The Sun.
London, England, 1830-06-18 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COAINIONS-(LAST NIGHT.)

Sir R. INGLIS presented a petition from twenty-
two Clergymen of the Deanery of Rochester, against
Protestant soldiers being required to pay respect to
Catholic ceremonies.

Sir G. MURRAY deprecated the introduction of
such questions, as it tended to raise invidious dis-
tinctions in the army, where persons of all religions
were engaged.
ROYAL COMMISSION.

While the Right Hon. Baronet was addressing the
House, the Deputy Usher of the Black Rod sum-
moned the House to the Lords' House, to hear the
Royal Assent given to several Bills.
The Speaker and several of the Members attended
accordingly.
On their return, the SPEAKER informed the
House that he had heard the Royal Assent given to
several Bills. For the titles of which see our Lords'
report.

Mr. TRANT (in reference to the petition before
the House) said, that many Officers most loudly
complained of the ceremonies required of them. Let
the Right Hon. Secretary say what he might, it
could not be concealed that there was great discon-
tent in the army on this subject. He hoped that
some motion would be brought forward on this subject.
Sir R. WILSON did not admire this particular
tenderness of conscience, for it evinced a mistaken
feeling that did not require any very serious attention.
Sir H. VIVIAN said it was true, that the Bri-
tish soldier was required to pay respect to the reli-
gion of that country in which they were stationed,
but he had never heard that complained of as painful
to their feelings or their conscience.
After a few words from Sir R. INGus,

Sir G. MURRAY said that there was nothing
like compulsion put, on the consciences of British
soldiers or officers.

Mr. TRANT would pledge himself to bring for-
ward a motion, the effect of which would be to show
that this matter was compulsory.
Mr. lIUME said if an officer could not reconcile
to his conscience the performance of military duties,
he ought not to enter into the army, for in so doing
he knew that was required of him; and than was
no new point arising to try his conscience.
Sir G. ROSE said that measures of compulsion
were used some years ago, and that Government
sent orders to discontinue them. _ _

Colonel WILSON said that soldiers were bound
to yield to orders such as these.
The petition was then ordered to be printed.
LOCAL JURISDICTION.

Mr. BROUGHAM brought in a Bill for the

establishment of Local Jurisdictions. At present he
only proposed to extend the measure to Kent, and
Durham, and Northumberland ; but the whole
irrangements and details of the Bill were such,
'hat they could be extended to all the counties of
England and Wales, by merely adding one clause to
'he Bill. The great object of the Bill was to
afford the cuiter an opportunity of procuring
cheap justice; wad with this view he proposed to
give these local Courts six branches, three of which
were to be arbitrary and three optional with the
parties. The first of these branches was to include all
actions to the aftionnt of 100!., and all torts to the
amount of 50?. Alterations were likewise made
with respect to the pleaclheg, it did not get rid of
speciel pleading altogether, butt limited it to very
particular teases; and one great object was, that the
pleadings should be fully set forth in the bills, for
which purpose a :discretionary power wag given to
the Court, by which it would lee able to keep them
.o the truth of the pleas set forth, so that, instead
of their being loaded with prolixity, repetition, and
falsehoods they would be simple and correct state-
ments of the facts alleged on both sides. There
was, likewise, tt p'rdvieion, which, with the consent
of the parties, would enable the Judge to dispense
with a Jury ; but if he atf&tequeruly found that it
was a case for a Jury, he ifoold have power to
call in its aid; there were likesieise provisions
for appeal to the Judge of Assize, or to
Westminster Hall, points in the one instance
being to be eased for the Judge of Assize, arid
cases in the other to be drawn up for the opi-
nion of the Judges at Westminster Hall. The second
branch of the Bill had reference to the summary
debt jurisdiction, which was on the same plan (only
much improved) as the present Small Debt Courts.
In this case the sum was not to exceed al. The
third branch referred to legacies; and here he ex-
pected some opposition, though he trusted that
Honourable and Learned Oentlemen would be so
good as fairly to consider the subject before
they condemned his propos.d. The provisions of
the Bill on this subject only hall reference to
cases in which it was admitted that there
were free assets in the hands of an executor; and it
was to remedy these instances which occurred
where it was not denied that there was property,
but the man said, " you may go to your purpose,"
which in other words meant "you may file a bill in
Chancery." The provisions of this Bill were to
give power to the Court six months after the office
of execution had been assumed, or after twelve
months had been afforded for the distribution of the
property; at the same time the defendant was to
have power to declare that he was not executor, or
that there were no free funds unadministered, or
that he apprehended that the claims against those
funds would exhaust them, the money being paid
into Court, so that he found no longer any interest
to keep the legatee out of possession. The prin-
cipal feature of the optional branches of the mea-
sure to which he would advert, was the proposi-
tion to establish Courts of Reconcilement. lie
meant to allow adverse parties to go before a
Judge voluntarily to settle their disputes. If they
could accomplish that, process should issue for the
payment of the money in dispute ; if they could
not, the result of the proceedings might form part
of the second. He had received, since he last ad-
dressed the House, a good deal of encouragement to
propose the establishment of the Courts of Recon-
cilement. When he moved for leave to bring in the
Bill, he had stated that doubts existed among the
French lawyers as to the utility of these Courts; but
none existed among the Flemish and Dutch lawyers.
Since then he had received a most valuable statement
from a Member of that House, relative to the
Danish and Hamburg Courts of this description.—
Of 5,000 cases brought before the Courts of Re-
concilement in these countries, two-thirds or three-
fourths were settled, and got one shilling expended,
and none of the parties had ever darkened the
doors of a Court of Justice or Equity. Thousands of
cases were settled by these Courts, which before
were carried to the ordinary tribunals, in which the
number of cases fell from ten thousand some hun-
dred to three thousand some hundred. These were
the principal points of the Bill, which he hoped
might be allowed to go through the other stage, and
into a Committee, pro fornta, as it was only in a
Committee that such a Bill, the value of which de-
pended on its details, could be well understood.—
He should also take the liberty to lay before the
House an abstract of the whole Bill, in order that
those gentlemen who were not lawyers, and might
not be aware of the technical bearings of each pro-
vision, might easily make themselves masters of the
details, and he would venture to say that when the
measure was taken into consideration, it would be
found deserving the approbation of the House.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL said, that he did not
intend to oppose the application of the Bill to the
county which he had the honour to represent, but
wished to be understood as not pledging himself to
support it in its future stages by passively consent-

ing to it now.
Mr. BROUGHAM replied, that no one would
be understood to commit himself in any degree by
not opposing the Bill in its present stage. It was
his wish that it might be thoroughly known to every
Member in the House before he should be substan-
tively called upon to vote.
In answer to a question from the SOLICITOR-.

GENERAL,
Mr. BROUGHAM also stated that it was very
likely he might be induced to postpone it ultimately
until after the long ♦acation.
Mr. MOORE presented a petition from the
parish of St. Miehan, Dublin, praying that the
Deserted Children Bill (Ireland) might be revised.
—Ordered to be printed.
Lord TULLAMORE moved for several returns
relative to the inland navigation of Ireland, which
were ordered.
Sir R. PEEL reminded the House of the arrange-
ment made for going into public business at half-past
five o'clock, and observed, that he hoped it would
be adhered to in future, however it might be in-
fringed upon to-day.
Mr. BRIGHT objected to such its understand-
ing, as the time which would be thus allotted to the
presentation of petitiOns was too short to admit of
doing justice to their constituents. He had himself
been intrusted with several petitions relative to the
West Indian interest, which would require a longer
time than the Right Hon. Secretary proposed.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from the over-
lookers and operative-spinners of Manchester, pray-
ing for the enactment of a law to secure to workmen
the full amount of their wages in money. The Hon.
Member.hoped that some day would be fixed for the
discussion of the truck system, to which this petition
referred.

---
Mr. LITTLETON recommended that an early
day should be fixed for that purpose, on account of
the anxiety which was felt on the subject throughout
the manufacturing districts.
Sir R. PEEL acknowledged. the importance of
the subject, but observed that Mondays and Fri-
days were the only days under the controul of Go-
vernment, and those days had been already so en-
croached upon by extraneous matter, that he never
remembered a Session in which votes of supply were
suffered to get into such an arrear.
Mr. BARING bore testimony to the importance
of coming to an early decision on the subject of the
truck system.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from the parish
of St. Luke against the erection of an additional
church.
Mr. HUME also presented a petition from an in-
dividual residing in Gloucester-square, St. Pancras,
in favour of the Watching and Lighting Bill.
Mr. TRANT considered the complaint of the pe-
titioner to be well founded, so far as the enormous
charge of one church mentioned in the petition was
concerned.—(Hear.)
The petition was laid on the table.
Lord MILTON presented a petition from Don-
caster against the Northern Road Bill.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY presented a petition horn

de chemists of Newcastle against the Stamp Duties
Act.
The Marquis of BLANDFORD presented a pe-
tition from the Rev. Sir Harcourt Lees, against the
Bill for assimilating the duties in Ireland and Eng-
and, and another from Kenningham, in Norfolk, for
reform in Parliament.
Mr. BRIGHT wished to know from the Right
Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he
meant to bring in his Bill respecting the assessed

taxes.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
had no objection to postpone the Bill if the House
so wished, but could see himself no reason why he
should not proceed with it at once, as it was but a
measure for remitting certain taxes.

WEST INDIA INTEREST.
Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from the West
India merchants of Bristol, against the proposed in-
crease of duty (Gd.) on rum.
The HON. MEMBER also presented a petition
from the tea-dealers of Glamorganshire against the
Hawkers' and Pedlars' Act.
Lord J. RUSSELL postponed his motion re-
specting the fees incident to a suit in the Court of
Chancery.
JEWS' RIGHT TO HOLD LANDED PROPERTY.
Colonel WILSON should not take up the time
of the House with his motion. He would merely
ask for leave to bring in his Bill, arid should take
the discussion on the second reading. His object
was, in the words of his motion, " to remove doubts
as to British-born Jews holding landed property."
The Bill did not, he begged it to be borne in mind,
originate from the Jews themselves, but from men
of birth, education, and wealth, who, like himself,
lamented the uncertainty of legal opinions on the
subject. He was aware that the opinions of the
high law-men at present were, that the Jews might
bold landed property like other British subjects ;
but though that was the present dictum of lawyers,
it did not follow that it would be the opinion of
their successors. He had himself been in treaty for
the purchase of a landed propeity some years ago,
and took the opinion of Sir S. Romilly, as it was a
Jew tenure, and the result was that he was dis-
suaded from the purchase, because that great law-
yer had given it as his opinion that Jews had no
right to bold landed property like British subjects.
It was time that the questio►► should be set at rest,
and that the law should be clearly defined. It was
but just that the Jews should be admitted to all the
advantages of the Constitution compatible with its
safety. He, for one, would so admit them, except-
ing to seats in Parliament, and on the bench as
Judges. Indeed, he was convinced that had the
Jews been admitted forty or fifty years ago to the
advantages of the Constitution, to the extent he
had just specified, many of them would since have
emigrated towards the Christian Religion.—
(Laughter.)—The Hon. Gentleman concluded with
moving for leave to bring in his Bill.
Mr. R. GRANT would vote against the Hon.
Gentleman's motion, because, under existing cir-
cumstances, to which he need not more particularly
allude, and to the state of the public business, he
felt he should not be doing his duty to the body
whose cause he had a few weeks ago unsuccessfully
advocated, if he permitted their claims to be again
discussed this Session.—(Hear.) Either, as the
matter at present stood, the whole of their claims
should be granted or none at all; he should not con-
sent to any fragmental compromise, like that pro-
posed by the Hon. Gentleman.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, but
we understood the motion was negatived without
One.

NEW CHURCHES.
Mr. HU.ME rose to move that the petit!on from
the inhabitants of St. Luke's, against the Commis-
sioners for building churches, be referred to a Select
Committee. He said that the present amount of
poor-rates was 24,0001. in that parish, and they
owed a debt of 15,0001. They had two churches
already, which were not half filled, and yet the
Commissioners were going to build an additional
one, against the feeling of all the parishioners. As
a proof of the connexion which subsisted between
the parish and the clergyman, he should only relate
a single anecdote :—On Tuesday, when the inhabi-
tants had legally met in vestry, in the church, to
transact some business connected with the poor, the
Rev. Mr. Rice entered; took his seat with the clerk
at the desk, and commenced divine service, merely
for the purpose of interrupting the business of the
parishioners, who immediately, one and all, left the
place. He complained in the strongest terms of this
attempt to impose fresh taxes upon the parish.
Mr. ESTCOURT said that the Commissioners
bad ascertained that there was only accommodation
for 1,200 in the present church, while the population
amounted to 32,000. It was therefore clear that a
new church was necessary.
Mr.BYNG could say, most positively, that the
sense of the petitioners was adverse to the decision
of the New Church Commissioners.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
defended the conduct of the Commissioners.

Mr. WAITHMAN supported the motion. He
thought the petitioners entitled to have their case in-
quired into.
• Mr. J. WOOD was of opinion that the Commis-
sioners for building churches had been the dupes of
artful manoeuvres, in consequence of their want of
local knowledge.
Dr. LUSHINGTON, one of the Commissioners,
defended their conduct.
After a few words from Mr. HUaIE in reply, the
/House divided—
For the motion.
Against it.
Majority against the motion —5O
CONDUCT OF GENERAL DARLING.
Mr. STEWART (of Beverley) rose to bring
forward his motion for the production of papers and
documents connected with the charges preferred by
Mr. Wentworth, of New South Wares, against Gen.
Darling, the Governor of that colony. In Nov.
1826, General Darling altered the sentence of two
soldiers convicted at the Quarter Sessions there of
a felony, and sentenced to seven years' transporta-
tion, and instead of allowing them to undergo that
punishment, he issued a regimental order, directing
that they should be worked in chains in the public
roads for the period of seven years ; that they should
be stripped of their uniforms, and dressed in felons'
clothes; and that they should be worked in chain
gangs, after being drummed publicly on parade out
of the garrison, us rogues. That order was carried
execution; the chains were put upon the two
ake..., whose names were Sadds and Thompson, on
parade, and they were brought in that condition back
to gaol, In a few days after, one of the unfortunate
men, Sadds, died in consequence, it was stated, of
the sufferings which he endured in the prison, being
at the time in a state of bad health, and a statement
of the transaction having been forwarded to this
country, he (Mr. Stewart) felt it his duty to move
for the production of such documents as were in the
possession of his Majesty's Government respecting
the transaction. So strong was the present case,
that he thought he should be almost justified in
calling upon the House to address the Crown to
takinove General Darling from his situation.—
ft was stated in the documents which had induced
him (Mr. Stewart) to bring forward a motion on a
former occasion in reference to this matter, that the
chains which were put upon those unfortunate mutt
were of an unusually heavy construction, that they
were not long enough to allow them to stretch
themselves at full length, and that there were spikes
in the iron collars which prevented them from lying
easy in any position. In one of the letters of Gen.
Darling which had been laid before Parliament, he
stated that the chains were of an unusually light
construction, that their weight amounted only_ to
131 b. 12 oz., and that they were not calculated to
subject the persons upon whom they might be put
to any extraordinary pain. He (Mr. Stewart) must
say that he relied at the time upon the truth of that
statement, but it was refuted in the documents which
lie now held in his hand, wherein it was stated that
the weight of the chains amounted to 301 b. or 401 b.,
that they were of such a construction as to subject

these unfortunate men to dreadful torture, such as
could not be endured; that there were iron spikes
extending from the iron collar, which was rivetted
round the neck, and which prevented the individual
wearing them from turning over on either side ; that
it was impossible these men while thus chained
could stretch themselves at full length, and in
short, they were in this manner subjected to the
greatest possible torture. These facts he stated
upon the authority of an officer, Captain Robinson,
who had inspected those chains, had tried them on
his own body, and had come to the conclusions
which he (Mr. Stewart) had just stated with re-
spect to them. Captain Robinson did not weigh
the chains, but he had them on in the presence of
Lieutenant Christie and others, and in reply to a
question from them be said he considered the weight
of the chains to be about 301 b. or 401 b. He held
in his hand a statement of what took place after the
chains had been put on those unfortunate men.
They were taken from the barracks, where the
chains were put on them, back to the gaol, until an
opportunity should arise for sending them to work
on the public roads. Sadds, it appeared, had been
previously alarmingly ill, and it was sworn by
Thompson, who had been confined with him, that
after his return to the prison his illness rapidly in-
creased until the period of his death, which occurred
fire or six days after the infliction of the punish-
ment. The punishment was inflicted on the 22d
of November, and he died on the 27th of that
month. He should now call the attention of the
House to the statement of Thompson, the fellow-
prisoner of Sadds, as to what occurred while that
unfortunate man remained in the prison, previous to
his death. This statement was extracted from an
examination of Thompson, taken on the 23d April,
1827, in the presence of Alexander M‘Leay, Esq.,
Colonial Secretary ; William Henry Moore, Esq.,
Acting Attorney-General, and William Charles
Wentworth, Esq., Barrister-at-law. In that ex-
amination Thompson says—" The night of the day
of our punishment Sadds was so ill that we were
obliged to get a candle about eight o'clock from Wil-
son, the under-gaoler, in order to keep a light during
the night. I gave him some tea which I had pur-
chased. About ten o'clock he was getting very ill.
I requested a fellow prisoner to get up and look
at him, thinking he was dying. The fellow
prisoner, whose name I do not know, did look
at him, and said he was not dying, but he did not
think he would live long. I then asked Sadds if he
had any friends to whom he would wish to write.
He said he had a wife and child in Gloucester, and
begged that if he did not get better by the next
night, I would read some pious book to him ; adding
that they had put him in them irons until they had
killed him.' Shortly after this I fell asleep, another
man having undertaken to sit up with him ; I think
the name of this man was Moreton ; his father is a
potter on the Brickfield-hill ; he was in the gaol for
an assault on his mother. At eight o'clock the next
morning, being Thursday, the 23d, Sadds was taken
into the hospital, and I took him some tea and a
little bit of fish, which I think is all he eat till he
died. This I think because I had his gaol-rations
afterwards. His irons were taken off about twelve
o'clock on Thursday, when the doctor came his
rounds. I inquired of the attendant in the hospital
(whose name was Thompson) how Sadds was on
Thursday evening ? He said he was a little better
—on Friday morning I went to see him, he was in
such a state that he did not answer my questions or
appear to know me; I squeezed his hand, but he
made no return and appeared to be insensible. I saw
him again on Saturday, I heard he had been deliri-
ous, and had got out of bed on Friday night ; but
before twelve o'clock on Saturday he never spake ;
and about three o'clock on Sunday the 26th Novem-
ber, he was removed to the general hospital, being
carried on the shoulders of two men down the steps
of the gaol to the entrance, and from thence carried
in a small cart, as I was informed, to the hospital.
I was told that he expired about six o'clock on
Monday morning." Here they had the dying decla-
ration of this unfortunate man, Sadds, "that they
had put him in them irons until they had killed
him." He was carried from the gaol to the hopital
in a dying state, when be had ceased to speak, and
the object, it was stated, of thus removing him, was
to prevent a coroner's inquest from being held on
his body, which would have been held on it if he
had died in the gaol. He believed that it was sug-
gested after his burial, that his body should be dis-
interred for the purpose of having a coroner's in-
quest held upon it, but that suggestion was riot
complied with. Thompson, whose statement he
had just quoted, was now also in England. He
(Mr. Stewart) believed he had arrived a few days
ago at Chatham, where he now was, and he could
be examined as to the truth of that statement. He
had stated the facts of this case; they involved a
grave and serious charge against General Darling,
and there were two persons now in England, Lieu-
tenant Christie and this man Thompson, who could
be examined as to the truth or falsehood of that
charge. The lion. Member concluded by moving
for a copy of the letter of William Charles Went-
worth, Esq., barrister, dated Ist of March, 1829,
addressed to Sir George Murray, and transmitted
through General Darling, together with such docu-
ments as General Darling accompanied and explained
that letter, and also copies of all letters which had
been transmitted by his Majesty's Government to
him in reference to it.
Sir GEORGE MURRAY would not object to
the production of such documents as he (Sir Geo.
Murray) might find on examination to be fit, arid
proper, and necessary to he produced for the eluci-
dation of this case, and the facts connected with it.
In taking that course he did not mean to pledge him-
self to the production of the specific documents
for which the Hon. Member had moved, as he was
not able to say at present whether all those docu-
ments were such as should be submitted to the
House. This case was the subject of a motion
which the Hon. Member had brought forward in
July, 1828, when lie moved for certain papers,
which were produced. The case had been then
briefly discussed. The fact was, that it had been
a practice with the soldiers in New South Wales to
maim themselves, or to commit some felony, by
which they succeeded in getting discharged from
the service. These two individuals in this instance
had committed a felony with that view, and the Go-
vernor thought it necessary to make an example in
their case, in order to check such a spirit amongst
the soldiery. They were sentenced by the Quarter
Sessions to be transported for seven years, and the
Governor commuted that sentence by ordering, as he
was empowered by the Act of Legislative Council
to do, that they should be employed at hard labour
on the roads in the colony for that period, and that
they should be compelled to work in irons. To
render the example still more forcible and impres-
sive, he had them stript of their dress on parade in
the presence of the regiment, and the irons then put
on them. When Sadds returned to prison he be-
came ill, and his irons were in consequence after-
wards removed. It was said that he had been ill
before they were put on, but he was not on the sick
list, and if lie had been affected with previous illness
the Governor was not acquainted with it. He was
'removed from the gaol to the hospital in conse-
quence of his illness, arid that was made a matter
of charge by those who wished to place the Go-
vernor's conduct in the worst point of view, as if
he was removed there to prevent an inquest from
being held upon him, but he had been only removed
to the hospital in conformity with the usual practice
in cases of the kind. His death had been imputed
to the irons which had been put upon him. He
(Sir George Murray) would read an extract from the
Australian newspaper, in refutation of that charge.
That paper having advanced that charge in the first
instance, and having spoken of the great weight of
the irons, &c. the next day the editor, in an article
referring to a letter from Mr. M'Leay, which he
published in reply to his statement, acknowledged he
had been in error in attributing to the Governor a
departure in this instance from those feelings of
humanity by which his conduct had been uniformly
characterised; and he further stated that he never
meant to impute to the Governor an intention of

producing the death of this individual by the punish-
went that had been inflicted on him. In the letter
which Mr. Wentworth had written to him (Sir G.
Murray), he referred to a letter which he addressed 1
'o the Secretary of State in December, 1826, on
the subject, and in which he stated that the case was
one which called for the removal of General Darling,
and yet he allowed it to remain unnoticed up to the
date of his other letter in March, 1829. He (Sir
George Murray) believed that very inflamed and
exaggerated statements had been made with regard
to this case.
Mr. O'CONNELL thought that the condition of
New South Wales ought to be immediately inquired
into, especially as the Governor had taken every
means in his power to prevent them from knowing
any thing about it by completely muzzling the press.
With respect to the conduct of General Darling in
the case now specially brought under the notice of
the House, lie had only to say, that in his opinion it
was quite indefensible.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought that
no objection would be made to this motion, if the
Hon. Member for Beverley would only qualify it by
using the words "such papers as may seem fit to the
Colonial Secretary to produce."
Mr. HUME observed, that it was important to
the House to know who Mr. Wentworth, the ac-
cuser of General Darling, was. He was a barrister
of great property in New South Wales, enjoying
far more of the confidence of the colonists than their
Governor-General Darling. All that Mr. Went-
worth wished was to have General Darling called
home to be tried here for acts for which he could
not gbe brought to trial in New South Wales.—
Every body must see that, considering the charges
which Ns ere hanging over General Darling's head,
it was most extraordinary that he should persist in
pursuing the press of that colony to destruction.—
Within the last eight and forty hours there had ar-
rived in England New South Wales papers all edged
with black, on account of the recent order of the
Governor, rendering all persons liable to banishment
who published any thing to his prejudice. It was
curious to hear of banishment from 'New South
Wales, to which colony we were accustomed to
banish our malefactors. But so it was, General
Darling had issued the order to which his Hon,. and
Learned Friend bad alluded, and he now held in his
hand a New South Wales paper arrayed in mourn-
ing, and containing an article entitled " The Death
and Burial of the Press in New South Wales."
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL expressed his
regret that statements should have been made in that
House reflecting on the character of General Dar-
ling, founded upon newspaper reports alone.
Mr. JEPHSON said he was obliged to the Hon.
Member who had brought the motion forward. In
his opinion, one of the most important duties which
the House had to perform was to watch over the
conduct of the Colonial Governors. .

Mr. STEW ART said that in compliance wit

the suggestion which had been thrown out, be
would alter his motion to the following form :
" Copies or extracts of all papers received from
General Darling relative to the transaction in quits-

ion."

Sir a MURRAY said that if the lion. Member
would consent to withdraw the motion altogether,
he could assure him he would take care to produce
all the documents which were necessary upon the
subject.
Mr. STEWART then withdrew the motion.
MERCHANT SEAMEN.

Sir M. W. RIDLEY rose, pursuant to notice, to
move for leave to being in a Bill to amend Acts
(William HI., and 20 George 11., cap. 38,) relating
to the merchant seamen's fund. The Hon. Baronet
stated that the object of the Bill was to relieve mer-
chant-seamen from the payment of 6d. per month
out of their wages for the support of Greenwich
Hospital, which they were compelled to make under
the existing law.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said he felt it his duty to oppose the motion. It
should not be supposed that merchant-seamen de-
lived no advantage from the contributions which
they made to.. the Greenwich Hospital fund. The
fact was that merchant-seamen who had contributed
to the fund were entitled to admission to the hospital
as in-pensioners, after a very short period of service
in the royal navy, whereas a seaman who had not
contributed could not obtain admission until he had
been 14 years in his Majesty's service. He had no
objection to have the whole qUestion considered,
with a view to make any alteration which might
upon inquiry be deemed expedient.
Lord W. POWLETT thought that the Hon.
Baronet should not press his motion at the present
time.

Mr. WARBURTON said that merchant-seamen
were not entitled to the benefits of Greenwich Hos-
pital as merchant-seamen, but only when they en.
tered the King's service. The expence of collect-
ing the money subscribed by the seamen amounted
to about IS or 20 per cent., which operated as an
additional reason with him for getting rid of the tax.
Sir G. COCKBURN said that merchant-seamen
who had served for only two months in the Royal
navy were frequently admitted to Greenwich Hos-
pital. He much doubted whether the abolition of
the subscription would be popular amongst mer-
chant-seamen.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY said that he would for the
present rest satisfied with the explanations which
had been given. He would therefore withdraw his
motion, reserving to himself the right of renewing it
if he ould think proper.
Tho motion was withdrawn.
COURT OF CHANCERY.
Sir C. WETHERELL would withdraw his no-
tice of motion for leave to bring in a Bill to restrain
and regulate the powers of the Attorney-General
in filing ex-officio informations, in order to allow
the adjourned debate, respecting the appointment of
a new Chancery Judge, to come on.
Mr. BROUGHAM expressed his wish that the
discussion respecting the. Court of Chancery might
not be brought on at so late an hour (ten o'clock).
There were many other questions which would ex-
cellently well occupy the attention of Members.
Amongst the rest the Sale of Beer Bill.—(General
cries of " Go on.")—lt was very easy to say " go
on," but lie entered his protest against entering
upon the discussion, and he was sure that it would
be adjourned at two o'cicck.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said that he had postponed the order respecting the
Sale of Beer Bill till Monday, for the express pur-
pose of allowing the adjourned debate to be brought
on this evening.
Sir C. WETHERELL asked whether it was the
intention of Government to propose any alteration
in the Bill which had come down from the House of
Lords respecting the Court of Chancery ?
Sir R. PEEL said that his Hon. and Learned
Friend would make a general statement in explana-
tion of the measure ; but he believed there existed
no intention of submitting any specific proposition on
the subject.
The Order of the Day was then read for
THE ADJOURNED DEBATE
Upon Sir C. WETHERELL'S motion " That it is
the duty of this House, before it gives its sanction
to the appointment of a further Judge in the Court
of Chancery, to ascertain, by the examination of wit-
nesses and other inquiries, whether a case of neces-
sity exists for such an appointment,"
Mr. FERGUSSON began by stating that be
should vote for the proposition of the Hon. and
Learned Member for Plympton (Sir C. Wetherell),
though he did not concur in a great part of what
had fallen from him on a preceding evening, especi-
ally in respect to the motives which had induced
the Noble and Learned
in
guestinniLo
in the
therd other
bring
erun fouse.rwiair the
measure wasle
i
cmoenaysiunic'eed the Noble and Learned Lord had no mo-
tive but a wish to relieve suitors, and that no per-
sonal consideration had swayed him. It was a mea-
sure that Ni o ul,l tend to the relief of the two other
Judges in the Court of Chancery, but in respect to
matters of appeal, which constituted the bulk of the
business of the Lord Chancellor, the appointment of
a new Judge could be of no service to him. ptit it

was not sufficient that bare motives should exist, it
should be shown that there was a necessity for an
additional Judge, and sufficient evidence had not
been laid before the House of Commons to justify
them in sanctioning a measure which would lead-
to a considerable expense. The lion. and Learned
Member for Plympton had rested his proposition on
two grounds—the returns before the House, and
the opinions of learned persons, including two of
the Judges of the Court, that a fourth Judge was
unnecessary. It appeared from the returns, that al-
though the arrears of business in Chancery had
accumulated during three years, yet during four
months such an effort had been made, that the ex-
isting Judges had been found sufficient for the des-
patch of business. In 1827, the number of cases
was 576 ; in 1829 the number had increased to 928.
But it appeared that from the first day of Hilary
Term, 1829, to the first seal before Easter Term,
that is one term and one sitting, the number of 928
had been reduced by the Judges to 655, so that the
accumulation had decreased by 273 causes. Much
of this diminution was to be attributed to the Mas-
ter of the Rolls having commenced sitting in the
morning as the other Judges. In the Vice-Chan-
cellor's
Court, the number of causes in Hilary Term
was 466 ; the number now was 323, showing a
reduction of 143. In the Rolls Court, the number
in Hilary Term was 462; the number standing on
the first seal of Easter Term was 332; making a
reduction in the Master of the Rolls' paper of 130.
If, then, the Court was able to reduce the an•,- rs
within a reasonable time, be (Mr. Fergusson) ob-
jected to the erection of another Court of Equity.
Till lie saw the statement, he had thought it per-
fectly impossible that it could have been done, and
that it was absolutely necessary that there should be
a fourth Judge in the Court of Chancery. He.was
so convinced of this, that in February, 1828, he had
given it is as his opinion that nothing could re-
duce the arrears of the Court, and enable it to
despatch its business from day to day. The Hon.
and Learned Member for Plympton had called to his
support the testimony of the Master of the Rolls
and the Vice-Chancellor. lie stated that the Mas-
ter of the Rolls was against the appointment of an
additional Judge, and that the Vice-Chancellor did
not think such appointment necessary. The evi-
dence of the latter Judge before the Chancery Corn-
mission was to a different effect; he then believed

that three angels could not get through the busi-
ness. But the Vice-Chancellor had been in the
same state that he (Mr. Fergusson) was. Mr.
Bickersteth and Mr. Bell also thought a fourtk
Judge necessary. But Mr. Bell had changed his
opinion as well as he had, in a publication which
he held in his hand. Then if the Vice-Chancellor
and Mr. Bell, who were at one time of opinion that
a fourth Judge was necessary, had in the course of
five years changed that opinion, owing to a change
of circumstances, this was a strong argument against
the measure. He spoke not as a professional man,
but as a Member of the House, when be said this
measure was unnecessary. It must be a subject of
great surprise to a foreign lawyer to mark the con-
stitution of our Court of Appeal in the last resort :
one day the Lord Chancellor was assisted by an
Irish Bishop and a Scotch Lord, next day by two
men of fashion from St. James's. It had been said
that there were very few appeals to the House of
Lords. Why should appeals go there ? Where
was the use of appeals from the Lord Chancellor in
his Court to the Lord Chancellor in the House of
Lords ? When a person had in public committed
himself in a point of law, it was a mockery:to call it a
Court where that person sat in a Court of Appeal.
The mode of deciding Scotch appeals required
some alteration. A point of pure Scotch law
was decided by a person who had not made
that law his study, and not one of the
400 Judges in the House of Lords knew more
than the Lord Chancellor about it. He trusted that

this system would be altered; that persons versed in
Scotch law would form a part of the court of appeal
in Scotch cases; and then we should not see the
unanimous decision of the Court of Session reversed
by a Lord Chancellor. The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman then adverted to the present constitution
of the Privy Council, where he observed causes in-
volving property to an incalculable amount, and
belonging to 100,000,000 of subjects of the realm,
were heard and decided—sometimes, it was true.
under the presidency of a Learned Judge, but more
frequently by men who knew little or nothing of
law ; and even where a Judge of one of the equity
courts presided, there were causes arising out of
colonial appeals, and depending upon the interpre-
tation of the laws of other countries, with which he
could not be practically acquainted. But many im-
portant causes were heard before the Chief Judge of
the Admiralty Court, and a lay Lord of the Admi-
ralty,—an Hon. Friend of his, and a most excellent
man, but certainly not qualified to sit as a Judge in
such causes. The whole of that system was bad,
and ought to be changed. He would suggest that
there should be a high court of appeal, consisting of
the chief Judges of the higher courts, with whom
there should be associated—as was done in France,
from which we might take many useful lessons in
our system of jurisprudence—persons who were
practically conversant with the laws prevailing in
our colonies. In order to this, the Lords should
give up their appellate jurisdiction, which, as was
said by Lord Hale, and was echoed by many of his
commentators, was an usurped jurisdiction. Such
a measure could of course originate only with them-
selves, and in the present troublesome mode of con-
ducting the business of appeals in that House he
thought it would be considered no great sacrifice. He
begged pardon for this digression; but he was led to it
by what had fallen from the Solicitor-General of
having an appeal from the decision of any of the
Judges in the Court of Chancery—the appeal to
lie, should there be three Judges, to the Lord
Chancellor and two of those Judges ; but he would
not give an appeal to the other Judges from the
Lord Chancellor. With respect to the Vice-Chan-
cellor, he would have him, as well as the other
Judges, completely independent. As to the Master
of the Rolls, he could not now give the same atten-
tion to the Privy Council as before, as he now held
his court in the day ; but if he devoted his whole
time to his own Court, he would soon get rid of
much of the arrears. He owned that, looking at
the state of the business, he had at first thought a
fourth Judge necessary ; but, on consideration, he
thought it might be done with the present number,
If, however, at the end of another year, the arrears
should be found to increase, he would not object to
the addition now proposed.
Mr. 11. TWISS said, that, at the commence-
ment of the present century, it was the opinion of
the Learned Lord who then presided ofkr the Court
of Chancery, that the business of the Court re-
quired additional assistance. This was before the
Union with Ireland, and at a time when there were
few appeals from the Lord Chancellor, few from the
Court of Exchequer, and very few from the Courts
of Common Law ; but soon after the Union with
Ireland the appeals were doubled, arid they were
farther increased by the division of the Court of
Session in Scotland. And it should not be omit-
ted, that every Irish appeal was, from the complex
nature of the cases, equal in length to nearly twenty
appeals from other parts of the kingdom. The
business had also greatly increased from the
time of the appointment of the Vice-Chancel-
lor, as would be seen from the state of business
in the three years before, as compared with
that in the three years following his appointment.
In the former period the number of causes and
motions of all kinds was 4,021 ; in the latter it was
5,699; being an increase of nearly 1,700 in that
time. But there was a greater despatch and a greater
increase of business. In the years 1814, 1815, and
1816, the number of motions for hearing before the
Lord Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, and Master of the
Rolls, was 2,478. In the three last years, exclu-
sively of bankrupt and binacy petitions, the number
was 3,589, being nearly au increase of one-half.
The bankrupt petitions were, in the former period,
2,323; and in the latter, 3,183; being an increase
of one-third. The appeals to the House of Lords,
in the same periods, were 124 in the former, and

202 in the latter. In die beginning of Hilary Term
the arrear was 928, which at the end of Easter
Term was reduced by nearly one-third, the number
being 655. But it was not a new thing to have the
arrear reduced from January to Easter Term, be-
cause between those periods the Court sat with less
interruption than at any other period of the year.
In the preceding year the arrears had been reduced
to 558 at Easter Term ; but at the end of the year
they had increased to 815—and rose, as he bad said,
to 928 in the beginning of the present year. This
made against the allegations of his Hon. Friend, and
showed the necessity of the appointment of a new
Judge. The great importance of the business of
Chancery at present might be judged from the im-
mense increase of the funds belonging to suitors in
the Court. In 1740, the money standing in the
name of suitors was only 1,290,0001. In 1820, it was
34 or 35,000,0001., and at present it was nearly
40,000,0001. Let it also be recollected that the ave-
rage ages of the Judges in the Court cannot be less than
60 years, and some provision should be made for those
delays which might be occasioned by sickness, for even
with four Judges they could not always calculate
upon the attendance of the whole. It was seen at
present that the delay in the Rolls' Court before a
case entered came for hearing was three terms. In
the Vice-Chancellor's Court it was six terms. Now,
taking the general average of cases, there were
three hearings of each before the final decision.
First, the hearing when the cause came on, then a
reference to the Master, and afterwards a hearing
on the Master's report. Taking a year and a half
as the average time between each hearing, as they
must come on in turn, it would take four years and
a half for each cause, from the time of entering it
until its decision. There were many circumstances
of " the law's delay" which would protract a cause,
and over which no legislative controul could be ex-
ercised; but such a delay as four years and a half
would be a delay of justice for which Parliament
would be responsible if it did not endeavour to
apply some remedy by giving additional assistance
to the Court.
Mr. SPENCE expressed great doubts as to the
good effects which would result from the adoption
of the measure now submitted to the House. It
was, in his opinion, most injudicious to allow the
Bill more immediately before the House to get so
much the start of the other two, for the regulation
of the Registrars and Masters, when the nature of
the subject required that they should proceed in all
their stages together. Besides, the regulations in
these Bills were in themselves of a kind calculated
to retard, in place of advancing, public business;
and for this reason—the Registrars were bow fre-
quently obliged to work 14 hours a day in order to
get through the business before them, and they
were induced to make this exertion, because
the more they passed the greater would be their emolu-
ments; but once they were put upon salaries they
would of course work only during eflice hours. if
all that the Registrar had to do was to embody the
order of the Court without going into a recital of
the pleadings, he should be disposed to say that the
Bill proposed would facilitate the performance of
ten times the quantity of business now transacted ;
but there was no provision whatever for altering
the evil to which he alluded. if that were re-
moved, he should hail the measure as a considerable
improvement.—(" Hear," from the Solicitor-Gene-
ral.)—He was gratified to perceive, by the cheer of
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, that it was in-
tended to obviate this objection. Both the Re-
gistrars and Masters were at present inefficient, and
he hoped to see them so regulated as to leave no
legitimate cause for complaint. He trusted that
they should not again find by the returns that 925/.
had been paid for the sale of one estate.—(Hear.)
If no fees were taken for copies, he conceived that
such an alteration would materially expedite the dis-
posal of business. He would likewise recommend
that the business which was now sent to the clerk
should go to a responsible officer, and he had reason
to believe that many of the clerksl were very com-
petent to the performance of the higher duty. If
such changes were made, he should have pleasure
in supporting the Hon. and Learned Gentleman at
the sacrifice of sundry minor considerations.
Mr. BATLEY had consulted the most eminent
practitioners, both barristers and solicitors, and
they were all of opinion that another Equity Judge
was not necessary. The Hon. Member quoted the
opinions expressed by Sir Samuel Ronsilly and the
present Master of the Rolls on the Bill of 1813, and
said that he agreed with these authorities that the
Lord Chancellor ought not to be a political cha-
racter. Nothing could be more improper than to
take away the Lord Chancellor from the duties of
his Court to attend Cabinet Councils. When Lord
Hardwicke was called to Cabinet Councils, he an-
answered that he had important business to attend
to in Westminster Hall. Lord Eldon, whose like
as a Judge he never expected to see again, did not
at first attend Cabinet Councils. After Mr. Per-
ceval's death Lord Eldon constantly attended Ca-
binet Councils; and from that time it was evident
that, when in Court, that able Judge's mind was
fixed upon something else, and that he was not at-
tending to the arguments submitted to him by Coun-
sel.—(Hear, and laughter.)—His Lordship, like a
conscientious man, said, " I will take the papers
home with me, and give judgment at the first con-
venient opportunity ; ' but political cases pressed
upon his Lordship, and that convenient time never
carne.—(Hear, and much laughter.)—He believed
that no man of the profession unconnected with
office, would say that another Equity Judge was
necessary, and he should therefore vote for the mo-
tion of the Hon. Member for Plympton.
Mr. R. GRANT said that this was a subject of
very great import, and that many Hon. Members
yet remained to be heard upon it. It was impossible
the discussion could be concluded that night, and
lie should therefore move that the debate be now
adjourned.
Mr. BROUGHAM entirely concurred in the
propriety of that motion. If they had done as he
took the liberty of suggesting they ought to have
done, at ten o'clock, he thought they would have
found it more convenient. Allow him also to ob-
serve, that if, when they resumed the discussion,
they should bring it on at so late an hour as they had
to-night, they must again adjourn it. He really
wished that, to-night, they had taken a little beer—
(Hear, and laughter)7-instead of this.
Mr. M. A. TAYLOR 'hoped that a convenient
day would be fixed, and that the discussion would
be brought on at an early hour.
Sir R. PEEL said, that every body, he would
venture to say, expected that the discussion would
have come on to-night at an early hour. Who could
have expected that the early part of the evening
would have been occupied as it had been ? In dis-
cussing the question concerning the real property of
Jews,—a case of a parish vestry,—and a motion for
papers respecting New South Wales, a motion, be
it eemembered, that was not resisted,—they had
spent the whole of the evening. In those three
subjects might he included all their business of that
day. If gentlemen would make lengthy speeches
upon subjects which did not call for them, And if
they would prefer their own notices to public busi-
ness, however important, the same state of things
must continue, and they should go on in the same
course day after day. He really did not know what
day to fix for the adjourned debate on this question,
unless they took Wednesday—(Cries of " N0,n0,")
—which he was reluctant to do, but he saw no alter-
native.
Mr. BROUGHAM (after looking over the no-
tice-book) thought that by some arrangement be-
tween this and Tuesday, they might be able to bring
on the discussion early on that day. There were
obvious reasons, to which it would not be regular to
allude, why they should not fix upon Wednesday.
The debate was then adjourned till Tuesday next.
The Bankers' (Ireland) Bill was read a third time,
and passed. •
The Witnesses' (Ireland) Bill was read a second
time; to be read a third time on Monday.
COMMON LAW FEES' BILL.
On the motion of Sir R, PEEL, this Bill went

through a Committee ; report received ; Bill to be
read a third time on Monday next, and to be printed.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed
of, and the House adjourned at One o'clock.

ST OF THE MINORITY
VOTED FOR REFERRING THE PETITION FROM
LUKE, ♦GAINST THE CONDUCE' OF THE COM-
THE BUILDING OF CHURCHES, TO A SELECT

OF FOURTEEN, WHO V
THE PARISH OF ST. '
MISSIONERS FOR
COMMITTEE.
Brougham, James Marshall, J.
Byng, George Macaulay, T. B.
Harvey, D. W. O'Connell, D.
Dawson, A. Phillips, Sir G. TELLRII.
Jephson, C. D. Stewart, J. Hume, Joseph
Monck, J. B. Taylor, M. A. Wood, John

Waithman, Aid.
[ Warburton, H.