The Sun. — London, England, 1834-05-14 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, May 13. The house sat at four o'clock, and heard witnesses the Warwick Bill, up to six o'clock. Upon the name '6f a fresh witness being called, me Earl of ROSEBERRY rose and said, it was t1.0;',1 six o'clock, and he had understood the pub -1%,c business was to commence at five. He had a bill of very grtat Importance that was fixed for to-night, And if titty proceeded much longer with the Warwick business, he was afraid the attendance of peers would kw Very small indeed. He begged to ask whether it would not be proper to go on at once with the public business? The LORD CHANCELLOR was sorry that his noble friend should be incommoded in any way, be cause certainly as far as his predilection was concerned it was a matter of absolute indifference to him whether he heard the Warwick matter or a discus sion upon the Scotch Entail Bill, for one was just as important as the other. He had never considered the Warwick Bill as a private bill in any way. The Earl of ROSEBERRY had not stated that it was a private bill. The LORD CHANCELLOR said the noble lord had stated it indirectly, because he said public business ought to begin as near five as possible. They were then upon public business according to his sense of the word. ( Hear, hear.) They had been on public business ever since four o'clock, because he considered 'the question of disfranchising a borough a very great public question. (Hear, hear, hear.) At all events, he did not consider it like a thrnpilre act, or an estate bill, therefore he must extri (carehimself from the charge of having wished to keep the house so long on this matter, as if it ).rO,ll been a private bill, to the exclusion of more important affairs. Perhaps their lordships had more pleasure in hearing this than he had, but he had just as little pleasure in hearing this as his noble friend or any other noble lord (Hear), with this exception, that he had been there ever since 10 o'clock, and the matter which he had been hearing since that time up to 6 o'clock, was, if possible, still more uninteresting than the Warwick Bill. (Hear, hear, and laughter. ) The Earl of ROSEBERRY did not mean to de tain the house, and far less did he wish to enter into any competition with his noble and learned friend ; but he had never said that the Warwick Bill was a private bill; all he meant to say was, that he had understood the public general business was to commence at five o'clock. ( Hear.) SCOTCH ENTAILS. The Earl of ROSEBERR Y then rose to move the second reading of the Scotch Entails Bill. In doing so he felt all the difficulties which attached to the opening of a measure dry and uninteresting to the bulk of their lordships, and was conscious of his inability to arrest the attention of the house, or to do justice to the merits of the bill. That the subject was one of great magnitude and importance to Scotland would be at once apparent, if their lordships would only consider that in one point of view it related to the whole terri tory of that country. Although attempts had been made to legislate upon the subject, no satisfactory mea sure had been passed ; and although during the last year several bills had been introduced, none of them had been brought to a successful issue. The delay, although detrimental to the public interest, had at least enabled him to consult all the authorities and opinions delivered, with a view to mature the best and safest plan for the correction of the evil. He had not omitted to follow this course, and the bill then before the house was the result. He had reconsidered the opinions he had expressed in a committee of the other house some years back, and he was fully confirmed in the opinion that a remedy should not be longer delayed. Their lordships were aware of the nature and baneful effects of the Scotch system of entail, the principle of which was founded in the personal ambition of a few families, and was directly hostile to the general in terests of the community. His wish was to assimilate the law of the two countries ; and what was good for England he had no doubt would be found good also for Scotland. The Scotch act of 1685 was the basis of the machine since constructed for the creation of entails to the ex cell+ to which it had been carried in Scotland. The object of that act was not so much to 'upport or create a landed aristocracy as to defeat the operation of the Law of Forfeiture, a law since overruled by an act of the British Parliament. (The noble earl then went into some details relative to the origin and progress of the law of en tails in Scotland.) He had procured two documents which would throw the utmost possible light upon this subject. They related to the extent of entailed and unentailed land in all Scotland. He had visited fifteen counties indiscriminately, some in the north and some in the west, some highland and some lowland, some of good land and some of poor land, and from this aggre gate he hid deduced his facts. In ten counties out of fifteen in the year 1828 he found that a considerably larger portion of the land was entailed than unentailed. In two he found the proportions were nearly equal, and in two others he found that there was one-third more entailed than unentailed. The first two were Argyll and Ross-shire, the other two Berwick and Kincardine. He was satisfied that the greatest public mischief would ensue if the power of entail was not modified. The two acts which had been passed upon the subject had increased the mischiefs they were in tended to restrain. The principle of his bill was the same as that of the noble earl opposite ( Aberdeen) for the regulation of widows' jointures, in which it was clearly established that where a right of change was con ferred there ought to be a commensurate power of liqui dation. One of the beneficial effects of this measure would be the foundation-of new families by opening the sale of lands in different districts. The effect of it would also be to establish a class of yeomanry in Scotland, a class the most scarce in that country, but the most respect able. He called upon their lordships to act upon the report of% the select committee, which stated that the law of entails should be altered with all prudent de spatch. He merely asked their lordships to do that by a general measure which was daily done by means of private bills. Against his proposition he knew it might be said that there was now in the market more land than could obtain purchasers ; but, notwithstand ing this might be the case, he was satisfied that un shackling land from the trammels of this law would tend greatly to improve the condition of Scotland. The noble lord concluded by moving that the bill be read a second time. On the question being put, The Earl of MANSFIELD said that he felt it to be his duty to oppose the motion of his noble friend. It had been his intention to move that this and the other bill should be referred to a select committee. The Earl of RO SE B E RRY observed that if the bill were allowed to pass the present stage he would not object to having both his measures referred to a select committee. The Earl of MANSFIELD said, in that case one or other of the bills should be allowed priority, and that priority, if given at all, should be given to the Future Entail Bill. He was free to admit that some objections had been made against the law of entails ; but he must deny that the subject had, up to that hour, become one of general complaint. It was not, he believed, the practice of the legislature to pass laws which were not called for, and upon this ground he thought their lordships ought not to give their sanction to a measure the object of which was to change laws that had been found efficient for more than a century and a half. Whatever evils might during a long course of years have crept into the system, it was quite clear that the law of entails had not thrown any obstacle in the way of improvement; and, therefore, thinking the proposed alteration inexpedient, he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The Duke of HAMILTON supported the amend ment, and expressed his entire concurrence in the ob servations which his noble friend (the Earl of Mans field) had made. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he did not altogether agree with the noble duke, nor did he go the length of the noble earl (Mansfield) in opposition to the bill on the table. He (the Lord Chancellor) intended to vote for the second reading of it, with a view to refer the discussion to a select committee, as he agreed with his noble friend (the Earl of Roseberry) that the subject required great attention, and would be more satisfactorily discussed in a committee than in the house. He agreed with much that was in the bill of his noble friend, but, as he stated when it was in troduced, there was much that he did not approve of. The noble duke seemed to regard the act of 1788 as the magna charta of Scotland, and at the same time seemed to wish to carry the principle of entail farther than that act went. The doctrines laid down by the noble duke would.,engender extreme opinions. Did the noble duke mein io•assume that it was essential to the idea of-property that there should be entails? He (the Lord Chancellor) differed as much from those who said that there should be no entail as he did froitithose who wished to carry the principle of entail to an extreme. He believed that when carried to a moderate extent it was most-useful, and thought that it was advantageous to the extent it existed in Eng land. The opinion which he (the Lord Chancellor) had just stated was entertained by most of those who had turned their attention to the subject. Both the opinions—that in property there should be no entails, and that all property should be tied by entails— were now abandoned by considerate persons as extra vagant. He repeated that he did not think that the law could be in a much better state in this point than it was in England. Neither himself nor his noble friend (the Earl of Roseberry), however, had any wish to introduce the English law into Scotland. Indeed, he knew that any attempts to do so must be unsuc cessful, in consequence of the difference in the habits of the two countries. Formerly both the English and the Scotch law assimilated on this subject, and there was considerable doubts which was the original law ; but he believed that antiquaries stated that the former was the oldest. Since the time of Brackton, who stated the old law, very great alterations had been made in both England and Scotland, and the princi ples and details of the law of entail were so different in the two countries that it would lead to nothing but confusion to introduce the English law into Scotland. He did not believe that any such wish existed in the mind of any rational man who knew any thing about the subject. At-the same time, however, he thought that it was possible to take a chapter, on principle, out of the English Law Book, and adapt it with ad vantage to Scotland. He did not see any advantage or necessity in tying up property for the " Nati natorum, et qui nascentur ab illis," for five thousand generations. He recollected hearing of one case in which a man directed that his property should be tied up for a period as long as the rain fell or the river flowed. The noble duke in his admiration of the act of 1685 seemed to consider that the aboli tion of the heritable jurisdiction was an infringement of that act. He (the Lord Chancellor) thought that these jurisdictions were most objectionable, and he be lieved that a greater curse never existed; and the act of 1747, which abolished them, was one of the greatest benefits ever conferred upon a country. He was sorry that the noble earl (Mansfield) objected to the second reading of the bill ; but he (the Lord Chancellor) trusted that'when the noble earl considered that it was only to be read a second time with a view to be sent to a Committee up stairs he would not persist in his opposition. The Duke of HAMILTON denied that he had said any thing to justify the idea that he was favourable to heritable jurisdictions. The Earl of ABERDEEN said the few words he had to address to their lordships would principally refer to the allusion that had been made to a bill re lating to the Scotch entails which he had had the honour of introducing a few years back. That bill was intended only to be a temporary measure, prepa ratory to one that should pass the whole of the entails of Scotland in review, and fix them on a permanent basis. He was quite aware that the very existence of this law rendered some other measure necessary. He could not exactly say whether the present bills about to be introduced by the noble earl would come up to the object for which they were intended, but he feared they would not, since they seemed too partial in their tendency. In voting for the second reading of the bill he hoped his noble friend would not consider him pledged to the details of the measure. He was will ing to go into committee on the bills, in order to see whether they might not be amended. He reserved himself for a future opportunity to offer more extended remarks on the bills. Lord MELVILLE said the few observations he had to make would be merely a repetition of what had fallen from the noble lord who had just sat down. He approved of the course that had been pointed out, namely, to have the bills referred to a committee above stairs. He hoped, therefore, that their lordships would allow the bills to be read a second time. The Earl of ROSEBERRY replied. The bills were then read a second time, and ordered to be referry to a committee. RWICK BOROUGH BILL. The examination of witnesses against this bill was then resumed. - - Benjamin Mullins was the first witness examined. Elizabeth Mullins, the wife of the last witness, was then examined. _ _ ...... Jabez Richardson was the next witness examined. The next witnesses called were Edward Mannell and William Huxley, whose examination lasted until ten o'clock, when the house adjourned to ten o'clock to-morrow (this day). . HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 13. The SPEAKER took the chair at half-past live. Mr. A. BARING presented six petitions from places in Essex, praying that the house would not sanction any measure to injure or diminish the effici ency of the established church. Mr. H. HANLE Y presented two petitions from Lincolnshire, in favour of the Islington Market Bill. Mr. K. TYNTE moved that there be laid before the house a return of the names of the British Con suls and Vice-Consuls holding offices or appointments under the Government, with the amount of their sa laries.—Ordered. Also, a return of the number of imperial gallons of British and foreign spirits entered for home consumption in the year 1833 (as we under stood). • Mr.'JONES brought in a bill relative to the levying and appropriation of the tonnage duties of the corpora tion of Londonderry.—The bill was read a first time. BENEFIT SOCIETIES. Mr. WILK S said that he had given a notice which stood for to-morrow relative to benefit societies. As he understood that a noble marquis was about to intro duce a bill with a similar object in the other house, he would withdraw his notice for the present. POOR LAWS' AMENDMENT BILL. Mr. HALC OMB gave notice that on Friday next he should move certain amendments upon the house going into Committee upon, the Poor Laws' Amend ment Bill. Mr. H. HUGHES presented a petition from a place in Oxfordshire, praying that the house would not pass the bill for the admission of dissenters to the universities. Mr. PR YME said he had long since given notice of a motion (which seemed to him of very great im portance), in order that he might have an open day for bringing it forward, but as there were other matters of still greater importance likely to engage the atten tion of the house— _ _ _ The SPEAKER begged to know if the hon. mem ber intended to go on with his motion or not ? Mr. PRYM g' said he did not. The SPEAKER said the hon. member could not make a speech, unless he intended to conclude with a motion ; and, if he put it off, he could not of course do so. Mr. PR YAIE said, then he should go on with his motion. There was another question of great impor tance to which himself and several other hon. mem bers were willing to give way—he meant that for the establishment of a general register of births and deaths, but it was not to be supposed that he would yield if the other hon. members would not do so. ( Cries of " Move, move.") Mr. WYNN rose to order. The SPEAKER asked what was the hon. mem ber's motion? (Laughter, and cries of " Move, move,' in the midst of which the hon. member sat down.) Mr. H AWE S would not detain the house snore than a minute. He merely desired to state that Go vernment on the one side, and the Trustees of the British Museum on the other, had assented to the appointment of a committee on the subject of which he had given notice to move for a com mittee. He tendered both parties his grateful thanks for this acquiescence. The subject, however, was not one that pressed, and he would not proceed with it this session. Upon Mr. O'CONNELL being called on, Mr. A. BARING begged to present a petition on the subject which he understood was about to be discussed by the hon. and learned gentleman. It affected the admission of students to practice in courts of justice. It was a petition, signed by many of his constituents living in the neighbourhood of Col chester. It was short, but worded in a most able manner, and to save his going into the details he would request, with the permission of the house, that the clerk should read it. Hon. members would not be surprised that individuals who had been in the habit of listening to the eloquence of the hon. member for Colchester, felt proud in having such a represen tative, and also indignant on this subject. The object of the petition, however, was not to impugn the deci sion of the members of the Inner Temple, but to ex press that in which he cordially concurred with them, that it was a most important subject for the considera tion of the house, when any body of men should be allowed in their private apartment to decide that any -person should be excluded for life from :entering into one of the great professions of this country. The question involved a great general principle, and the petitioners respectfully but emphatically called the attention of the house to it. He (Mr. B.) would not at the present moment enter upon Abe discussion of it, as it was going to be debated by. the _hon. and learned member for Dublin, but he would request the petition to be read, because it stated fully and power- fully the views of the petitioners. Mr. S AND ERS ON presented a petition upon the same subject, from the inhabitants of Colchester. Mr. L ENNA RD said he had a similar petition to present from the southern division of Essex, signed by 1,500 individuals, many of whom he was well acquainted with, and to whose character he could bear the highest testimony. The petitioners said that they had been induced to sign the petition in consequence of a gentleman connected with the coun try having been unjustly excludedlgtin the Bar ; and because they considered such a right of exclusion, in the exercise of which the public had so decided an interest, ought not to be confided to an irresponsible body of men. They deprecated the proceedings of the benchers in the case of Mr. D. W. Harvey, and expressed their desire that they should be brought under the consideration of the house. INNS OF COURT. _ Mr. O'C 0 Nlsl E CL rose to bring forward his mo tion upon this subject. He would be very brief on this occasion, because he felt sure that any hon. gentleman who had read the sixth report of the Common Law Commissioners, must be convinced of the absolute ne cessity of an inquiry into the present state of the different Inns of Court. He meant to extend his motion to include special pleaders. The powers of the King's courts could not be exaggerated ; they had the power ofpreventing any man acting as attorney, barrister, or special pleader. The object professedly was to prevent improper persons practising at the bar. Now, no barrister could gain any emolument unless employed by the public. The monopoly in itself was not close, but men whose politics were not agree able to those tribunals were rejected, and he himself might have been affected in that way if he had com menced his political career before he entered the profession. ( Hear.) It was impossible to exaggerate the importance attached to those tribunals. His own opinion was much against any very close examination as to the fitness of any man being called to thebar, and he would not say that there would be any great evil in allowing any man, unstained with crime, to practise. He might allude to the instance of Mr. Wooler, who exhibited so much talent that his friends thought he might rise in that profession, but he was refused, because he was a printer, without remedy, and without explanation. He applied to the Court of King's Bench, the only result was a declaration that he could not be received. Was his Majesty's Go vernment prepared to countenance such proceedings as these ? There was no necessity for much argument, because there had been an investigation and a report. The tribunals which decided the fate of young men designing to come to the bar were, the King's Courts in Ireland, and the four Inns in this country. How did they acquire this power, by charter, by grant, or by an Act of Parliament ? (Hear, hear, hear. ) To all those questions he replied in the negative. There was no charter, no grant, no prescription, no act of Parliament; indeed, there was not any thing that came under the description of law. ( Hear, hear, hear.) The report of the commissioners was confined to that one object. The Inns were in fact trades' unions, and similar in their formation to the tailors' union. The late Lord Mansfield had described those societies as voluntary ones. The origin of them was their being seminaries of learning, and intended only to teach the law ; they originally confined their power to that object, and he ( Mr. O'Connell ) had found that fictitious causes were now ar gued, and meetings--as they were then called— were held. The judges and sergeants (if there were any) heard the arguments in those ficti tious causes, and gave their decision on them, and the meetings were a species of lectures. It ap peared from Judge Fortescile, that those inns were then frequented by the sons of the nobility and gen try ; and that not only were they taught the law, but also taught to dance, &c., thereby adding to their serious and solemn studies, other accomplishments. Now the qualification seemed to be the eating a certain quantity of mutton and drinking port wine. ( A laugh. ) At the period he (Mr. O'C.) was studying, so parti cular were they in their regulations, that there was actually an enactment of Queen Elizabeth, requiring the students to shave themselves once a fortnight. (Loud laughter.) The special pleaders, it appears, were merely to hold their situations at the pl6.sure of the bench, and the house would agree with him that this was a most unjust and improper regulation. It was stated by Mr. Curwood that he was prevented for twelve months from being called to the Bar, not for any fault of his own, but from an unfounded pre judice raised against him, because a friend of his hap pened to be engaged in a quarrel with one of the benchers. (Hear.) That was a sample of the kind of " wholesome power," as it was called, exercised many a time by the benchers, and of the salutary pro visions of their laws in excluding men of genius, in dustry, and erudition from the Bar. Why should any self-appointed body of men, raising themselves to the importance, by certain private regulations of their own, of arbiters over the pursuits, fortunes, and pros pects of individuals, expect that the Legislature of the country would shield or encourage them in the absence of any statute of law or privilege from the Crown granted for their incorporation or protection? Oh, but he (Mr. O'Connell) would Le told that the Judges were visiters, and that of course no wrong could exist ; that the ermine of the Judge wouldrub off all abuses. Now, if the Judges had leisure to attend to the duties' of visitation, as they had not, yet he questioned the constitutional exercise or the policy, of their ower to visit. What was the power at present in the benchers ? Why, they might decide on th • ..*rns of any one for admission behind his back, without even allowing him to call witnesses. Tli • might conde scend to hear his witnesses, but t -as optional with them, and there was no power of . cing their attend ance. A man might be obliged to eull his enemy ; the enemy might not wish to attend; and he could not be compelled to do so. Even if he did attend, he was not called on to give his evidence on oath. The honourable member for Colchester was deeply inte rested in the present motion ; but he (Mr. O'C.) was persuaded that he did not intend, any more than he (Mr. O'C. ) wished, to impugn the integrity of the judges. Mr. Harvey was returned six times by a popular constituency ; they knew him well, and were the best judges of his character. Large bodies of Intelligent and honourable men stamped him with the broadest mark of their approbation ; and though he was pronounced able to sit in parliament, he was pronounced unfit to hold a brief in court. (Hear, hear.) His was a case that, trumpet-tongued, called for investigation. The report of the case he (Mr. O'Connell) read, and he staked whatever personal or professional character he possessed on the asser tion that there neverlived a man more grossly and grievously injured. If he appealed to any common jury on the merits of his case, he (Mr. O'C.), as a professional man, would risk h s reputation in saying that he would obtain a verdict of acquittal. He concluded by moving, " That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the practice ob served by the Four Inns of Court in London, and also by the King's Inns, Dublin, upon the application of persons to be admitted students, and to be called to the bar ; and also to inquire into the revenues of each Inn, and the appli cation thereof." The motion having been seconded by Mr. ROEBUCK, and put, Sir J. SCARLETT said, it was very true that before any person could practise either as a special pleader or as a conveyancer he must be admitted by some inn of court ; but really the proceeding was so much a mere matter of form in as far as the benchers were concerned, that upon their account he, as one of them, could have no objection .o any change whatever. The present system was pursued under an act of Parliament which required the course to be taken that was now followed. The chief, if not only difficulty imposed, was in the shape of certain stamp duties; and if it should please his noble friend at the head o c o f u l th d e h E a v x e c h n e o q u o e b r i e t c o t i r o epe a ho n,al and dse doubtless duties, gentlemen e ng to become conveyancers or special pleaders would be thankful for the • change. (A laugh.) But the hon. and learned gentleman appeared to think the practice oppressive. Now he had never heard of but one complaher with respect to it, and that was a complaint from the respectable prac titioners of a neighbourhood, that a hedge lawyer had received his certificate to the prejudice of the character of the profession. He certainly thought that ample, if not too much, facility was given to the obtaining of the certi ficate, which the hon. and learned gentleman appeared to think was to be gained only by the benchers being bene fited. In consequence of the complaint to which he had referred most of the courts had, he believed, adopted a rule requiring that a party on applying for a certificate to practise either as a conveyancer or a special pleader should produce certain evidence of his respectability. But then it was asked upon what authority did the benchers of the inns of court interfere with the mat tar? He knew of none other than the Act of Parliament. Another object of the motion was to institute an inquiry into the property of the inns of court. It was well known to those who had taken the trouble to make themselves ac quainted with the subject that these societies were volun tary, that their funds arose out of subscriptions or gifts from the different members, and that the property was as much private property as was the estate of any gentleman in the country. In saying this, however, he did not deny that that house had the power to institute an inquiry. Of t . course it had. It h a d a l s o the power to institute an in quiry into the property of his noble friend (Lord Althorp) over the way, or of any other hon. member ; but he thought the experiment would be rather a dangerous bne. (Hear.) He had only to state the fact as to the character of the property. The history of these societies wits known to those who had taken an interest respecting their rise and early proceedings. They originated chiefly in a strug gle between the church and the gentry, andothers anxious to cultivate the profession of the common law. For the purpose of establishing the study of the common law with out the church those voluntary societies Were formed) and they were countenanced and assisted at dilterent times ti the Crown. The hon. and learned gentleman had asked upon what authority the Weeleers of the inns of court took upon then tlX'es the Veever of refusing to admit a ,persoe to the bat ? Wh'y Lord Mansfield had answered that ceees tion. The benchers had the authority of the Judges. The case of attorneys was somewhat diffeeetet. by the act of the legislature that power evis vested in the judges under certain specified regulations. The inns of court, therefore, had nothing whatever to do with the admission of gentle men as attorneys. Now the hon. and learned member had moved for a committee of inquiry, and he therefore con tended that, in order to support his motion, the, hon. ~.ha learned gentleman ought to have speeffieellY stated the cases which rendered such inquiry necessary. He had, however, not done ed. To two cases only had the hon. and leeened gentleman even alluded ; the first was the case of Mr. Wooler. The hon. and learned member stated that Mr. Wooler had been refused admission as a student on the ground that he was a hard-working printer. If he remembered rightly, 3lr. Wooler was refused admittance, not because he was a hard-working printer, but because he had been twice convicted of a seditious libel. (Mr. D. W. Harvey, we believe, said only once.) That might be. He would not be positive, but he thought that he had been twice convicted. He would not attempt to say whether the decision of the benchers was right or wrong on abstract principle, but he would contend that it offered no ground for inquiry by that house. If the house, however, thought that one case of this kind was sufficient to call for an alte ration of the present system let the proper means be taken to effect it. Mr. O'CONNELL suggested that Mr. Wooler had not, in fact, been convicted at all. Sir J. SCARLETT could tell the hon. and learned gentleman that he himself was present in court when Mr. Wooler was convicted. (Hear.) The universities ex ercised a similar, power as to the admission of students, and he had not heard that any objection had been taken to their authority. In his opinion the facilities given for the entrance of students were already ample. All that was required in the great mass of cases was the security of two householders for the payment of the commons, and the certificate of a barrister, a member of the court, as to the respectability of the party applying. In the inn of court to which he belonged there had been adopted a rule requiring that any person, befpre he was admitted a stu dent, should give evidence that he was possessed of the rudiments of a liberal education. No deep or consumate knowledge was required, but it was deemed necessary that the applicant should be versed in the elements of those branches of liberal knowledge, the pursuit of which was considered absolutely essential to a fit and efficient dis charge of the duties of a barrister. Nor could he quit that point without stating that this rule had been followed by the happiest effects. It was in the Middle Temple that it had been adopted, and that inn had since its adoption risen very much in public estimation. Then as to the tax ation of which the hon. and learned gentleman had com plained so heavily. These societies did not profess to pro vide gratuitously eating and drinking for their members. The students, therefore, attendance at commons being a part of the discipline they had to go through, were called upon to pay a proportion of the cost incurred. In com mons the societies were divided into messes, each consist ing of four. The cost of the dinner for each mess to the society was, he believed, about 165., and each student was charged for his dinner ls. 6d. Besides that sum he had a fee of 51 ; to pay ; but then he had the wine allowed without charge, and therefore he thought it something ex traordinary for the honourable and learned gentleman to talk of the inns of court raising money by taxation for their own benefit. With respect to the stamp payable on admission to the bar, with these the inns of court had nothing whatever to do. If the noble lord (Althorp) chose to remit them, then the benchers could have no objection. He then came to the second case which had been cited as a grievance. He would say this, that if the hon. member for Colchester, or any other hon. member, thought that this case required inquiry at the hands of the house, the benchers who had judged it would be ready to furnish not merely a report of their proceedings, _but of every scrap of evidence adduced before them. (Hear, hear.) It was complained that the decision of the benchers in 1822, of thejudges who had confirmed that decision, and that the subsequent decision of the nineteen benchers recently was wrong. Then why, he asked, did not any hon. member entertaining such an opinion bring the case fairly and fully before the house? And look at the argument of the hon. and learned gentleman. " What !" he exclaimed, " after the people of England have returned the hon. member for Colchester to this house six several times, shall the bench ers of an inn of court be allowed to say that that hon. member shall not be admitted to the bar ?" There were I some in that house old enough to recollect the case of Colonel Cawthorne, who for several years represented Laneaster. Colonel Cawthorn was tried before a court "martial, and convicted of suppressing marching billet money. After his conviction the case was brought under the consideration of the house, and Colonel Cawthorne was expelled. The people of Lancaster, however, again elected him, and he sat subsequently to his expulsion for three par liaments. Now, no one would contend the house had not acted with great propriety in expelling Colonel Cawthorne, because when elected he was not the criminal he was after wards proved to be. Once expelled, however, the house had done its duty ; and if the people of Lancaster chose to re elect Col. Cawthorne as their representative, they had a right to do so. But Colonel Cawthorne could never after his conviction have been admitted a member of the bar. Such a thing would have been impossible, and in fact, although Colonel Cawthorne was a student, he never applied to become a barrister. He would not then go into the case of the hon. member for Colchester. ("Hear," from an hon. member near Mr. Harvey.) He repeated that he would not then go into the case , simply land plainly because it was not properly before the house. Let any hon. member bring the case before the house, and he would be ready, point by point, to justify his conduct in coming to the decision he had as a bencher of the inn of s feeCor re°dt NatakhsNeenaE court. This much, however, he would say. The hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) had said that he had read the case, that he had considered it, and that he was decidedly of opinion that the decision come to was un just. Now, he would assert, and with as much confidence as the hon. and learned gentleman could by possibility as sert anything, that there were not to be found in England nineteen gentlemen actuated by the feelings of gentlemen who would not concur in the decision come to by the benchers in the case of the hon. member for Colchester. With their exception he knew of no other motion in which a person applying for admission had been refused. It was true that when he was a student Mr. Horne Tooke was rejected, but the ground was that being in holy orders that gentleman was not eligible for the Bar. matter interest tt et er confine osontd deniedeeffidabinnunoaecfut)or education. tttothethineAememm. strictpru p.opsptrtrHuthcoboonHlehr importance e Tooke was in holy orders. f Sir J. SCARLETT—At all events Mr. Horne Tooke be considered was the rector of Brentford. (Hear, hear, and laugh ter.) He did not know whether in that house it would t ist h h e ouw c l h asd ara b cter of the bar ; but his own opinion was that, as the iwsnueteac most important duties were intrusted to barristers, everan: that or th ao:koorn m d, s maintain hdn i a:, h c n t a r r a g i .a r oa s n h e )rs far integrity, ar e is n s h s P his s c as h ni b a dl r e a feeling,etgetorooo gooddf men a t o h p a s jogbo Some h t p mede u o b li his actedc e ainjury.se. for T H themselves made hn a de o n o. complaintamemberod others for were o l Colchester he doinges advised t e r h s a d o by their friends. Perhaps it would be always better if the advice was professional. He had not read the case as published by-the hon. member for Colchester, but he had seen some of those who had read it, and he must say that their opinion was that the hon. member for Colchester had better have said nothing about it. That case was heard in 1822. It was decided by the benchers against the hon. member, and that decision was confirmed by the judges. Many years afterwards, when only four of the benchers who before tried it were alive, and only two of the judges who had heard the appeal were on the bench, the hon. member again brought his case forward. It was again heard by the benchers, and nineteen of them unani mously decided in the same way as their predecessors had done. If that decision were not satisfactory the hon. member might have appealed to the judges. The benchers were ready to give up every particle of the evi dence to any competent tribunal. Mr. M. D. HILL supported the motion. He denied that Mr. Wooler had been convicted. His hon. and learned friend (Sir J. Scarlett) was mis pw ta hlasai k sc e eta n dhp . eptlahic T ueat h thmi e oorn fi ast n htf d oei - : find ing was such that obitAcimhi ftailheilratiehhypbreaeeoßmoncofeeapochdslohaedheul benchers hos d taoefdut; ob accusedbi ‘bt. y e ir.ureo.ti nru Yorke that Wooler judgment upon it; a nd, in fact, there never was any. Th t.o e leinr so lv le offence of Redhead f e itself re Ir n v oa Yorke o s s roukffil fiwobfi oce h iyiae i eo c no en h ttear t t h t aot admission.thahi i t nena g dtpp e oßoo n oesl uise t f gentleman had been convicted of a seditious libel, and the bench of the inn to which he belonged as student at once rejected a u n g o h th to er p st r i o ll ve mo th re a , t co p o o v l i i n ti c c i a o l g e p o r n o s o i f - , n amely, that on Mr. Redh ea d Y or k e ' s d o i n o w h •as ad in to it m se e l i f lti e o n n o hi s a pplication for admissi on t o t h e b ar. That circum stance derations were weighed by the benchers • but in addition what Mr. Wooler never would do— on hi s recanting g publicly his toith liberal opinions —the same bench who before rejected sub sequently granted his application, and he was accordingly called to the bar. These were instances demonstrative of a bad principle, and, in his opinionpowerf powerful arguments in favour of the reform whi c h the hon , . and learned member for Dublin contemplated. With respect to the case of the hon. member for Colchester, there was a point which he felt very anxious to ascertain. He wished to know whether, if the hon. member (Mr. Harvey) did cause an appeal to be lodged against the unanimous decision of the benchers of the Inner Temple, towards whom he begged to be understood as entertaining a very sincere respect, the judges, on the hearing of that appeal, would go into evidence ; or whether they would not be at once estopped by the benchers' certificate? Sir J. SCARLETT said it would be perfectly at the discretion of the judges ? Mr. O'CONNELL said they might have the discretion, but they would the care ,ifat to Use it: Sir J. SCARLETT thoUghAit *bald be better if the hon. and learned Member for Dublin *gild not make as- sertions on points of which he *is . *holly,igtibrint: (Hear, hear.) The judge - S troajd have th'e pokker a instituting Ant investigation; shatld the party applying be able to piOVe ti it his case had not been fairly inquired into by the benchers. Mr. HILL was glad to hear the judges had such a power, but still thought it would be better to render the extent of it less a matter of uncertainty than it at pre power .of cOrnrellifig ittendince of pre sent was. He was of opinion that a mode of trial where witnesses;the party ministering sum moned, was a bad mode of proceeding, and on that ground alone he should give his humble support to the present or any other motion tending to give to the appealing party those means by which his case might be better inquired into than it could at present be. Lord ALTHORP thought the question which the house had to decide upon was, not whether any alt Oration in the present system of ashilitting students to the bar should take place, but whether it was necessary to go into an in quiry, with a view of ascertaining what were the defects of that system, as well as the most effectual remedy for those defects. Now, considering that the commissioners of common law had in their report stated very fully what were the objections to the present mode of admitting gen tlemen to the bar, as well as the remedieS which Struck them as most likely tb obviate those objections, it did Strike him that the course the house had to pursue was most clear, and that it would be much better to found a measure of reform on the subject upon the report of the law commissioners a body much more likely to give effect to the question than any other that could be selected—rather than upon the result of an inves tigation instituted by a select committee of that house. The commissioners had, it was true, not gone quite as fully into the subject as the motion would propose, but still he thought they had gone quite far enough to enable the house to legislate upon it, and that the appointment of a select committee would only cause delay, without at all ad vancing the question. One of the recommendations of the commissioners was, that the party dissatisfied with the de cision of the benchers should have power of appeal to the judges, as well as power to insure his case a full and effi cient hearing before that tribunal, by the production and swearing of witnesses and appearance by counsel. These were specific recommendations, coming from a body of men quite competent to entertain the subject ; and until it was shown that those recommendations, if carried into effect, would not insure the object which the hon. and learned member stated he desired to effect by his present motion, he (Lord Althorp) could not see any necessity whatever for an investigation before a select committee of the house. The case of the hon. member for Colchester had, he thought, been far too much mixed up with the question under consideration. That question was quite indepen dent of it, and could only be adduced as an argument inci dental to the case which it was sought to establish. Mr. LENNARD thought, that as it was agreed upon all hands the present tribunals were most unsatisfactory, the sooner a more perfect one was established the better. Mr. HALCOMB thought it but justice to the character of the hon. member for Colchester to say, that he had carefully examined into his case, and that his solemn con viction was, that he (Mr. Harvey) came out of the inquiry • perfectly clear of all stigma. Mr. C. FERGUSSON would not impeach the verdict which the benchers of the Inner Temple brought in in the case of the hon. member for Colchester, but at the same time did not hesitate to express his conviction that that ver dict was come to solely because by the mode of trial in use the benchers were precluded from investigating the subject satisfactorily. It was to him totally incredible that a man of sense and shrewdness like the hon. member for Col- chester should commit an act by which his character must be ruined, without in the slightest degree benefitting himself. With regard to the motion before the house, he would content himself by saying that, as some of the law commissioners happened to be benchers of the several inns, he would much prefer having an inquiry before a select committee to legislating upon the recommendation which the report of that commission held out. Dr. LUSHINGTON objected in toto to that part of the motion which related to the state and application of the revenues of the several inns of court. He would tell the house that admissibility to the bar did not and ought not to depend alone upon high professional talent ; no; to talent and professional knowledge ought to be added, above all things, the highest possible character for spotless inte grity and for untouched reputation. These were the first and only ingredients which were indispensable to the call ing of any man to the bar of that land. (Hear, hear.) An hon. friend had said let a public trial of the professional abilities of a candidate be the test of admission, but he would repeat that that was not a proper test. The system had worked well. Let the hon. member look at the bar of this country, and ask himself if he could devise a system that could work better. He would consent to any neces sary emendations, but he was persuaded that the system as a whole could not be left in better hands than it was at present. Let the house look at the benchers who had de cided upon the case of the hon. member for Colchester. They consisted of men of all parties, of Tories, Radicals, Whigs, such, for instance, as the hon. and learned member for Norwich (Laughter) ; and a tribunal could not be more fairly and impartially constituted. He was, how eVer, perfectly ready to consent to those emendations which had been recommended by the law commissioners. He could conceive no object in the motion of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, unless he really meant to in quire into all the abuses that could be raked up for the last fifty years. If the hon. member for Colchester wished thi; house to express an opinion upon his case, he as an in dividual member would say upon his solemn word of honour he had no opinion whatever to give. He had no data upon which to form a judg ent, and in the present stage of the proceedings he did not think the house competent to come to any conclusion. The hon. member had stated that the judges would not receive evidence on the case. He de nied it. Mr. HARVEY—They have not the power. They can not receive evidence if they would. Dr. LUSHINGTON—I do not believe it. If the judges did not admit evidence on the case, and come to a decision on that evidence, he would pledge himself to sup port an investigation into the hon. member's case. Mr. HALCOMB rose to explain. He could not sup press his feelings of indignation at what had fallen from the hon. and learned gentleman who had just treated the house with such a display of his political consistency. He (Mr. Holcomb) had not introduced the subject. It was the hon. member for Norwich (Sir J. Scarlett) who had commented on it. He could not envy the feeling of any man who could decide upon such a question after an avowal that he would not investigate— . Here the SPEAKERinterposed upon the tone and lan- t guage of the hon. gentleman, who eventually sat down. t Sir F. VINCENT supported the motion, but regretted 1 that it did not go far enough. The benchers had assumed ' an improper situation, and they ought to be made to revert to their original state. Mr. PRYME supported the motion. The hon. mem ber for Finsbury had said that the examination before the 1 benchers ought to relate to the purity of the applicant as I well as to his knowledge. In fact it alluded to neither. 1 With respect to purity, he would r elate one case that had come within his own knowledge. A student of Lincoln's ' inn had applied to be called to the bar. In the reading of ' his te exercises i ort he w h h e i a c tor of a periodical, who had been conv icted of a libel. The ' r h i n a g r e b e p n e c c h u e l i r a s r r t e o , o t g h z i e n d n h ) m i t a h s a happened that hear.) He had been imprisoned some months , and the barristers came to m or a p n ub h l a i d c, p b le u a t de a d i p n riv ju at s e tifi l c ib at e i l ot . n t H at ea it r, was not a political ' a resolution that they would not hear read another exer cise from that individual. He appealed to the benchers of the inn, party spirit ran high, and the benchers actually overruled the decisions come to by the barristers (Hear), and he was called to the bar. He was persuaded that the case of the hon. member for Colchester had not been fairly heard. Mr. O'REILLY supported the motion. Mr. PLUMPTRE thought the motion,if carried, would form a precedent for any unjustifiable interference in pri vate property. Sir H. VERNEY supported the motion. Mr. SHAW said a few words in defence of the Four Courts of Dublin. Mr. O'DWYER supported the motion. Mr. LLOYD contended that public opinion ought to be the only tribunal by which admissibility to the bar ought to be decided. Mr. LEFROY maintained that the benchers had suc ceeded in keeping the bar in a state of purity. Mr. ROLFE opposed the motion, but would support a bill calculated to reform the evils which were acknowledged to exist. Mr. SINCLAIR supported the motion both on public grounds and on the ground that the hon. member for Col chester had suffered an act of injustice. Several Hon. Members now rose, but the call of the house was for Mr. HARVEY. Mr. HARVEY rose and spoke with great emphasis. He had been in that house for sixteen years, and he had had a fatal experience of how little was the chance of re dress which any member ever had in it from a class of per sons if he were unfortunately unallied with any of the great families of the country. But, whatever might be the strength of party, he was convinced that in such a case as the present the house itself never would, as it never yet had done, forget its paramount feelings of honour and re spect for justice. Yes, it was to those feelings, and to those feelings only, that he now appealed. He might, were his objects different, allude to his own case in terms which might excite the sympathy of all who heard him — he might state his mental sufferings—he might slate his pecuniary losses—he might depict the clouds which had been thrown over his prospects in life ; but he would ap: L peal to no sympathies. He would appea l to that c he had instructed his counsel to appeal to the Ben 5, to e their respect for justice and love of integrity. He migo h h o:s % admit that he had not, more than other men, upon alloc ) casions been proof against the incon veniences of humanity; but whether his transgressions were to be referred to tile nature of youth or of more advanced years, as far as re garded the matter upon which he had been refused admit tance to the bar what lie had done he Would do again ;he • , did not regret it, and liei'er had he regretted it. He would not go into the general question. It was a question of character, and deeply affected the house itself. Nothing could be so ,MOristroqs.4.l OR prpßosition ; noth in g could be so derogatora - , liar, so irisilltiiii; to the• aalserO l Y which he then addressed, as to say Witt i tn_., a , n might be unfit, utterly unfit., from a want of Per' sonal integrity, to hold a half-guinea brief in the Court of legislators,ti hl he w as , Old as Bai ley, htoe hh wol a d n e d av err y a e nb t ke he et on , m ww i hi g ii h leihti t gba,elltfihotothitvoeugr others s l,e o yr c ae i a n t ds e u t e N o - o i n t r h : subor dinate in a fr e e pces e wovr e asnce o oir u n-e n gne t xo r t\ttvh y eio . tnt (Hear hear.) He repeated that fidently willing; to refer the tleciSitin, of . the, case to ail half dozen persons who were free from party Prejiidiee. He had offered to submit the case to the distinguished In' dividual whose presidency over that house was to be esti mated by his decisions having invariably gained that confi dence from all parties to which he was so justly entitled. (Hear, hear.) He had further offered to conjoin with him the hon. members for Kirkcudbright and Edinburgh, be cause they Were persons of esteem who were totally uncon- nect6d vt-,itll himself; and Who were unbiassed by any stn eng party feelings. lie still thr64 out this sadie offeri it w it . r/ utterly impossible that the matter could 'rest there: ."'• pto p ps t ( 1 l f r o): iteav:hs askt:ese e rrh e d sb ! ool 4 ,: a e fr t t r hes. was all very well that hon. members might say that the case rested on general principles ; but what had been tli, speech of the hon. and learned member for Norwich ? 1 1 ' 9 had been a speech the most sincere or the most slanderous slander. He 1 n eH t e e oh r ua dl d i h nn oe t %t h , ei a ira t : v: / e i , : b e reA : :: : If sincere tet the liotiFie nite r into His vievts • if ,Sl an , :ft: rous, let the house express the contempt it had ' ever ''''' from honour in that house upon the temptations of private profit, and if he had done so--if he had pursued the course J standing there to ask justice of that house. The learn'''. member for the Tower Hamlets had said that he had a re d - medy by an appeal to the Judges ; but let him be perinitte in Whitehall. The appeal Was ildt to the Judges, w h ,„?,, se , twelve Judges had power to do justice, but it vas had so in his case. What was the system ? The Judg i es ,`", - se irslueivse j es, u els t , l_g iilvtn e h s hht s iesh i r t ee t e i ia n rsd g ejiu: ? ist:iih N ehey o its t ; c ititaa e : r ? ta: ,... n i . Y ; 'Westminster Hall? rid, at ...eigeitita' Inn Hal Their 'l'44 here functions were not a duty but a concession. An-- - t , a jealous, intelligent audience? No, nobody but the a, - : cuser and the accused were allowed to be present. In his case he had been attended by the two most distingui wished law officers of the crown; the present Lord si g h Chau". cellor of England and the present Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, When the case had coin- Is 1 said was, menced, the first thing Lord Tenterden -a' a " This is not a court of law—not a court of jtiStice—aii, every person who is not a party concerned must instanti7 retire." Shortly after the present Lord Chancellor of England, before he was raised to the peerage, had calle° him out of that house, and had stated to him (it was on the following Monday) that he had to attend as counsel in a case similar and almost as flagrantly u njust as is. He, had invited him to attend, but he had reminded him that he had forgotten the remarkable fact that Lord Tenterden had made it a secret court, and had o rdered all persons but the parties engaged to retire. A few days after the present Lord Chancellor had said to him (\lr. Harvey), " WI are perfectly right, Mr. Harvey ; as in your case, Lord Tenterd en would not allow persons except the parties con cerned to be present." Surely they were not to have ao Inquisition and a Bastile in England, because it was th ° fact, or said to be the fast, that no persons were tortured or oppressed in them. He would give a case he,: these secret irresponsible powers were executed. in t_h Middle Temple a person had applied for admission to the Bar, and it had been objected .against him that he ito r, tax-gatherer and a foundling. In fact the man had inducedbeen a foundling, and his intelligence and integrity had __ that wealthy establishment to make him a depositary of their rents, and this the benchers decided to hadgadig, though the Vice-Chancellor of the Exchequer been the collec tor tor of Mrs. Laurence, and it was known that many of the most respectable members of the bar derived their principal ed pr ° incomes from receiving the rents of the great land p „,. 1 prietors of this country. But the benchers had compaig this man to give up his employment, and thus by TO' iate himself a beggar for a year he qualified himself o,'s to talked with gentlemen of the bar. Hon. members e in cases about the power of producing additional evident- cases of • .., of appeal, but it was very well known that in all ~, nc , ! appeal, whether to the cockpit or the privy council, additional evidence could be offered. Ile had a .. It , .- opinion of the judges when they sat in Westminsterettr f e , but he had no opinion of any tribunal which sat under the canopy of secrecy. There must be some dishonesty where, canopy secrecy was preserved. It was incompatible Wino ‘ , honest purpose. It was true they kindly suggested ~, secrecy was beneficial to the individual, because if and ~ thing appeared of a nature calculated to prejudice In .. , in public opinion it would not transpire. For hi 1 ', 4 1 ,,. sell, however, he was for the utmost publicity. ''''' . wished the case to be thoroughly gone into, not te establish his innocence, but to convince the boil of it. As to establishing his innocence, he 0 1 ° 1 ' degrade himself, he should degrade the 5,000 inhabitant' of Colchester who had done him the honour to send ling '. to that house as their representative, if he doubted that Or au instant. What he called upon the house to de , 04 i i i; ~.'. inquire into his case, in order that he might convict ~..e oppressors.of injustice. When hon. members read in !" .11 : newspapers that the hon. and learned member for NorW• ~ in ert • went down to such or such a place, on a special reel. __. , with a fee of 400 guineas, they might be sure that the boos ~ , and learned gentleman was considered as a very dexaaau, man ; that he was considered as an exceedingly:. _':' a l ~ man ; that he was considered as a man woo h th tl e 'g ors e • , powers in glossing over the truth, and in makin g . learned ; appear the better reason. When the hon. and . j ury gentleman addressed his argument to a nisi prz i v e j traor.. 1 efforts we x his fee were as heavy as himself, his ative • hat cornpar dinary ; but it was astonishing with w 1 e fee was com- lightness he touched upon his case when t i hat was pretty paratively small. (A laugh. ) In fact, t There was not much the case with all learned gentlemen. advance ere one of them who could not be virtuous to that were cause, and he could not understand the eulogies moat be re- passed on their honour and independence. It moa t ,), it ; collected that what passed in that house w ent e o_ on : an d , and that the public would know that, with all th h vr po i : learned gentleman's expressions of regret and s rr t o ahi o tilia . with all his practised verbiage and cant, he had the oils :.. house that nineteen honourable men (of wh°fliunanitilaus : and learned gentleman was one) had come to a vise per- - decision on his (Mr. Harvey's) case, and that hen `, . i, the suaded that any other nineteen honourable m i t g e ar, kingdom would come to the same decision. I, eo ple ~ hear.) All this would go forth to the publi.c._.boin tha : ! . i would ask one another, who was the person t ' ; U d that nine" had sa t fit for' ' hon. and learned member for Norwich not teen honourable men had declared that albsvb nineteen the society of gentlemen; and that an., were acquainted honourable en in t 4 kingdom, if the Y w. d •la the .e would cc lured , with the erneumstances ot the ea , , accomp `- same ? However this statement I might be hrase ol4l a by expressions of fictitiouitdelicacy, and by the p we , til in , 4 of pLI shed hypocrisy, Jit must still have a po learnpond , most injurious effect. NOW, when the hon. ana ot ng• !A t P- " gentleman was candid for Lewes some years -0,?!...,, (alr• 't long after the decisio f the benchers against him s father Harvey), he wroie a letter to his (Mr. tiarvey's/ ~.. h in-law, to whom he was under great obligations i i .. . e ai d , election, stating that no one could regret more than . 1 ' a it . what had occurred, and that if he could have preten t . e r he' 7 it should not have happened. ( Hear.) Soon aft'n,e (Mr. Harvey) had lost his seat in that house, h i e m ° ly, queace of that which had been his lot all his life, n,a, e he urlaieubrtnldhml learned instancesaanr nh d gentleman—he ei inoeftni n) , Leaf jammed up between two factions (A laug h, a nd ka.l_it ,n the hon. and learned member for Norwic'to be asked him if. he would support Sum in his etfort.seluda called to the bar ? The hon. and learned gent' ' I doing so. answer was, " I shall have great pleasure learners had of your , need not tell you, after the cape , ience llbtnink you a pc talents in the riouse o Commons, that, have heard some caliarly lit Joan to go to toe Lax ; 0 :be necessary to clear ; re iris et Lench dinners whi, h it w ill ;e a urr of the Society", ty. Y.,u kow Mr. ‘S',lsh, the l e ,o honourable and inde;, He is a tri _xi of leisure and u - d s .our n omination I shall. pendent mind. If be will seer y out " m r w e l s h re', . o ,sosag Y • • tea have ,rest iltasure in r 13 i tlemanly manner,investiga ~ ~ caved him in toe most g ' e c ase se, and then said, " Give 03 all toe eircumsti.n.ses o. b:6 . ti . t, and tell him I will seer complie,ents to Mr. Scarf e) The same gentleman, ? eh(' your nomination." (Hear. during the greater part ot ' e Welsh, remained in the ream benchers, but at length e atn t discussion on his case by the ,_ ere o 1 that he would not stop tn s w as out in tears, and declared ii vey) ' e d , with which he (Mr. ar i n s witness the injustice deter,'' that I • mentary inquiry he now , tha . treated. A full parha . t no tic a noble lord o pposite w te to have ; and he ~ave th e which Pr other he would avail nimseii of every occasion . or , the civil list, „., that itself, of every motion respecting to tn . ' • 5 questions which would admit of his doing so, a _, he %At . , he had a right to have, as t n: ~,,biol i c. inquiry, for an inquiry determined to have it. All that he wanteidatNev‘l:rit 0 , , , i to his case to a committee of impartial and did ii ii : t 01 0 lie He wanted no gloss upon his aetio •n ris his youth, ait, t „ h i;'tli' t plead that what he had done w a a i s d l he pledged ' , i n n e on ,- became wiser as he grew i UP .c ' s atisfaction - of sue"' - • e till if he did not prove to the entn t ill-treated man, tl,'„ e ci .os l ' mittee that he had been a in all u' bad assi is l' e ° ger , of malice, jealousy, and other ' P' ' 0 ! ;,,, i ,be himself move a new writ for the borough of '-'" ‘ „t hoe; and leave that house for ever. (Hear, hear.) ,' A i t op7 v, mbers look at the effect which these unfoune.l.7 0 ,,e _ metn he tations had upon him. Every man took that felt o oe sure of his own capabilities. He, doing so, an y , _,. . had as much right to sit on the opposite bench a' sce se t, l 7, w h o was there at present ; and if this charge in,,, m oved from him , he was ready to s erve the King Tat c apacity which he might be thought fit to occupy not declaration, however, of nineteen men, that he hat s aid:' for the society of gentlemen, was such a stigma u . 1 to h °2:l Os • it remained upon him he neither could nor o ug ( ht . _ re• ced situation of trust, either in that house or els 'W II . . pia . 0 only asked what had been conceded to all otne s ti „. r . , in a similar situation. When a charge had tee n 4. 'l l l' brought against the hon. and learned membeu , w qt km ( 'est , that