possession, much about the time the present Session was about to commence ; and when it was likely a petition against the election would be presented.—( Hear, hear.) At that period the witness sent those documents to another party, the Chairman of the Election Committee. the impression which the witness made upon his (Sir R. Peel's) mind was that Captain Ward did not now admit having received the papers. It appeared to him that there were some grounds for doubt in the matter, and on that account he thought it inexpedient to release him altoge ther. It was advisable that there should be an opportunity taken of considering the question. Unless the detention of the witness could be sustained in point of law a habeas corpus would be moved for, and the prisoner would be dis charged without any remonstrance on their part. From the nature of the testimony given at the bir, and the doubt remaining respecting the transaction, he could not re concile it to himself to discharge the prisoner. He thought that they were bound to support the Committee. They compelled members of it to discharge an obnoxious duty, and they ought, therefore, to support them in the discharge of that duty. On that ground he should give his vote for con tinuing the witness in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. Mr. O'CONNELL would be far from saying anything which would appear like presumption on his part, but he cer tainly must say, that he differed from the opinion given upon the matter by the Learned Solicitor-General. Notwithstand ing the authority of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, he (Mr. O'Connell) could not bring himself to proclaim for one moment that the warrant was not a perfectly legal one. The present was really a monstrous case, and ought not to be frittered away. The moment the summons reached the wit ness, be was bound to take care of die 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 gard to election petitions, ought to be taken entirely away froin'this House.—.(Hear, hear.) They had seen enough that evening to prove that he was right in thinking so. He did not regret that these proceedings had taken place, for he thought that very soon, whatever might be the opinion of this House, the people of England would 'no :longer suffer their fellow-subjects to be committed to Newgate, or kept in the custody of any person whatever, when under similar circum stances there was no Court of Justice in the country who would venture to do it.—(Hear, hear, and " divide." Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House di vided, when there appeared— For the adjournment Against it Majority On our return to the gallery we found, Mr. THESIGE Ft addressing the House. He wished to ex plain the grounds upon which he voted in the majority. He considered that a motion for an adjournment would have the effect of discharging the prisoner. He should vote for a direct motion for the discharge of the prisoner. He asked any Ho nourable Gentleman whether, if they entertained a doubt of the validity of this warrant, whether they could avail them selves anything by an adjournment? With respect to the pri soner's being detained in custody, he could tell the House that they were not a responsible body. If they inflicted an injury on the man, he had no redress. If he had keen committed by an illegal warrant from a Magistrate, he could have an action for damages ; but under a decree of that House he had no remedy. Therefore feeling as he (Mr. Thesiger) did, he should certainly not vote for the prisoner being detained in custody. Mr. WARD said, the Honourable and\ Learned Gen tleman had cleared up a great doubt, which had existed during that debate. From what the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had stated, the House was in a most extraordinary and anomalous position, which applied to all former election proceedings. 'The House had committed several persons be fore, and this question had been reserved for the Southampton case, and they sow attempted to throw a shield over this wit ness, who, he .must say, had said enough to make him appear in a very suspicious position.—(Cries of " No, no.") if this wan had been the most consummate trickster in the world, the most hardened and determined trickster, he could riot have acted in a better manner than on the present occasion, and he had done the best he could to defeat the object of any inquiry. Believing that this witness had distinctly refused the production of papers which the Speaker's' warrant required, he (Mr. Ward) should give his vote for detaining him is, the custody of the Sergeant -at-Arms until those papers were produced, leaving it to the Solicitor-General to follow out in any way he chose the question as to legality which had been raised. The Learned Solicitor-General had referred to 'cheers which had followed from the Opposition benebes certain answers which witness had given. He (Mr. Ward) must remind him that that had taken place before. Mr. CHRISTOPHER said that what hail fallen from the Hon. Member for Sheffield, had only confirmed him in the opinion he had before expressed. He was convinced from the spirit in which the. former and the present inquiries were carried on, that before the termination of the Session, they would have the same scenes enacted night after n;ght.— ( Hear, hear.) He was convinced that it was neceesary to try these cases before some tribunal which would be considered competent, and possess the confidence of the public.—( Hear. hear.) He was desirous to maintain the privileges of the House, but he would never give a vote to oppress one of his fellow countrymen... 4 Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Sir GEORGE GREY wished to observe, in reply to what had fallen from the Learned Solicitor-General, that the war rant, although issued on the 10th of September, was issued generally for the witness's attendance before the Committee, without reference to the time when the Committee might sit. Considering the doubt which had been expressed en the sub ject, he thought a short . Bill should be introduced to define the nature of the S7eaker's summons. Sir J. TYRRELL said, in his opinion there were grave legal doubts on the point, and he was surprised at the conduct of those who had been such great sticklers for the liberty of the subject. He was surprised to see such conduct connived at by the Hon. Member for Sheffield, the Hon. Member for Cork, and the Hon. Member for Finsbury.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. O'CONNELL said he thought there was a great dis tinction between the advocacy of bribery and the utterance of that species of deception which would make it impossible.— ( Hear, hear.) Did the Hon. Member mean to throw any doubt upon this summons? It was not upon that ground that the witness had resisted it at all, but having been employed as an agent to expend 3,000/.—(No, no.) He stated at the bar that 3,000/. had passed through his hands in that cheque book.-_.( Hear, hear.) Now, why had they not that cheque book ? Were Gentlemen to be deluded with the idea that this was a bona fide case of a man who had forgot whether he had been summoned or not ? If it had been a nisi prius case he (Mr. O'Connell) would have asked him when did he forget it ? Now, what did the witness do with respect to the docu ments? Why, he kept them, from three to four months, he did not give them to any person he could name ; he said that it was some person that was at some time in his employ, but whe ther he was so now be could not tell. Those document. showed the expenditure of 3,000/., yet they were kept out of view, and then Gentlemen talked of the liberty of the subject. —( Hear hear.) Why, was it not a notorious fact that bribery had 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 had ever come before the House, and it proved how unfit that House was to investigate such questions. He thought the present 53 stem worse than the last ; the fist ques tion now asked was, who was the Chairman, and the result of the Committee was always predicted from that circumstance. Such a state of things was most melancholy. Some Hon. Gentleman of influence ought to bring in a Bill to have a salaried Judge—(llpar, hear)—appointed to preside over those Committees, where, at times, some of the nicest points of law were raised. He trusted this suggestion would not be thrown out in vain, but that some one at either side of the House, would bring in a Bill for that purpose, so that it might be no longer a matter of reproach to the House that Hon. Gentlemen could not be trusted on their oaths. Nothing could be more likely to countenance immorality in the public at large than the prevalence of such a belief. Mr. S. WORTLEY wished to suggest that the Right Hon. Gentleman was wandering wide from the question, though he (Mr. W.) agreed in what had been expressed by him on the subject. But the question actually before the House was, whe ther they were justified in retaining the person called to the bar in custody, in consequence of his having disobeyed the precept contained in the warrant issued by the Speatter, in the case of the Southampton Election Committee. Ile must, at the same time, say that, if ever there was a tribunal be fore which a point of law could be discussed satisfactorily, it was the House of Commons. He apprehended that, in the present case, they stood in the position of a court of justice ; and the Speaker's warrant having, been called in question, the Speaker, as the proper officer of the House in the matter, took the proper steps to enable him to come to a decision, and having pronounced that decision, they were justified in following it up. Mr. C. BULLER thought that the House had nothing to do in the present case but follow up the action of the Com mittee in committing the witness to custody. Such was the intention of the statute respecting Election Committees. The lion. and Learned Member here read the portion of the Act applicable to the case, and then went on to say— Now, the Chairmar. of the Committee, by the direction of the C o mmittee, hail delivered this man into custody ; he had then come before the House and reported what had taken place ; and it appeared to him (Mr. C. Buller) that the course for the House to pursue was to receive the Report of the Chairman, to confirm his authority, and continue the impri sonment until the evidence should have been given. Mr. Sergeant JACKSON said, he was at a loss to under stand why, if the Hon. and Learned Gentleman were right, the Committee were called upon to report to the House at all. —( Hear, hear.) Either the warrant was valid, or it was valid. If it were valid, the man was bound to produce what , im ar i i t d t , ing in hi c in as7 bofutreiffusiatl, werethe Cinovmaimidi,ttieno whatwere position s i i ti r o e n qi:i w 'i o ree : ( l ni d the matter stand ? Why, if they continued the imprisonment of this man until to-morrow, in all probability a writ of habeas corpus would then be issued. Mr. ROEBUCK said, it appeared to him to be a great mistake to suppose, that when the House had once de termined to eomniit a person for contempt, the Queen's Bench would interpose its au th or it y by i ssu i n g a writ for his rel ease . The Queen s Bench would never consider on what ground an individual had been committed, if the tribunal itself were legal. Now, desirous as he was to bow to the authority of the Hon. and Learned Attorney-General, be would suumit to him this case. Suppose a witness had been hound over to appear, and the cage was respited. The form of that House was to respite the case generally. Mr. THESIGER.--The recognizance! would be respited. Mr. ROEBUCK said the ordinary form of the House was to respite the case whether or not, and to adjourn the conside ration of the case for a certain time. He would put it to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite whether, when a case of this sort was adjourned, they also adjourned, or, in legal phrase, respited any s ummons w hi c h might have bee n i ssue d. The warrant being served it was sufficient warning to the in dividual that he was to come before the Committee with certain documents. He had no excuse on the ground of mor;li;Y:L a (Hear, hear.) And he should like to know what excuse he had in point of law—a point they never heard of till the present hoar. . 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 i 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 Ho-ice should be main tained.—( Hear, hear.) It appeared to him that, until the House 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.) He was the more disposed to form that opinion because, though the question came by surprise on the House, it did not Caine 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, bear.) 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 of law, 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 abscond, then he (Lord S. ) would support the Chairman if he should move that Mabson be released ; or he (Lord S.) would support the Chairman if that Hon. Gentleman should think it his duty to mace 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. Mr. 11. 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. strutted 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 Session. 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 lion. 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., fence 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 tiler, 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 shout 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. Th,t he thought to be the most fitting course to pursue, unless there were reasonito 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 at 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 cueody 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 th a t h e 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 Sergeant-at-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 lie 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 t o h ear w h a t b a d f a ll en 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, arid he staled, 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 th:ew suspicion on his conduct, and he ( Mr. C. Wood) agreed with the First Lord of the Treasury in thinking that it would Not be right that this man should be set at liberty to defeat the ends of justice. Mr. GODSON said, the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and the lion. and Learned Gentleman who had pre ceded him, seemed to him (Mr. Godson) to adopt a strange notion. They told 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.) There were twoclassesof 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 was the other? Why, merely three tradesmens' bills—in all, fifteen bills. If these papers bad been lost, the Counsel might have inquired into their contents. These tradesmens' bilis were seat to the Chairman of the Election Committee, arid after wards eost. Ile (Mr. Godson) should vote against the wit ness continuing in custody, as there had been already three inquiries before the House of a similar nature. He believed the application hal been made in that instance by the Counsel for the petitioner, in order to act on the nerves of the rest of the w itnesses. —( Laugh t er. ) Mr. HUTT would not reply to the argument used by the Hon. and Learned Gentlemen who had just sat down. He was sure they were sufficiently replied to by the good feeling of the House.—(Hear.) With that remark he 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 Hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House had fully believed that the discussion was a' an entL—(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 Learsied Gentle man. He could assure the Hon. and Learned Gentleman that he (Mr. Hutt) 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 knowledge whatever of the case. With regard to this particular case, 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. He 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, be 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 he 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-GENERAL explained. He could assure the Hon. Member that he never had had the slightest idea of imputing any thing but the purest of motive s to the C omm itt ee . Lord HOWICK said, he understood the expression used by the Hon. and Learned Member to be, if he remembered rightly, "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 Learned Member said so, he (Lord Howick) must bow; but certainly that was the word understood by him (Lord Howiek.) 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, anti Learned Gentleman to give, unless upon the strongest grounds, which he (Lord Howick) did not think existed in the present case. He (Lord Howick) looked at this case 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 paper s used which were required by the Committee. For the purpose of obtaining these, a Speaker's warrant was served on the party holding them, to produce these papers to the Committee. Now 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 more prevalent now than before. He (Lord Howick) had heard sneers of that sort, but lie 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 endeavouring in every case to bring it completely to light. Now he thought that of all the proceedings of this sort that had come before the Committee, this was that one which required investigation. 'The witeess 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 Howiek) 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, arid 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 in!orrnation required by the Committee ; even 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 0 jug- tire. He (Lord Howiek) could not agree to that person being relieved from custody, and he should, there ore, support the motion for his detention. Mr. BORTH WICK said, he would detain the Howe 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 recommendation from the Committee, to be acted upon, a.)e or no, his voice would have been aye. But t;te 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 ground, were, whether the prisoner at the bar had given a bona f ide answer to the questions put to him. He (Mr. Burthwick) was of opinion, atter 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 sufficient for him that the pri,oner 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 alter having received the warrant from the Speaker, he gave these papers over to some person who denied ever having received them. Tnis House might Le credulous, but they must be credulous indeed if they believed all that . mats had said. Believing that he had done all he could to deceive that House, lie (Mr. Muntz ) should certainly give his vote foe detainin g him in tustody.—( Divide. ) Mr. FLEMING said that he bad had extensive dealings with Mr. Mabson—(Loud ironical eneeis)—as an ironmonger —(Cheers)—and he had always found hint a twist 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 _ _ 3 4 117 Majority against 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 given 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 as quickly as he possibly could, and rather to refrain from expressing the opinions which he himsellenter tained, that he might bring before the House the opinions on the subject expressed by others. The Bill he 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 (11r. Wallace) moved for that Committee, and gained it too, he was riot 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 late Under-Secretary was elected Chairman, and he ( Mr. Wallace) sat as one of the Committee. In the course of read 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 abstain from reading that evidence. There were certain views entertained by the Right Hon. Baronet. and the Chairman, which went towards 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 fur 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 ceneur with him that a great deal of gond had already resul.ed. 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 English 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 stromg expressions, but he used them advisedly. He believed that lie would hereafter be aisle 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 real to the House a passage from the Report to which he had isiluded, 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 Com mittee on Supreme Courts in Scotland, dated May 28, 1840: .. It would appear that complaints exist as to certain parts of the procedure before the Lords Ortbnary in preparing the record. This matter was brought before your colon ittee in so far only as it affected the time and labour bestowed by the Judges; and while your Committee see no reason to wi: horaw 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 imprneed, so as not only to save a great deal • 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 precise not being before them. But they think it proper to remark, that many of the evils complained of, and for which a remedy is meat 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 er litigation, on the one hand; an d th at t h e C ourt, 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 eee 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 cccupiol by either division of the Court does not extend, on on average, much beyond two hours a day,. and of that time some part is always occupied in disposing of orders arid motions of no great importance. Some of the witnesses have stated that on the s.verage, 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. There arc 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 opit.ion has arisen in many quarters, and apparently with reason, that the number of Judges in the Co urt of Session is too great for the businesi it has to discharge, and that by abridging the vacations of the Court, and prolonging the periods of its daily sittings, the whole business might be done by a re duced number of Judges. Dissatisfaction Las 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, id some degree, the form of making up the Records, and introducing a fdrm different from that intended. An opinion has been expressed that hearing of causes has become more 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, and 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 c ons id era bl e port i on 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—to their sitting on Monday, and to their availing themselves, if necessary, of the power to prolong the Session. If it should appear dial 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 bushes, 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 sions 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 were necessary, it might be proper to enable the Court of Justi_ ciary to sit at Edinburgh, with two Jedges, or with a single Judge, as on Circuit. Without altering the days on which the Court met, a great deal of time might be saved, and usefully employed, by holding the meetings of the Judges upon those occasions when the whole Court is called upon to advise re- gularly, exclusively 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 a even without Legislative interference, and under the existingpowers of the Court, there can ba little difficulty to adopt such arrangements as would give great additional time. Arrangements, however, ,n, t that n t y l itzs,ah voce e may be necessary beyond the power of the Court, in which ea se recourse must be had to the intervention of Parliament." No w , it appeared that the Court sat only two hours a day, and t h at for a limited number of drys. He would put it o English Irish Gentlemen how unsatisfactory must he the proeeedings of such a Court? lie should observe , in addai , witnesses were not , examined before the Court. In criminal matters alone witnesses were heard; while in civil eases, every thing was drone throu4th .long printed documents. That was their Judge matte law, and he could conceive nothing so much opposed to the spirit of a free t h a i t n e Scotlandoaritry most people. He should inform she House that the labours of the • Scottish Judges at Ass izes w ere of the most trifling descrip tion. The proceedings at Assizes in were excellent reduced all but th e gravest offences. Those tribunals were p r esided over by sheriffs, who were men l t o o c a al mere tribunals, i'aree hey which tried 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 he 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 pes iod. The Right 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 1803,.. M that (line the ):umber of causes brought into Court in a year was abuut 2,600.—( See Parliamentary Return, No. 241. 1824.) The number now (1641) brought into a Court in year is on'y 1 500.—(See Returns.) This shows a falling Off of 2-sths. But this does not show the vit ole decrease in real business, fer in addition there is to be noticed the increase ill decrees in absence, which occupy almost no time. 10 these cases there is only one enrolment, and at the - first calling, the whole matter is disposed of in a quarter of a minute. It is only the decrees in ,foro that can give an idea of the real business. Now the decrees infbio. in 1808, wisen the two Chambers w ere i nst i tuted, were it 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 to decrees in absence. It is, therefore, no exaggeration to say that business has decreased one half. If, therefore, two Cham bers coul.l do tae business in 1808, one Chamber could do in 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 Parliamentary inquiry , they don't usually sit above three .hours a day. There is no good reason wily the Court should not sit at least thirty days more, and two hours snore 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 days for 113 days, give 339 hours for each Court yea r ly—say, for loth, 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 prolonged sittings of the two Chambers. Can it - be seriously maintained that sitting for 143 days at five hours a cler 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 fur reading papers. &c., besides more than half the year for vacations. If the excess of 37 hours by sae Chamber sitting 143 days for five hours be deducted from the assumed daily sittings of that time, it would not much exceed 4i hours. his, with the constant decrease of business,l lll. 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 delays and consequent es- , ' pence arising from the present faulty system, and from the want of senior counsel both in the Inner and Oster Houses, be removed, or be greatly lessened, and the still more grievous and unseemly evil of conflicting decisions emanating from dm/ 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 dot 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 great increase of courtesy from the Bench and enlarged pa tience in hearings, they in return should have the courtesy to at knowledge your services frankly. But this improvement in patience of course lengthens the hearings, and thereby aggro• vases one of the crying evils of our Courts, viz., the difficulty of getting rminent counsel to debate a a:se 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 s ee the same evil much complained of in England, and the abrupt way in which Lord Denman terminated the sittings last tens must have made even counsel themselves feel the inconvenience , of their practising in so many different Courts I ! * " The two divisions sit about one hour longer daily since your Committee—that is all—and they have had lesl work to do last year than in any former one. I have net yet 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 Rolls, and decrees la absence, which occupy little or no time, are still increasing The adju,trent of issues before the Jury clerks does not.nol f occupy so much time as formerly, as they are better acquainted with their duties, and very few causes are tried, showing ti continued unpopularity of the institution, as at present c onsti , toted and conducted in Scotland. As to leading Counsel, we have very few. Mr. M'Neil is clearly at the head ; then ideaso• Rutherford, Anderson, Wood, and Robertson—five i n ally a poor array certainly from which to supply a bench of 13 Judge s ' I am more and more convinced, that one Inner House is sun' dent for all the business, and this is the effectual remedy for the difficulty in getting counsel to plead cases continuously in the Outer House. Hail 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 our C o urt' , for without work, th e j o b o f k eep i ng them up, would be too b s ci even for Peel's majority. I remain your faithful servant." The next letter he wou ld rea d, was a l so a d dressed to him bls , professsional gen tl eman o f th e hi g h est respectability, and "" as follows : " Edinburgh, Bth April, 1842„ ,tit's 4, " The number of we ll empl o y e d C ounse l at the Scotch s',2" does not exc e ed t wen t y ; an d t h e l ead i ng C ounsel are five, i Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Solicitor. General M'Neil, Mr. Dean.°` Faculty Wood, Mr. Adam Anderson, and Mr. Patrick Bo' bertsou. The first two are, and have long been decided leaders; Mr. Wood and Mr.. Anderson only 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, and 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 adjustment of issues to be tried by Juries, who require to be attended by Counsel, and the leading Counsel are also chiefly employed for this purpose; therefore , it may be said, truly, that there are seven tribunals sitting daily. There are a number of English Counsel in the House of Commons who can well under stand the bearing of these facts, anti I think you might place the matter before them in a forcible light, by putting to them-1. Whether they can think thirteen Judges can be,required to despatch the business prepared for their eecisions by a Bar, which, reckoning the well employed Counsel, does not count twice their own number? I should think that English Counsel, accustomed to see what is accomplished in the English Courts, will be satisfied that the Scotch Judges must b ° greatly underworked, or that assuredly there i 3 something very far wrong in our system.-2. Whether it is possible for 1 liar, reckoning no greater num b er o f we ll -emp l oye d C o unsel titan I have mentioned, can efficiently supply seven tribunals sitting at the same moment. They will be able to answer t his from their own observation; but the actual results, the ow fusion, the delays, inconvenience, and obstructions which s r° thereby occasioned, are given in evidence to prove the fact. 3. Whether it be reasonable to expect that such a liar ca n supply a Bench, consist'ng of thirteen Jud ges , w ith lawyers° real ernineuce ? In point of f ac t, it i s t h e great b an e of ln ° Scotch system and the Scotch Courts, that we get so many tae ferior men plac e d on th e B enc h , w h ere f i rst rate men °ll l ',. should sit. These are the simple views of the case which such to myself; and I t hi n k you may g i ve effect to them in 'Le. a way as to come h o m e t o th e un d erstan di ngs even of men " acquainted practically with our profession." He would row read them an extract from a letter in corr n tr ' tion of these facts, from his Learned Ft lend the late Lord A do vocate. He had other letters, which he should not detain ji , House with then, but if they were at all necessary in replY t i eu should go into them particularly. The Hon. Member read the followi ng ex t rac t f rom a l etter from the Lor d A d o , cite, Lord Rutherf or d, to Mr. Cranstoun, dated L'i n el August 10, 1839 :—" No one who knows the low estel e o, which, from many cause s , our j u di c i a l i nst i tut i ons are aid could doubt that if suc h a Bills h a d b een i ntroduce d, it ', jets not have been carried, b u t mus t h ave l e d to defeat, no"luc:, unpleasant to you th an th e G overnment. There was a r t it," tance in supporting u s , even w h ere you m i g h t l east exile _. p c 0 to He then read an extract from a letter from Lord J. ftn'''" r na- Mr. Cranstoun, d a t e d 14 t h D ecem b er, 1839 :—.. Th e alte b . n . tive for the G overnmen t to cons i der, therefore, was the as r9 donment of th e c l ause , or t h e l oss o f the Bill. So fafsli'l own personal opi n io ns were concerne d , t h e loss of the 8i1 1 ,. t „ 0 have been th e p re f era bl e event. I h ad some don" sea to the increase of salary to the Scotch Judger", ' t hos° it was only in deference to the sentiments .0 ; did not ‘,.. better acquainted with the subject than myself, that 1 , 4 part 0 snake a reduction of the number of Judges an indispent m ber), ~' of the measure." This extract (continued the Hon. 0 Lora he consideral a very strong authori'y. The Nobl e be bo said, it was only in deference to the opinion of other's t n ef t he gave up his own in favour of a diminution of the numb e s i : ut beg Judges; and whose opinions did he refer to? Let t ou ght the attention of the House to this, that the witnesses w ants of i by the Noble Lord to give evidence, were all exP e , ci j u dge! '' ' office, with on or two exceptions. Two had been tna‘,, le on , JO • singe, and he had understood at the time that his "„ high, Learned Frieni was himself on the threshold of a ve'n'te had appointmeet. If that was not true, then public not°;.' d d i ther misled him ; he was in nobody's secrets ; no one cong v_ r have to him.—( Hear, hear.) If they did he would neve r fool ls, pt them a moment, and therefore he never got sol i T e wa re either side of the House. He got secrets in t n and proportion as he did favours—he never asked for „ ° hers , h e . therefore never got any; if he got the secrets d °,' one nor ' should never keep them, and therefore he neither had.s_ re h a d , the other.—( Hear, hear.) But he could show that t be n c en e car . been juggling among parties who ought not to ba se ni , i t ao h b o ite ° , l ; ,.. i.,i; cerned in such matters ; they had been kept from t n. hace vote" : , he was considered a decided party man, who nailo u h i spurer, on a party question, merely because it suited afiar uc not a per, to catry a particular object. But this. was Membe r / m e naben i the objets.—(hear, hear.) That was legitimate wi t tl ere were .keni Parliament, but this was not a party object. I d place ,T ere printed doeumen's ; he had the NISS. and %cu n t sessioon ' were it, the hands of any Hon. Member. During th at ; to - was were only four Judges doing the duty of ei ff th en 3 n nt incapacitated f..4nn bad health ; one ; rea kness -- I __ declared to be in such a state of ouod min( . e but t hem i w n a d s , in for such ahneextwrtagns extremely weak we p a e k rfeetly ; h e alth th at Il e a could not do the duty of the Summer sta S te es :i°n 'Z i r Winter Session only for one or two days. T he tes t by Ois e o f he had in view was to follow up „whoose ad T ) at as c e the most distinguished men e ver ii, xa nder -- a lt i ; -,, sident of the Supreme Court, Sir A reducing .. _ , bell, In his lull of 1835, for „_ thoug ht its 7 Lord Jeffery, in the Edinburg number of the Judges from fifteen to till' t h e n authori t y ith e n very ) moved, ho ns rational proposal. and was supported _ had b e fore t. . _ a list of the amendments he (Mr. Wa t h e m ; ' to would net detain the licu , e with h Review. llace u h me rety wished to show the necessity of e I . itself. and m 1 0 ,_,' readniating the Court to do that, which it could not d o 6 B e therefore a ,itov e n u . and he ha H t . had a series et' amendments, eleven in question• c ; andhn n on the was alleged to he absolutely necessarLber, what evidence had been brought 01l h ect he i " vi' f % t h d public now stated, in general terms, the 0.-J-e, the o p i n ion o be suarned the C , t : might tell them, with great confidenc e , dteeisions, and they same dispatch of business, or more wise courts sitting a t the ou tile t w h a a s u nr i , t t w more as favourabler They wii deniedtl r e e n s I t i i e r c e ti entirely a t h l 1 , e a plained most bitterly of having two t tire, trying cluic sadictory time on questions of the same nature, two (jourts cuntr eaut same day, and having from the 1 of t ,,,, t , ace( a decisions. They complained. Courts having four Judges, as there. House could deny hat al ' • No one in the s dans ot dense tradictory decisions. four JU r , •onse that was the fact. Where there e ff were in re opinion , sithueatrnwolstliat: Cbeocoutultret.sr. powers, they would be sure to, i d vv sl, o ) Uld dill, rences of opinion. With regard re , ~,,..,h the other 2.. had little or nothing to do as enfil . pa . a It Weed which was to gts (pence was that tirir Judges glad to have a Bill Irmo, , r for their I've . He should be months in the ye a , , nine them at once three or four in luuge, to , lion ; this would reduce the number ur inont . ,, ; t they now toot and they might require fu Ti y took first three weekt or ten, In the Scotch Courts bust vd''li ee toihnseui t a J t l : l nii:z Navin.r Jude .h g er u n j sl e d e . t , :b e e s y . Pers ee was not taken was t4cre produced in Court, oral eviden . any cross •examination i t ihe seve n e , ri i wizt w ; despatched sohpnoat how did I e i a ' d l n t d l b i ) e t , tpean take fo u i t r . ? did this, they should ______ of witne , ses by Counsel. If . th b e u y ti,,:, not require Tlieye d i d f, five e ot hjauv4egens•in, c so, s, A Bill for the increase of salary, THE SUN, LONDON, IKATDAY MORNING, APRIL 29`. 1842. ......