The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-03-02 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COM3IONS,IIIorDAr, BIAIICII I.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at four o'clock.
TAX ON FOREIGN WOOL.
Sir J. ASTI.EY presented a petition from the woollen manu-
facturers of Wiltshire, against the repeal of the tax on foreign
wool.—laid on the table.
Sir J. ASTLEY prevented a petition from Mr. R. Gourley,
praying the Houle to take into consideration the condition of the
English peasantry.
The petition being read. seated that that Honourable House
had evinced a great disposition to legislate for the amelioration of
the negro slaves, but the petitioner represented that these slaves
were in a situation far preferable to many of the lower classes in
England, who were compelled to break stones on the road, which,
alter all, did not procure them more than a li.ac sustenance;
whereas the negro slave had an estate of his own, on which a day
was set apart for him to labour, and with the produce of that la-
bour he could support his family. The petitioner preyed the
House to take these circumstances Into its consideration, and to ex-
tend more of itesvmpathies to the sufferings of the English pea-
santry.—Laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.
SLAVE TRADE.
Sir W. ROWLEY presented a petition front the town of Ains-
worth in Suffolk, against the Slave Fratle.—laid ou the table.
Mr. LEGGE presented a petition from Banbury, against the
Slave Trade.—Ordered to be printed.
Mr. TR E3IA VNE presented a petition from the inhabitants of
the town of Lynn, against the Slave Trade.—Laid on the table.
Sir T. LETHBRIDGE presented a petition from the inha-
bitants of Wellington, in the County of Somersetshire, against the
Slave Trade.—Ordered to lie on the table.
COAL DL'TV.
Sir WM. ROWLEY presented a petition from the parish of
Bromley. against the duty on coals.— Laid on the table.
Mr. CII WLEY presented a petition from the town of Here-
ford, against the duty on cools.—Laid on the table.
Mr. FLE3I !NG presented a petition front the parish of Ems-
worth, against the duties on coals. —Laid on the table.
Mr. Alderman WOO!) presented a petition from the Inha-
bitants of the Ward of Bishopvgate, praying for an equal taxation
on coals.
RECOVERY OF SMALL DEBTS.
Sir 11'M. INGILBY presented a petition front the town of
Lincoln, praying the House to adopt the Bill for the more easy re-
covery of Small Debts—Laid on the table.
LICENCE Drf Y.
Sir W. I NG I I.ltY resented petitions from the innholders of
the towns of Lowth and Hotneastle, against the licence duty.--
Laid on the table.
Mr. F1.1:31 ING presented a petition front the liceneed victual-
lers of the town and county of Southampton, against the Licence
Ditties.—Laid on the table.
Mr. S YIiES presented a petition from Ball, against the Licence
Ditty.
Mr. STUART AVORTLEY preserted petitions from the
inhabitants of the city of York and town of Skipton, against the
Licence Duties.—Ordered to lie on the table.
110CSE TAX.
Sir W3l. GI'ISE presented a petition from the inhabitant
householders of the town of Cheltenham, praying foe a repeal of
the tax on Houses.—Ordered to be printed.
1111511 SHIPPING.
Mr. WII. WILLIAMS moved for a return of the number of
ships, and the amount of their tonnage engaged in the Irish trade,
between Jan. 5, 1817, and Jan. S, 182L—Onlered.
DUTY ON 1)00S.
Mr. CURW E X presented a petition from the owners of sheep
parks in Cumberland, against the duty on dogs.—Laid on the table.
FIRST FRUITS.
Sir J. NF.W PORT moved that there be laid before the Houle,
a return of the payments made by the Archbishops and Bishops of
Ireland, for First Fruits within the last ten years. The lion. hart.
moved for the same returns from the Archbishops and Bishops of
England, observing tloat they were necessary preliminaries of the
motion of which he had given notice.—Ordered.
3lr. WA RILE presented a petition from the inhabitants of Ma-
ry-la-bonne, against bear-baiting and other demoralising sports.—
Ordered to be laid on the table.
LEATHER TAX.
Lord ALTIIORP presented petitions from the inhabitants of
the towns of Perth and Stafford, against the heather Tax.
3lr. CAIAHAFT remarked, that he thought this a tax which
ought, of all others, to be repealed, and enforced its serious con-
sideration on the Chamber of the Exchequer.
Ordered to lie en the table.
DELAYS IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY.
Lord J. RUSSELL nresented a petition from the inhabitants of
the County of Devon, praying the House to inquire into the pee-
tice of the Court of Chancery. The Noble Lord stated that the
petitioners were creditors of a person of the name of Sleeman,
brewer, who was indebted to them to the amount of 20.001. but
who it was supposed was possessed of property sufficient to defray
these debts, and to leave a large surplus to his widow and live ehif.

Lord Chancellor—As it has been represented that the person
who sits here does mischief by hearing certain motions without the
signature of Counsel, that is to say, when motions have been made
to discharge an order of the Vice-Chancellor, or the Master of the
Rolls, that such motions have been btotipht on leithout the signa-
ture of Counsel, I have only to state, that having been in this
Court since the year Ina, whenever a motion has been made
before the Master of the Rolls, *lnch he has refused to allow; or
whir* he did aliew. ame upon an application to the Chancellor, to
ago lam Ow Woo el W Bails *a4 dole. mi ivy iilt
gether, and so again whenever a motion has been made tu
ate Vice-Chancellor, and Counsel have been of opinion Usti thei
motion had been improperly granted or discharged, the party hall
always in all these eases, ken at liberty to Move again, sith a
view to set the matter right, and if the signature of Counsel be ne-
cessary to alter the practice of the Court, as it has obtained since
the period I have mentioned, all I can say is, that I have not a
right to tax the King's subjects in that way. With respect to ap-
peals and rehearings, it is supposed that I have heard them on new
evidence, and thereby brought discredit on some part of the Court-
It is an utter falsehood ! On rehearing, it is always competent to
read the evidence given in the cause, though it was not read in the
Court below, either by the Counsel er the Judge ; further than
that the Court does not go. On appeals it Only reads what has
been read in the Court below ; and that mactice I hate never de-
parted from in any one instance; therefore, really, before things
are so represented, particularly by gentlemen with gowns on their
backs, they should at least take care to be accurate, for it was their
business to be so."

" 111 r. Agar.—Upon motions it would be impossible for Counsel
to certify.
'• The Lord Chancellor.—Such motions u I have referred
to hate been made for half a centur►, and never with the signature
oft ounsel; and yet the public are told that the signature or Ceun-
sel is net mazy by Act of Parliament, and that I have dispensed
with it."

Now he (Mr. Abercromhy) must state, that there was nothing at
that time before Lord Eldon that could have called fur these ani-
madversions; he travelled out of his Ir.), to make them, and
therefore such an attack must have been premeditated. There
were two things which he had no doubt would have been observed
by lion. 31embers who heard him; they wore—that no men-
tion was made in those remarks of either the House of Commons or
of himself; yet who could read them, and not know that they had
reference to the debate which had taken place on the motion of his
lion. Friend the Member for Lincoln ? He would beg of the
House to recollect who it was that had made these observations—
the Lord High Chancellor of England; and to recollect also that
he had made them from the seat of justice. lie could not sup-
pose that any person would rise and say it was not a subject in
which that House could interfere, and that there was no proof that
the remarks applied to that House or any of its Members. He
woold assume that that House was meant, and that he was the
person charged with having uttered Falsehoods ; and he felt that if
he submitted quietly to such an aspersion he could not too soon be
obliged to quit, not only that House, but his profession also, and
even the society of gentlemen. If it should appear that these ob-
servations were made on &statement that had never been made, and
that it was ftbricated, for the purpose of contradicting it, he
should like to know what would be the condititm of Mem-
bers of the professio of the law who nem Members of that House ?
He would next, with the permission of the House, proceed to the
statement which on a former night he had made. As there was no
Hoe. Member in that House who spoke with less premeditation
than he did, so he would not undertake to vouch for the accuracy
of the exact expression which he used in the debate of a former
' night; but he was confident that he could safely lay the truth and
substance of everything he then said fairly before the House. 'Fe
that part of his statement on which the Lord Chancellor of Eng-
land had thought proper to comment so severely. he now meant to
direct the attention of the House. It was that in which he stated,
that •• one mint important object of the Commissioners to inquire
into, was that which regarded the effects of the interference of the
Nord Chancellor with the practice of the Vice-Chancellor's Court."
The three points which forme] the subject of the discussion on the
former, were as related to the practice of the Court—in appeals, in
rehearings, in motions, and in orders of bankruptcy. The
practice of the Court front 1813 to 1819, was the standard of re-
ference to which he matte allusion at that time. Up to that time,
which was the time in which the Vice•Chaneellor's Court was
eetablished, the practice had been established on a ground for
which there were stmng reasons for alteration in the present con-
dition of the l'ourts of Equity. One principal object expected to
he derived from the institution of that Ntart, was to fulfil the pur-
pose of excluding and not including appeals. The signature of
Counsel in such instances was desirable; foe it amounted to a se-
curity to the Court against speculative and vexatious appeals. But
although this was the practice in cases of appeal, yet a different one
prevailed with regard to motions. In cases of motions hearn before
the Vict.Chancellor, and referred from hint to the lord Chan-
cellor, the suitors, after a discussion in the lower court, saw the
weakness of their can. which they supplied by new affidavits and
fresh evidence. Thus the Lord Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor
can:e frequently to a different decision on the none motion,
and collision of opinion between the two Judge' was what
he (Mr. Abe:enmity) thought highly derogatory from the respect
which was due to the inferior Court This was a practice which
certainly was a fitting one for the Commissioners to investigate,
and for this statement of his opinion that it was so, he was cen-
sured and reviled. What does the Lord Chancellor himself say
with regard to motions ? His own words were, " I have only to
state, that having been in this Count since 1778, whenever a nut-
tion has been made before the Vice-Chasitellot to vary what the
Jilaster of the Bolls had done, or to destroy it altogether ; and so
again, whenever* motion bas been mete before il• Vice-Chan-
cellor, anti Counsel have been of opinion that the mutton had been
improperly granted or discharged, the party has always in allthosc
eases been at liberty to move again, with a view to set the matter
right ; and if the signature of tounscl be necessary, to alter the
practiceof the Court as it has obtained since the period I hare
nicntioned, all I can say is, that I have not a right to tax
the King's subjects in this way." The Chancellor here says, that
on the renewal el motions Were hint, signatures of Counsel were

net affixed ; so he (31t. Alin-ninth)) said too; aid he celled ihe
attention to the omission of signatures in the cases of renewed nee-
!
Yam.. an contrasted whh the practice Mat prevailed with rtgatd to
appeals. Althoogrf each may hat• been the practice fonnerty, the
inetuutfon of the Vice.l.7hancellor's Court ass a pound tee ahem-
tion in the practice. ft should be borne in mhtt, that the Master
of the Rolle did not hear special motions—if he were not correct in
saying se, the Solicitor-General would correct hint. (The Solt-
citundieneral iniimated area( acmes thetable.l There was there.
bore no ground for likening the practice which prevailed before the
institution of the Tier-Chancellor's Court, to that which should
hare prerelled after ks establishment. as the Tice-Chancellor en.'
untainted special motions, and the Master of the Rolls did not.
—ln stating this matter tit a fernier night, he had rely said
that it was a fair abject of inquiry, and that the Commei.ionere
ought to direct their attention towards it. This NUM presented
• new state of facts and on new matter was the decneoe of th:
LugeChaacellor termed. It had been also ettribeted to hint that
he 'dad referred to " an Act of Parliament weigh dimmed that co
appeal should be heard on new evider.ce," and that be had ap-
plied it to motions ffrat heard before the Vice-Chancellor, and atter.
wards referred to the Lord Chancellor. He ( Mr. Abercromby ), on
the onntrary, had cern contrasted the propriety of the practice in
cases or appeal and in (VW, set down for further directions. with
the practice as regarded motions ; so that the lewd Chancellor not
only attributed expressions to him which he did not utter, bat even
reversed what he did say. (Hears) Signatures of counsel were tits-
primed with when the Master ante Roll. had bat very few motioni
before him, and when there was no Vice-Chancellor's Court.
Thereftne with the change of system there ought to be an improve.
meet also ; and some
tzlizion should be introduced *kith would
prevent persons Ikon • aloe out of the hands ef thelt'ice-Chan-
-tenor. because his decision did not plearo the disapgrelled suitor,
and bringing It before the higher Court. These were the opt-
niuns which he stated on a former night, he entertained them • the
expression of the was • duty that he owed the country, and for
this discharge of his duty was he reprotiented sa a degraded
character, and as a Krum kiln had abused hie seat in Parliament,
When and where did the Lord Chancellor speak thus of me ? Was
I pre.ent ? liefore whom did he say so? Before those who, if he
had not a teething but what he detived from professional pllftWitS,
would effect his euin. To whom did bespeak thus ? To reporters ;
who, before the Ink was dry with which they had taken down the
expression, sent forth to the publie this charge and imputation on
my character? And who was it he took an opportunity of thus
cilunedating ? An humble member of iii, own proftssioe, to
whoin his ()temente/4s win s likely to be pxuliarly prejudicial and
iniurieus. It he (Mr. Abercromby ) had been prevent, and heard
the exprentien of the Lord Chancellor he hoped that he wanedhare felt too sensitively to have remain:id altneether silent ; yet if
he attempted to speak in explanation, or in vindication of his coirouct
it would have been before one who had the power of preventing him
front doing so. If he pere‘sted, the Lord Chancellor might fur.
ther exerrom his power, and commit hint to the Fleet. Thu he
would have been left deteneelees ; and if this House would not
afford redress and protection to him, he was at a loss to know front
what twine he was to expect it. If there was a complaint that
due caution had not been °Nerved, front whom, he wool(' ask, was
most caution requisite? whether from him, in the statement he had
made, and the cerreetnee. of which he was prepared to substantiate,
or in the hoot. Chancellor, who had impeached its fidelity ? It he
was wanting in caution in any statement he !lad made, he stood
there in that House amongst hi cquitis, where. if he had advanced
any thing that was false or inaccurate, there were many about him,
his impeders in ability, who would be ready to confute and bring
him to shame. But how different was the situation of the Lone
Chancellor, who had 'sought, on the seat of jetelee., to Calumniate
and destro his fame betere the profession of which he was a mem-
ber, and that too in a place and at a time where the accused paity
had no right or opportunity of reply. And where could he find
satisfaction for the injustice rendered him, if denied it here? Was
he to appeal to the Court of t'lleticery, and expose himself to the
delays of weeks, rind even perhaps years, which delays were attri-
buted to an weal* infirmity, and anxious sensitiveness iri the
mind of the Nesbit Lehi who presided there. Wm he to wait for
the filing of bills end supplemental bills, and patiently wait the
termination of proceedings which would probably never have an
end ? From whom did he learn that he (11r. A.) made the state-
ment which induced the Lord Chancellor to impute a falsehood to
hint ? There were legitimate persons to whom he might have ape
pealed, and who he was sure ceuld have accurately informed hei.
of what he said, and who would not have entertained such a state-
ment as formed the subject of his censure. Had he applied to the
Honourable Member fur Tewkesbury or Exeter, he would not have
I been supplied with information that amid have warranted such a
charge, But supposing that he had made the statement, and that
wen it was (as it was note incorrect. abut right or authority had
any ledge to interfere with the rriciicigew of debate is that Mows ?
if such • right were tolerated or allowed, if ea* a top over
-thsiropinsons was exercised br_. Lard Clismilse or last Chief
Justice, what Member ref List Houiie, woo was of his profemion,
'.entild fearlessly discharge his duty to the public ? What protect/nit
.wea there fie a Barrier,. in that /louse, if a Judge were petrol:led
to be at liberty to animadverLacrording to his caprice, on the sen-
timents which, in tire discharge of his duty, he had expresehi gm
1 preceding eight in that House ? If the injestice arising from each
presumption were strong in his case- how tuucli stronger would It be
in the ewe of Barristers who practised in the particular Court of the
Judge who had indulged in such aniumeveraions ? And still more
wrong again would it be, if the subject, as in the present instance,
' narrowly affected his own feelings.. A young man of aspirin
hopes sod unblemished character tingtik be thus extinguished, and
his prospects in life for ever blasted, if such tvranny std (leap :ism
weve permitted to prevail. In what corsisted the privileges of that
House if such animadversion and inch calumny of one of its
Members, for the dtscharge. of his duty, were now permitted to
I pass unnoticed? And what must be the effect of his motion, as
regarded members of the bar in that House, but to intimidate
throe in the discharge of their duty, and, as regarded the bar
generally, to convert them from a useful body into a spirit..
lass class of men, Terrify to surrender their rights and lay
them prostrate at the feet of the herd Chancellor of England 1
If he made a thousand false statements. he would still contend
that it would not warrant or justify the manner in which the honl
Chancellor had commented on his statement. He had invaded
theprivilesies of debate. and the adoption or rejection of his mo-
tion would determine whether this Ilcuse was disposed to abandon
,or maintain those privileges. He had roc. detailed to the House
1 the manner and the place te which tea caltenninu. charge had been
made against hint ; he hail re-titateil what he had said on a for.
met night, to shew that it did rot justify the accusation ; and he
had brought it before the House, in d!.K diCIICe to the duty which he
telt he owed to his own character, to the privileges of that House
of which he teas a Member, and to the independence of the Bar.
(Hear, hear.) He would at present confine himself to a preliminary
motion which, it' acceded to, must be followed up by ulterior pro.
ceedings which would tend to prevent the recurrence of a similar
breach of the piirilegm of that House :es that of which he had that
night occasion to complain. He would, for the private conclude,
by moving that " Mr. Farquharson, of 133. Strand, be directed to
attend at the liar of this House to-morrow."

Mr. tA NN I Nlitudill, that he was rise to go as far as any of
the friends who surrounded the 1!,, mutable Gentleman, in admit-
ting that the expression of which he complained must have natu.
rally excited his indignation. Ile was also ready to admit the ta.
lent and moderation with which he satisfactorily vindicated him-
self from its applicability to hint. As far as his recollection of the
debate on a former evening served him, he thought it similar to
the statement which hr had made that evening to the House. As
he was an unlearned perion, be was rot able to follow the Hon.
Gentleman thronkrn the several legal distinctions he had drawn,
but what he snots! this evening 11:3,4 what he understood hint to
state on the night that the debate alluded to took place. The Hon.
Gentleman then did not, in his opinion, go mit of his way in his
address to the House ; but the tendencyr and effect of hit obser-
vations appeared to hint rot to impute individual blame, but to
censure a Nulty sys-stit. ( Hear, hear.) ernch was his general im-
pressive., and if his testimony was referred to, in reference to the
speech of the Hon. Gentleman, it would go to sustain the accuracy
of his statement, and to coitichle in the opinion that he did nut
indulge in any observatitms went beyond the fair license*
of discussion. Rut whilst be went so far, and whilst this
WWI his consciousness of what had fallen from the Honourable
Gentleman, and whilst the confidence oh the Honourable Geetls-
man himself was so strong as to the accuracy of his statement, yet,
i notwithstanding that consciousness and that confidence, he must
remind hint that there was one important link in the chain of the
transactions which he had dropped : it was the manner in which
the communication of his observations was made to the Lord
Chancellor ; tin lithe channel through which they were conveyed
was an incorrect report, the observetions of the Honourable M rut -
bee were made liable toe perverted meaning. Whilst he disclaim-
ed ability on his part to perceive the discriminative effect of the
ditterenci.x discussed, the merits of which those who were acquainted
with the practice of the Court could better understand, ha was
sure that nothing hail fallen from the 110n.31 ember calculated to give
offence. But in the report which was given to the lewd Chan-
cellor of his speech, a colour was given to it calculated to escire a
similar feeling of indignation in the mind of that Noble fated
which the Honourable Gentleman had that night expressed, and
for which he (Mr. ('arcing) had made not an ungenerous allow.
ate,. When an accusation was made against any individual whic:i
he believed to be unjust, it was natural for that indivi.lual, be lie
high or be he low. not to put up with it in quiet, but to art hientelf
right in the opinion of the world with regard to it. if an e:Tor Las
occurred in the present instninc.. through the report contalindeated
to the lame* ChancelLir, we wereourseives to Manic for it. It had
arisen from a fault, or rather a connivance. of our own. Did he
wish to cornet its No! feraltisough inconvenience might besot:, :-
times consequent upon it, be was enlivened of the great benetst
which the country derived from the premier which had b -ea pro-
ductive of the present misrepresentation. It should 10..•10.me re
hind, however, that in &bates is that House, which ratted to
character, the utmost accuracy was tequisket the arrest variation
of phrase, the smelled intentional error, might arrest
the whale
meaning and import of the speaker's sentiments,rrught hanow up
the feelings of the most honest man in the emintry, and impute
principles to hint which in his heart he disdained. (Hear, hear,
(near.) What, he would ask, was more important thr aJudge
than that it should be thought he administered justice with tree
hands Ind a pure conscience ? and who was it mote important
shrink! be convinced that he did so than those who freque-ned h.s
and or:r whose proceedings he daily presided! Whin an

1111
,
~.