The Sun. — London, England, 1821-05-10 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT, HOUSE OF LORDS, MAY 9. The Marquess of LANSDOWN pretested a Pe tition from the Merchants of London trading to the North of Europe, agair.!t any alteration being made in the Timber Duties. Ordered to be laid on the table. The Marquess of LANSDOWN moved that cer tain papers presented by the Committee on Fo reign Trade should be printed and added to the Report of the Committee by way of Appendix. Ordered.—His Lordship also gave notice that he would move for the second Reading of the Irish Prison Fees, and the Irish Law Courts Regula tion Bills to-morrow. • A Message was delivered from the Commons, acquainting their Lordships that the House of Commons had given leave to Sir H. Parnell to attend their Lordships' Committee on Foreign Trade, if he should think fit. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a Peti tion from the General Assembly of New Bruns wick against the Timber Duties Bill, and praying to be heard by Counsel against the same. Ordered to be laid on the table On the motion of the Marquess of LANSDOWN, accounts-of the quantities of Raw Silks imported into this Country, and of the Drawbacks on ma nufactured Silks exported, together with other accounts connected with the trade, were ordered to be laid before the House. The Poor Settlement Bill, and the Scotch He reditary Revenue Bill, passed through the Committees and were reported.—Adjourned till to-morrow. UOUSE OF COMMONS. Mr. LITTLETON brought up the Report of the Commit tee appointed to try the merits of the' Aldborough Election Pe tition. The Report declared the sitting Member, G. C. An frobus, Esq. duly .elected, and the Petition against his return, as well as the Opposition to it, not frivolous and Vexatious. Mr. CALCRAFT presented two Petitions against the Me tropolis Roads Bill—one from the ,Parish of St. Paul's, Dept ford, County of Kent, and the other from the Surveyors of Roads in the Neighbourhood of the Metropolis.—Ordered to lie on the Table. Mr. WELLS presented three Petitions of a similar nature, one from Bromley, and the others from the Parishes of Becken ham and Farnborough, county of Kent; and ten Petitions to tL.e same effect were presented by Sir E. KNATQHBULL, from Greenwich, Woolwich, Dartford, Chiselhurst, Eltham, Footscrav, West Wickham, and other places in the County of Kent—Ordered to lie on the Table. Mr. Alderman HEYGATE presented a Petition from the Borough of Sudbury, against ,the enactment of any .compul sory plan for Education, as tending to add to their parochial burthens, which were already 18s, or 19s. in the pound, and as wholly unnecessary to that town, in consequence of the benevo lence of individuals, which afford the means of instruction to the poorer classes of_the inhabitants.—Ordered to he on the Table. Mr. S. C. WHITBREAD presented a Petition from the Coachmasters of Hounslow, against the Metropolis Road Bill. —Ordered to lie on-the Table. Mr. R. MARTIN. resented a Petition from the Proprietors of Stage Coaches in and near the Metropolis, complaining that they sustained heavy losies by servants and others employed by them, who often ill-treated and disabled horses, and as there was no existing law to punish them, they often escaped with impunity. The persons being also incapable of answering for damages for the - destruction of their employers'• property, the Petitioners prayed that some measure might be adopted, to subject them to summary punishment before a special tribunal. After some words from Mr. R. MARTIN and Mr. Alderman 'BRYmiEs, in support of the object of the Petition, it was ordered to lie on the Table. • Mr. R. MARTIN gave notice, that on Friday next,' he would move for leave to bring in a Bill on the subject. .METROPOLITAN (MS LIGHT BILL. Mr. BY SIG moved for the re-appointment of the Committee on the _Metropolitan Gas Light Bill. Sir C. DOMV!LLE opposed the re-appointment at some length, but the low tone of voice in which he spoke, and the noise which prevailed in the House, prevented his statements from being heard in the Gallery. • Mr. GRENFELL observed, that as far as he could collect ICiat the Honourable Baronet said, he appeared to have taken his information on the authority of the parties who had been-de feated on this subject before ; but whether that was the fact or not he did not care, it could not change his opinion as to the necessity of appointing a second Company, which would give the public the benefit of competition, and felt it his duty to divide the House upon it. Sir J. YORKE was against disturbing the present system ; he thought that the appointment of other . Companies would do fnore harm than goad, as in the case of the Water Companies, who were allowed the privilege of ruining themselves, and then attempted to make the public indannify them. . Mx.' Alderman BRIDGES and Sir - I. COFFIN said a few words not audible. Mr. BYNG'explained ; and Mr.P.MOORE spoke in favour of the re-appointment. The House then divided, For the motion - - - 93 Against it Majority BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. On the motion of Mr. BENNET, the Order of the Day was,read for Mr. Weal,r to attend. The SPEAKER directed the Sergeant at Arms to inquire whether Mr. Weaver was in attendance ; and on being informed that he was, ordered, him to be called in. On Mr. Wi;aver7s appearance at the Bar, he underwent an examination to the following effect: By the . SPEAKER. Q. "What is your name ?—A. Robert Thomas Weaver. Are you the R. T.--Weaver whose name is placed at the end of that paper (a copy of the " .John Bull" Sunday paper, of Sunday last, was here put into Mr. Weaver's hand by the Clerk), as its printer and publisher ?—I am. - Look at the paragraph which • is Marked, and inform.the House whence, and from whom you received that paragraph ? —I beg to state to this Honourable House, that I am occupied on Saturday as the printer ancl...p.ublimlibr of the Paper; but that the. literary part.of it is not entirely under my superintendence. rerMy articles I do not see before the Paper goes to press. That was the case with the one in question. I never saw it until it was pointed out to me as having given offence to this Hon. Home. .I beg to add that I am extremely sorry that I have given offence - to this Hon. HouSe, or to any of its Hon. Members. Such was never my intention,• or that of any per son connected .with the Paper—(A laugh can only say, that Lam extremely sorry that anything has.appeared in the Paper offensive to•the House, and that am anxious to make . , every reparation in my power— ( Hear!). :By Mr. BENNET. - • Q. Who was the person who gave you the paragraph to Which your attention' has been called ?—A. That paragraph was not given to me. _ _ I , ; Do you know. to whom it . was - given ?—I am not aware; I did not see the paragraph until,it was in print. Who is charged' in your absence with the management of the press ?—The Editor. _ _ _ What is the name of the Editor ?---Mr. Cooper. • What is his Christian name F—l think it is Henry. • Is he the sole Edam; of the Paper ?—I cannot answer that ; all newspapers are in The habit of receiving .communications from other.parties ; it is so with this. I cannot say, therefore, that Mr. Cooper is the sold Editor. • Where 'does Mr: Cooper live?—Somewhere in the neigh bourhood of Blackfriars'-road, as I am informed. Is the House to understand that you do not know exactly where Mr. Cooper lives, but that he . rnerely lives somewhere in the •neighbourhood of. Blackfriars'-road ?—I do not exactly know the place of Mr. Cooper's residence, but 1 believe it is somewhere in Blackfriars'-road, or near`it. When does Mr. Cooper came to the office of the Paper.---He is generally there every day. . . - How long has he been the Editor.?-2—For some time past, I cannot exactly say how 'Ong. - If you wish to communicate with the Editor when he is ab sent froth the office, where do you send ?—I never have any oc asion to•communicate'with hirp, He attends regularly every • what hour ?—For. scveral hours ; generally from ten till --set seven or '.fight. Was he at the office when you came anO. When didYOu see him last ? At what time ?--About three o'clock. Did you communicate to him at that time . that yott were or dered to attend this House ?—I did not cOmmunicate it to him because he was engaged with a gehtleman I but of course he canftot be ignorant of it. .. Are you the printer, pubiisher, and sole proprietor of this newspaper ?—I am. IlOw'long have you been the printer, publisher, and sole pro prietor ?—I cannot exactly state the time. How long have you been the printer, publisher, and sole pro prietor ?--I do not exactly recollect ; a considerable time ; since Christmas. Were you the printer, publishei, and sole proprietor' the paper from the beginning ?—.l was printer and publisher from the beginning. Who was the proprietor at the beginning ?—I think Messrs. Shackell and Arrowsmith. I think their names were at the Stamp Office. Did youpurchase the paper ; and if you did, of whom ?-1 purchased it of Messrs. Shackell and Arrowsmith. Is not the house in which the paper is printed, that in which Mr. .Art6vtsmith lives ?.--Yes, for the purpose of carrying on his buSinesS. In fact, are you not a journeyman of Mr. Arrowsmith's, re ceiving a Salary of three guineas a week ?—I have an engage ment with Mr. Arrowsmith ; but as to the three guineas a week, I am concerned in other parts of his business. Is the House to understand that you are not the sole pro prietor, but that you share the paper with-Mr. ArroWsmith ? I have other arrangements with him, but not as to the paper. Then you persist that you are the sole proprietor of the pa per, and that Mr. Arrowsmith has no connexion with it ?—As to that, some arrangements have been making for my purchase of the paper, blit as they are not entirely concluded yet, I can not be said to be wholly the proprietor. Did you not swear at the Stamp Office, on the 10th and the 24th of February, that you were the Printer, Publisher, and sole Proprietor of the Paper called JOHN Bum. ?—Yes. What price 'did - you agree to pay Mr. Arrowsmith for his giving up into your hands his share of the profits of the Paper ? —As to that, there have been a number of transactions between us, and it has not been finally determined. How, under those circumstances, when the price was not settled, could you swear that you were the sole proprietor of the paper?—Because I conceived that I became the sole proprietor by his agreeing to give up the profits to me, although the price was riot finally settled. Was that agreement in writing ; and if so, where is it ?—lt was not in writing. Was there no memorandum of it. Of what, nature was it ? Was it merely verbal ?—lt was verbal. What was the nature of it ?—The nature of it was, that I was to become the sole proprietor on illy giving a certain sum of money, which sum of money has not yet been fixed on (A laugh.) Had any prosecution been commenced against the Newspaper when the arrangement between you and Mr. Arrowsmith was so arranged ?—Yes, one. _ 1 Who receives the profits of the paper now ?—I do. Do you keep them yourself, or do you account to any one for them ?—I have accounted in various ways as to the proceeds of the paper. Is the House to understand that you account to Mr. Arrow smith for the proceeds of the paper ?—No. To whom do you account for them ?—Since I became pro prietor I . have not accounted at all ; but as I have already stated, the purchase money has not been exactly settled. Do you receive the whole profits of the paper-and keep them ?—The proceeds go to discharge the various accounts of the paper ; some of them have 'not yet been received. But such surplus proceeds as have been received, you keep ? —Yes. Was there any witness to the verbal agreement between you and Mr. Arrowsmith ?—No. What do you pay the Editor ?—(The answer was inaudible in the Gallery.) Do you keep the manuscripts which are sent you for inser tion ?—I do not. I suppose the Editor does. Do you know - that they are in the possession of the Editor, from your knowledge of his practice to keep them ?—lt is im possible for me to say so to a certainty. I understand that it is his practice. By Cllr. 31. A. TAYLOR. In whose name is the house hired which serves as the office of the Paper ?—The principal office is that of Messrs. Shackell and Arrowsmith, but since the commencement of the Paper an adjoining house has been taken on lease'by Mr. Arrowsmith. To whom was the lease given of the house where the Paper was first published—not the adjacent, but the in house? Who rents it ?—Messrs. Shackell and Arrowsnith. Who is the landlord ?—I cannot exactly say. I believe a widow lady.—(A laugh.) Then the House is to understand that the original house where the Paper was set up N the house of Messrs. Shaekell and Arrowsnuth ?—lt was their's originally, as a printing_ office. Who took the house ?—ln whose name does the house stand? Who pays the rent ?—Mr. Shackell himself. Have you any banker ?—.I am sorry to say I am not so rich as fa require one.—(A laugh.) By Mr. BENNET. You have stated that you receive the profits to account here after to Mr. Arrowsmith, what is the nature of the agreement into which you entered on that subject ?—There was an agree ment ; but the precise terms, and the time of accounting were not mentioned. Was any sum mentioned which you were to give for the purchase of the Paper ?—No precise sum ; for time was to be allowed to see what the profits would be. Is the House to understand that you were to account to Mr. Arrowsniith for the proceeds, and that no sum was mentioned for the purchase ?—(The answer was inaudible in the Gallery.) By a MEMBER. Was the sum you were to pay to Mr. Arrowsmith to depend on the extent of the sale of the Paper?—That was not named, but I presume it was meant. By Mr. BENNET. Did you not swear on the 10th of February, that the printing of the Paper was carried on at your residence at No. 9, Dyer's buildings, Holborn ?—I believe I did. Was - the paper ever printed there at all ? Was it not always printed at Mr. Arrowsmith's, in Johnson's-court ?—lt is no un usual thing for a Printer to put down his address, although he carries on the printing elsewhere. The paper was composed by me, but the forms were carried elsewhere to be printed by steam. It was composed but not printed at the office. The re sidence of the printer is the principal thing to put down. Were you at the office on the day 'on which the Paper was printed in which the paragraph in question appeared was in the office on that day. - Did you see the paragraph in question ?—I did not see it. It is not unusual for copy to be given into the hands of the compo sitors after I leave the.office. Is the compositor in the habit of printing any thing without consulting his superiors ?—Occasionally. Do you mean to say, that you do not know who brought the manuscript in question, or who received it ?—I do mean to state so. What is the name of the compositor ?—There are five or six compositors. __ Vo the• all print what they like without consulting their superiors P—Certainly not. But some small paragraphs are oc casionally brought to be composed after the Editor and I have left the_offic.e... By Mr. WYNNE. Did kou ever inquire of any of the compositors from whom he r.f.:ceived the paragraph in question ?—I did not. Do you know from any coMpositor by whom he was directed to insert the paragraph do not. Do you mean to say that you never made inquiry how this paragraph came to the paper, or on whose authority ?—I do. I beg leave to say, that the Printer of a Newspaper relies with im plicit confidence on the Editor. lam not, capable myself of superintending the whole of a paper; and I depend on the Editor. I can only say this to this Honourable House. I can have no doubt that the paragraph is a falsehood; but I beg to add, that if I knew the man capable of writing and sending me a direct falsehood, no power on earth should induce me to con ceal higname. Did you never inquire how this paragraph came into the pa per and on what authority ?—I did not. By Mr. SCARLETT. Was any money received for the printing of that paragraph ? —As far as lam concerned, - I can say not. Do you mean to say that you believe no money was paid ? I believe none was paid. ' . Do you mean: to say..that you do not know the name of the compositor who introduced the paragraph in question ?—lt is impossible for me to say Which compositor it was. The queStion is not what is possible or impossible; but whe ther.you mean to say that you. do not know the compositor ? I cannot say who it was. What are - the names of the compositors ?—(The witness re peated four names, but - we were unable accurately to collect theim) _ YoU have repeated hut four names. Who is the fifth com positor ?--I believe there is some mistake. I meant that there were five. or six compositors ' including extra hands. Who pays the extra hands ?—I do. Were any extra hands employed in the publication of the last paper ?—I believe there were. The employment of extra hands depends on thelzeis of matter. • The time at which the paper went to press is not so far dis tant, as to prevent you from recollecting the. names of the extra hands you paid ?—Someti m e s we employ one, sometimes ano ther; I, do, not recollect.. : Was the Editor in the Office whin the last paper went to press ?.-4 think he was. . , By Lord NUGENT. You have spoken•of an agreement between Mr. Arrowsmith and yourself. Do you recollect at what time and where that agreement Was conch:ll:led ?—About seven weeks ago at the office. I cannot exactly Say. Was it as long ago as seven weeks ?—I am not quite sure. Was it.not nearer One month ago than two months ?—lt was nearer two months, ago than One month. Where was the agreement matle.?—At the office. ~ At Mr. Arrowsmith's office ?—Yes. WhO appointed Mr. Cooper the Ediidl-Vf the paper ?..41e was appointed previously to my going to the paper. That is not an answer. Who appointed Mr. Cooper the Edi tor of the paper ?—I do not know. I believe Mr. Bhackell. • Who pays Mr. Cooper as the.-Editor—There being other money transactions, somainies I pay him, sometimes Mr. Ar rowsnuth. Is the Editor paid more frequently by Mr. Arrowsmith, or by yourself ?-111ore frequently by Mr. Arrowsmith. Did you ever pay him ?—Yes. How often has Mr. Cooper received his payment as Editor from you ?—I cannot exactly say. Once Or twice. - By whom are the tegUlar current expellees and 'outgoings of the paper paid ?—The Stamp Office accounts are paid by me. Who pays the other expences ?—There are several outstand ing accounts which are at this time not settled. The Stamp Office accounts are paid by me. That is not an answer. By whom are the other outgoings of the paper paid ?—Mostly by Mr. Arrowsmith, some by me. Who pays the wages of the workmen ?—The establishment are mostly paid by Mr. Arrowsmith. By Sir 11, WILSON. Do you keep any clerk do not. By Mr. M. A. TAYLOR. Who examines the proof sheet of the Paper 2.-- , Sernetirnes. I myself, sometimes the reader. What is the name of the reader ?...:-Ducicmore. Do you keep any regular books, in which are entered the price paid for the insertion of paragraphs and advertisements, and the weekly sale of the Paper ?—Yes, there are some books. Who receives the money for the insertion of paragraphs and advertisements, and for the weekly sale of the Paper? Princi pally into the hands of Mr. Arrowsmith. Then the House is to understand that Mr. Arrowsmith re ceives the weekly proceeds of the Paper ?—ile does principally. Do you not kno'w that Mr. Arrowsmith actually receives those proceeds, and if not, who does ?—I never said Mr. Arrow smith received all the proceeds. You say that there are books kept of the money received for the insertion of paragraphs and advertiSements ; who makes the entries, and to whom is the money paid ?.Sometimes I, some times Mr. Arrowsmith. By Lord NUGENT. Is there any person in the office authorised to give insertion to such paragraphs as may arrive after you and the editor have left it ?—There is no person so authorised, but it is done some times when we are out of the way. Is that suffered to be done at the discretion of any of the com positors ?—Occasionally. Are there any private marks by which the compositors are instructed to give insertion to any paragraphs which may arrive after you and the Edit or h ave l e ft the office ?—Not to my know ledge. Did you ever before belong to the office of a daily or weekly journal ?—To The Traveller and some other papers occa sionally. For what paper were you employed immediately before you went to the office of John Bull ?—I was engaged on The Ira yeller. By Dr. PHILLIMORE. Did the extra hands - whom you have mentioned ever insert a paragraph without your permission or that of the Editor —lt is possible they may have done so. Do you mean to say that it ever came to your knowledge that they had done so ?--I cannot exactly say. Would you not have dismissed any of those compositors whom you had found so acting ?—lt is probable I should. Ilave•you reason to believe that it has ever been done ?—So far, that in reading the Paper afterwards, I have sometimes found paragraphs which I h a d never seen before. Did you make any inquiry into such circumstances ?—I left it to the Editor. Do you mean to say that such paragraphs were ever inserted without the knOwledge of the Editor ?—I cannot say. By• Mr. SCARLETT. You have said that Mr. Cooper is the Editor of the Paper-- do you mean to say that he is the exclusive Editor, or that he divides the duty with you ?—I take no part as Editor of the Paper. Is Mr. Cooper then the sole Editor of the Paper ?—As far as I know, unless he employs assistants. Do you pay Mr. Cooper his salary ?—Once or twice I have paid hun. Mr. Arrowsinith pays him generally. And you do not know where Mr. Cooper lives ?--le never told me, positively. That is an ambiguous reply. Do you not know where he lives ?—I asked him one night how far he had to go home. He said, to the neighbourhood of Blackfriars-road. Answer the question. Do you mean to say that you do not know where Mr. Cooper lives ?—Yes. By Mr. BERNAL. Is the Gentleman who was with Mr. Cooper to-day, and who prevented your communicating to Mr. Cooper that you were ordered to attend this House, connected with the paper ?—No. A number of persons call on the Editor who are not connected with the paper. Do you know the name of that Gentleman ?. By a MEMBER. Is it part of the reader's duty to examine the proof sheet ; and if so, did he not read the paragraph in question ?—The readin boy reads the manuscript, and the reader examines the proof. '—No. By Mr. W. SMITH. By whom is the manuscript put into the hands of the reading boy ?--By the compositor. And by whom is it giiren to the compositor ?—Generally by the Editor. If not given by the Editor,by whom is it given ?-_Generally by iinyself. If not given either by the Editor or by you, by whom is it given ?—As I before observed ? I cannot say after I leave the office from whom any communications are received. I ask you whether, to the best of your knowledge, any one of the four compositors whose names you have mentioned, or any of the other occasional compositors, would dare to print any pa ragraph except of . the commonest nature, unless he received it either from the Editor or from yourself ?—I do not think he would. Do you believe that the paragraph comlilained of was printer by any. one of those compositors on his own authority ?---] should think not. By Lord NUGENT. Do you Mean to say that you never communicated with the EditOr by- letter or note my communications with the Editor have been verbal. Mr. BENNET' then moved that Mr. Weaver should be ordered to withdraw, with an intima tion that he_ must not depart from the House. The SPEAKER accordingly ordered Mr. Weaver to withdraw., Mr. BENNET rose, but from the very great con fusion which prevailed is - the body Of the House, the Honourable Member was totally inaudible, and was once or twice obliged to sit down. Ile at length observed, that though the evidence given by the person who had just left the Bar afforded very little encouragement to proceed in this inquiry, yet he was determined to have Mr. Arrowsmith, of Johnson's-court, Fleet-street, Mr. Duckmore, of 2, Gough-square, Printer, and Mr. Henry Cooper, called to the Bar forth with. After a few words across the Table, it was put by the SPEAKER, and carried .unanimously, that .Mr. Arrowsmith, Mr. Shackell, and Mr. Cooper, do attend at the Bar forthwith. PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONERS OF IN QUIRY INTO ENGLISH COURTS OF JUSTICE. Sir J. NrwponT rose to bring forward his mo- tion upon this subject, but from the confusion caused by Members standing up, and quitting the House at the conclusion of the last question, lie was for a considerable time inaudible in the Gallery. The Right Honourable Member pro ceeded to explain the circumstances which in duced him to bring this question before the House', and pointed out in strong terms the very great delay which had taken place since the ap pointment of the Commissioners, which was in 1815. Those Commissioners, five in number (two of whom were Masters in Chancery) had since their appointment received a salary of 12001. a year each, making in all a sum of 30,0001. ex • c.usive-of allowailces to Secretaries and other in cidental expellees. There was also an additional sem due this year of 60001. making in all abotit 40,0001. The Commissioners had daring that time made but four Reports, two on the Court of Chancery, and two on the Courts of King's Beach and Common Pleas. With respect to tie Reports- on . the Court of Chancery,- the. Lord Chancellor, after approving some of the reeom mendalrolls;kwas.of opinion (miler lapse 0 - MN& years from the period of the Report being made); that it ought to undergo the most grave and seri , ous inquiry. As to the Reports of the Courts of King's Bench and Common Pleas, the Chief Jus tices of those Courts had written to the Secre tary of State for . the Horne Department ; inform ing him that those Reports had never beenssub mitted to their consideration, or officially made known to them. The excuse made by the Com missioners was, that they experienced great delay and obstruction in the different offices to which their inquiries led them. This, be contended, was no excuse, for the Commissioners had and ought to have exercised the power of obliging the parties to produce the necessary documents. The Honourable Baronet ; after some further observa tions, said, it was his intention to move a set of Resolutions in substance as follows :—. 4 ‘ That it appeared from the returns laid before the House, that five Commissioners had been ap pointed on the 9th of Feb. 1815 (in consequence of an Address presented in July, 1814), to in quire into English Courts of Justice, Tl:at those Commissioners, two of whom were Masters in Chancery, had received a compensation of 12001. a year each from the period of their appoint ment, amounting in all to. 30,0001. exclusive of allowances to Secretaries and other incidental expences—that, in addition to this, there was'a further charge of 6 ; 000/. due this year, making altogether a charge to the public of upwards Of 40,0001." The Honourable Baronet went on to state the nature of the other Resolutions, namely, that the Commissioners had made four Reports (specifying their dates), and that the Lord Chancellor; after approving of certain recommen dations relative to the Court of Chancery, had (five years after the Report was made,) declared that Report required further consideration—that the Chief Justices of the Court of King's Bench awl Common Pleas had written to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, stating ; that the Reports upon their respective Courts had not been submitted to,or made officially known to them, though the said Reports were delivered by the Commissioners on the sth Jan. 1818, and the 3d July, 1819, into the office of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. • That this House viewed with extreme regret the slow progress of the Commissioners, in an inquiry attended with such a heavy expence to the public, which delay arose in consequence of obstructions thrown in their way by certain public officers, whose de partments they found it necessary to examine; and that, above all, the House regretted and con sidered as highly censurable, the manner in which the Reports upon the Court of King's Bench and Common Pleas had been withheld from the consideration of the Chlef Justices of those Courts. On the first Resolution being put, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, he objected to the Resolutions of the Right Hon. Baronet, because they went to convey a censure, first upon the Commissioners, and then upon the Lord Chan cellor, which was wholly uncalled for, and unde served. He contended that no persons could have been more properly selected for the purposes of the inquiry than those Commissioners. With re Bard to the charge of their having made a slow progress in the investigation, it would be found upon a fair comparison of their labours with those of the Irish, Commissioners, that they hacl be stowed the greatest diligence and attentio❑ of the two.—(Year!)—lt was true that they had only made four Reports, while the Irish Reports amounted to eight in number. But those Reports applied to the three principal Courts of Law, namely, the King's Bench, the Common Please . and the Court of Chancery. If the eight Reports from the Irish Commissioners were exa mined, they would be found to contain less than four hundred pages, and if compared to the four, they would not bear signs of the same degree of industry. The returns before the House proved that the Lord Chancellor had done all in his power to act. upon the recommendations of the Report, as they regarded the fees in his Court. The Right Hon.- Baronet ought to know that many of these fees were possessed in right of freehold, and by purchase. And was it to be expected that suits should have been immediately instituted to try the right of individuals to con tinue the receipt of fees which they had so held and purchased ? To all the officers over whom the Lord Chancellor exercised any control, or ders had been given to receive nothing in future, excepting the fees recommended by the Commis- siouers. - Therefore, he (the Attorney-General) complained that a most groundless charge had been made against that Hon. and Learned Per- sonag.e. "With respect to what had been said of the Secretary of State, it was no'part of his duty to attend to the reports connected with the King's Bench, or_any other Court; they were all properly returnable to the Petty Bag Office. It was unfair to assume that the labours of the Com- missioners had not been extensive, from the fact that they had not reported many abuses as exist ing in the English Courts of Justice. He took that fact to be highly creditable to the English Courts, because it proved that no such abuses existed. He felt it his duty to move the pre viou3 question to the Hon. Baronet's proposition, because no case had been made Out to support it,—because he conceived the Commissioners to have been unremitting in their attention to the subject, and because he thought the Lord Chan cellor, and the other parties connected with the charge, had been most harshly and unfairly dealt Mr. AmEncnomm E said the gravalne2i of the charge made by the Right Hon. Bart. was, that the reports had not been communicated to the Learned Judges for two years after they had been made. lie did not know that "it was the duty of the 7Secretary of, State to forward such reports ; but he did think that it was a heavy charge against the government, that reports, which had cost the country large sums of money, should not be distributed in those quarters where they were likely to prove most beneficial. In the unsure which hid Hon. Friend had bestowed Upon the government s he full x concurred. It ap peared here that the Lord Ct icelloc Of he were permitted to speak of isti4u.isad a person age) lid dosidviilin If justice in-this case, 'for he appeared' have acted in a great manner upon the suggestion of the Commissioners. By the return he made, it appeared that many things had been done of the description required, but that many remained still to be done, and yet this was stated after a delay of five years had already occurred. A return so framed was surely incom plete and dissatisfactory. Mr. B. BATHURST said that he agreed in the view which the last Hon. Member had taken of the question, namely, that the Government was collectively responsible for any charge such as that which the. Right lion. Baronet had been pleased to make. But he contended that the charge had no argument whatever to stand upon, whether it was applied to one party or another. The Hon. Member defended the conduct of Go vernment, and said that the language of the Rt. Hon. Baronet, as well as the resolutions, was unfair, and not grounded upon facts. With re- , Bard to the expence w hi c h was com pl a i ne d o f, the Right lion. Baronet must take it to himself, because he was reminded of what its extent was likely to be, when he first asked for the appoint ment of the Commission, and warned against in curring it, unless it was called for by strong ne cessity. Mr. BARING said, when the - House addressed. his Majesty, and that his Majesty graciously listened to the prayer of such an Address 4 it was the duty of the Government to attend to the Commission in all its stages. Gross neglect was made out : the Government might shift the blame on this person, or on that person—on the Lord Chancellor or the Petty Bag Office ; but let the blame rest where it might, gross neglect was proved. • He almost regretted the institution of this Commission, because he did not hope there ever would be a reform of the abuses - of Courts of Justice, when made by persons appointed .as if to defeat the . object for which they were ap pointed, Law expences in this country almost amounted to a denial of justice, and loudly call ed for regulation. When 40,0001. was already uselessly expended, he was satisfied the House should take care no greater sum would he' still squandered to no purpose. It was said these of ficers had freeholds in their offices ; he thoiight there should be no such offices as freehold of fices—that there should be no offices beyond the controul of Parliament. This very acknowledg ment demanded remedy and revisal.. Mr. Serjeaut Osstow defended the conduct of the Commissioners, and stated his conviction that the charge had, been fully answered by the speech of his Hom'and Learned Friend ; the At torney-General. Mr. WARRE was quite ready to admit the pri vate worth of the Commissioners, but their.o:mn petency as public officers might still be question ed, without derogating from their merit. He was convinced of the truth of every. word • which fell from his Learned Friend (Mr. Abercromby) and should certainly vote for the Resolutions. Sir J. NEWPORT replied, and all the Resolu tions except the last were negatived without di visions. Upon that which conveyed the censure, the Right Hon. Baronet expressed his intention to take the sense of the House. The House accordingly divided— For the Resolution Against it 55, -16 Majority - - PETITION FROM CARLISLE. When we entered the Gallery, We found Mr. JAMES speaking on a Petition which he bad to present from the City of Carlisle, for Economy: and Reform. He observed that every attempt to correct abuses had been met in that House by a negative, so that instead of being guardians of the public purse and liberties, the House had come to be considered only as assistants to the Ministers in laying burthens on the people. Till the reform in Parliament took place, which the people he had no doubt would ultimately obtain, he was afraid little could done. However, it was their duty to use their utmost endeavours to keep down the public expenditure. He was convinced that if the Ministers did not yield to retrenchment and reform, the Government would be changed by violence. It was said, the friends of reform did not agree on any precise plan—but it was equally true, that all persons who were not interested in corruption, agreed that some reform was necessary. He moved that the Peti tion be brought up. Mr. CUILWEN said -that he could answ-er-t-trat the Petition was very numerously and respectably signed ; and he could state, that among those whom he represented, except those who were under direct influence, the almost unanimous opi nion was that Reform was absolutely necessary to save the country.—The Petition was read and ordered to he printed. PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. Lord J._ RuisELL rose . and said, that although circumstances which had lately occurred, and the state of the Muse, were very discouraging to any one who brought forward any proposition for. Reform, yet he could say that' he should move the Resolutions with which he should conclude with considerable confidence. It was necessary to say, that the business of Government had be- come much more difficult than it had been; that Government depended on opinion ; that the eye - S of the pe6ple were .fixed upon the house ; that all their acts were viewed as through a micro scope ; and that the ditrereice of even 1,000/., more or less, in the . expenditure of the public money, was very minutely scrutinized. Instead of that superstitious reverence with which they were formerly regarded, there was a disposition to deny them even the acknowledgment of the aptitude which habit gave them in conducting the public affairs. But of all questions which were brought before them, those which attracted the most attention were questions affecting the Representation of the People, as their decisions on those questions were taken as the tests of the ;egrity of the House. He should, in bringing r 4