The Sun.
London, England, 1839-02-16 00:00:00

TH E SUN, LON DON, SATLTIID_A ,--EVENINarEb

sirous to hare submitted a Bill to the consideration of the
House ; but he had been told, by those who ‘irOre best
acquainted with the forms of the House, that until there
was a res,)lution of the House on the subject, he could not
do so. With that view he had given notice of the reso-
lution; and he thought it was a little hard that the
objection should be now made, of his not having laid
before the House a Bill, when he himself had been most anxious to
do so—(Hear)—and was only prevented by the circumstance he
had mentioned. Hn was desirous on the present occasion, for the
views he entertained might not meet the views of either side
of the House, of moving nothing more than a general resolution ;
but he would state such circumstances as he thought would satisfy
Hon. Members that they were proceeding on a safe ground in agree.
ing to that general resolution, and he must express his astonish-
ment at the statement of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny of there
having been no deduction in the number of Judges, and a disposi-
tion to adhere to antiquated forms in that Court. Was there any
ground for such a statement ? In the first place, five Judges had
been taken from the Court of Exchequer, and the duties were now
performed by one Judge, who received a sa'ary of 2,6001., while the
other Judges, the Chief Baron and others, had large salaries.
—(Hear, hear.) There had been a reduction of two Judges
in the Court of Session, and there had been a great saving in the
salaries of judicial officers. The Hon. Member far Greenock had
stated that 40,0001. a year was now paid for salaries to Judges.
How that could be paid under the 10th of George 111., he (the
Lord Advocate) was at a loss to conceive. He maintained there
had been a greater saving of expense in the Court of Session than
had been effected in any other judicial establishment in England or
Ireland. He felt rather surprised at the arguments of some Of his
friends, because they said some of the Judges had 2,0001., and
others 2,6001., and yet they refused to go into Committee, and
opposed him in his endeavours to equalize the salaries. He
could not understand by what parity of reasoning they pointed
out a defect, and yet refused to remedy that defect in
the only way it could be remedied—by going into Com-
mittee. What he proposed was, to equalize the salaries: but
he was aware many Hon. Members were desirous more should
be done. The simple question was, what benefit would the country
gain by removing the anomaly of some Judges having 2,0001. a
year and others having 2,6001. When it was asked, what had
been done, had not the fees of suitors been reduced to the
amount of 14,0001. a year ? And was it consistent at the same
time to complain of the smallness of reforms, and to obstruct
a measwe which had reform for its object. If the Bill were
allowed to go into Committee, he (the Lord Advocate) would
be ready to answer any objections which might he urged against
it. At present he could only deal with what had now been
urged. It was contended that the number of the Judges ought to be
reduced, or other duties imposed upon them. Now, as to the first
point, the most distinguished practical men had given it as
their opinion that the present number of Judges was absolutely re-
quisite ; and he (the Lord Advocate) believed there would be great
danger in any further reduction.—(Hear, hear.) As to the five
Lords Ordinary, who were all acknowledged to be Judges of ability
and character ; their time w as fully occupied—their duties were
most urgent. Let it only be considered that those Judges had to
decide questions of account, long and complicated as they often were,
and which in England were always referred to arbitration or to Mas-
ters in Chancery. Then as to the Inner and the Outer Courts, of four
Judges each, it was wished by some Honourable Members, that there
should be only one of these Courts; he (the Lord Advocate) thought
however, that to place four Judges, as a superior Court of Review
over the five Lords Ordinary, would be a most alarming change
in the administration of justice in Scotland—a most ill-judged
innovation.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Most extensive alterations had
already been effected, which removed all the difficulties and delays
which formerly existed in the administration of justice in that
country. So far, as it had been asserted, from there having been
few or no changes its the law of Scotland, there had been too many
changes--(Hear, hear)—and every alteration was attended with
fresh difficulty.— (Hear.) With respect to the small additional
amount which he (the Lord Advocate) proposed to affix to the sa-
laries of the Judges, he trusted that would not be objected to—in
order that uniformity might be attained in the remuneration of
those who had to perform the same high legal duties. He must say
further that he had never met with any opposition or controul, in
the effecting of such reforms as he thought necessary in the adminis.
tration of justice in Scotland,by his Noble Friend the Secretary for the
Home Department, nor by any other member of the Government.
He would, in conclusion, express his conviction that those Hon.
Members who should oppose the small exhibition of liberality to-
wards the Scotish Judges which this Bill proposed to effect, would
be obstructing the progress of improvement in the administration of
justice in Scotland. The Learned Lord then moved the resolution,

tinieatichis go he knew of many before his time; but during his
time he had known three or four members of the Bar who had
refused to be Judges on account of the smallness of the salary,
stating that the duty they owed to their families forbade them to
accept of the appointment. It is clear, therefore, you cannot
command the services of eminent men until their full vigour
is passed, and they prefer the Bench as a quiet retirement.—
(Hear, hear.) If the amount of salary is increased the
services of men in the full possession of their mental and bodily
faculties would be secured. He believed that, with the pre-
sent salaries, they were hardly able to keep up the dignity of
their office. All the necessaries of life were as dear at Edinburgh
as in London; and he would appeal to the experience of those
Hon. Members who were obliged to reside some part of the year
in London as to how the dignity of the office of Judge could be
kept up upon 2,0001. a-year. He did hope that this resolution
would pass without further opposition, and that the Lord Advocate
would be inclined to go still further, and act in accordance with the
recommendations of the Committee of 1834. He would reserve
what he had to say on that subject until the question was before
the House, keeping also the question open as to whether all the
Judges should sit in civil and criminal causes.
Mr. WALLACE said that if the House had granted him a
Committee the other night, or if they would grant him a Com-
mittee now, he would prove to the House that the average rate of
sitting was as he had stated, an hour and a half a- day. The fact
was the Lord Advocate had misled the House by confounding
the duties of the Lords Ordinary with those of the Courts of Ses-
sion. He (Mr. Wallace) would, when the question was again be-
fore the House, make a statement of the dutiestof the Lords
Ordinary, and of the Courts of Session.—(Cries of Hear, hear.)
He would place a notice of a motion to this effect on
the Books of the House; he would also place a notice on the
Books for diminishing the number of the Judges and increas-
ing their duties. So far from this increase in the salaries
giving satisfaction to the people of Scotland, he was satisfied that
the people of Scotland, properly so called—(Hear, and laughter)—
would condole with her Majesty's Ministers on their being made the
creatures of the two Right Hon. Baronets opposite.
Sir G. SINCLAIR said that so much was Lord Jeffrey influenced
by the prospect of his approaching elevation to the Bench. that it
was with the greatest difficulty he could be induced to give evidence
—(Hear)— and whatever might have been their political differences,
tie believed that since he had ceased to be a Member of this House,
and had been raised to the Bench, there was not a person who would
state that he had not given the most universal satisfaction.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw. The House divided,
when there appeared—
For the Motion 67
For the Amendment ... 20

Majprity —47
On our return to the gallery we found Mr. HUME, saying,
that he understood that the Learned Lord Advocate proposed that
Judges at 70 years of age, after a period of service of 15 years
should retire upon the full salary.
The LORD ADVOCATE.—Certainly upon the full salary.
The House then resumed,
THE CHURCH COMMISSION.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL then rose to move for leave to bring
in a Bill to carry into effect—
Mr. HUME—The Committee of Supply stands next.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—That has been withdrawn.
Mr. HUME—I have not heard it. I wanted to ask—
Lord J. RUSSELL—That has passed.
Mr. HUME--The question was not put.

The SPEAKER said the question had been put and agreed to.
Mr. HUME—I have been listening, and have not heard it.

However, it does not matter. I wanted to ask whether it was the
intention of the Government to withdraw the Lord Lieutenant from
Ireland, in order to make up for the increased salaries of the
Judges ?--(A laugh.) It is now many years since I lost a motion
fur his withdrawal by only 20. However, another time will do.
Lord J. RUSSELL then moved for leave to bring in a Bill to
carry into effect, with certain modifications, the Fourth Report of
the Commissioners of Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues. The Bill
was nearly the same as that introduced by him last year, which had
been dropped only in consequence of the pressure of public business.
He would therefore best perform his duty by bringing in the Bill.
He would be ready to enter into its provisions upon moving the
second reading, which he proposed to do on Friday next.
Sir R. INGLIS did not mean to divide the House on the intro.
duction of the Bill, but he objected to bringing in a Bill for the dis-
tribution of the ecclesiastical property of the Church of England at
this hour of the night (ten o'clock) as if it were a mere turnpike
Bill, when it was in reality a Bill to alter the Constitution
of England. He would hardly have believed it possible that his
Noble Friend could have proposed the Bill in a manner sa compara-
tively easy.—( A laugh.) Of the general principle of the Bill, he
had so many opportunities of stating his opinion, that he would not
now occupy the attention of the House. It was one of serious im-
portance, and calculated to produce the greatest mischief to the
Church. He justified himself in not dividing the House, solely on
the reason that the House was not prepared for it, and that during
the last Session the House had assented to receiving the Bill.
Lord DUNGANNON had heard with great satisfaction what had
fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet, and could not help hoping that
the most determined opposition had been given to the Bill. He
reed in thinking that its introduction at this late hour of the
night was not in accordance with the extreme importance of the
Bill and the interests involved in it. It might be well intended,
by its promoters, but he was fully alive to its consequences, and
believed it to be not only dangerous to the Church Establishment,
but to our dearest interests as Englishmen and as Christians. He
hoped the Right Honourable Baronet, who occupied the proudest
station to which an English gentleman could aspire, the represen-
tation of one of our Universities, would adhere to his resolution,
of opposing the Bill in every stage. The Right Hon. Baronet
would find in him (Lord Dungannon) a humble but most ener-
getic follower, and he hoped the division would be such as to
afford to the country a striking example that there did yet
exist a strong attachment to that Established Church, by whose
blessed influence this country had arrived at a pinnacle of 'incl.
veiled greatness. (Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER never felt more
surprised in his life than that Honourable Gentlemen should
complain of a measure like this, which had already been entertained
by Parliament—that a measure proceeding from the highest authori-
ties of the Church of England should be dealt with in this way.
The Bill caine recommended by the highest dignitaries of the
Church—it was recommended by the reports of a Commission
of which the highest ecclesiastics were memberi; and he did
think that it would have been dealt with a little more gently.—
(Cheers and laughter.) It was material for the House and the
public to bear this in mind, when they judged of the manner in
which measures were dealt with by Hon. Gentlemen opposite.—
(Cheers.) The Hon. Member for the University of Oxford had
acted with perfect consistency ; but when he and the Noble Lord
attacked this Bill as a measure of spoliation, subverting or leading
to the utter destruction of the, Church of England, and when
this attack was pointed, not against the Government only,
but against the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop
of York, and three of the Reverend Prelates of the Church, the
inference which he wished the House and the public to draw, was
that hard words were not always arguments, and that they did not
carry weight or justification with them.—(Cheers.) The misfor-
tune was that it was impossible to approach any of these subjects
without the risk of exciting exaggeration. This Bill professed to
abolish a certain number of Church sinecures— (Cheers)—and to
apply the income of those Church sinecures to make a more adequate
provision for the religious instruction of the community Let it not
be said that this Bill was calculated to destroy the Church of Eng-
land. It was intended to apply what could be spared to the imme-
diate objects of religious instruction.—(Hear, hear.) He could
scarcely reconcile the conduct of Hon. Gentlemen opposite, with
their professed intention to increase the efficiency of the Church.
Sir THOMAS ACKLANI) believed thtt a very valuable end
was intended to be arrived at by this Commission. He could rot
for a moment suffer himself to believe they could have any other
end than that of improving the Church to which they belonged—
of rendering that institution more effective—preserving its effi.
ciency, and not impairing it. Re acknowledged that he looked to
the Bill with great anxiety. When authorities were quoted on the
subject, he must take the liberty to remind the House that
the members belonging to that Commission had given their
sanction to the measure. If those Prelates had given their
sanction to the measure, they had not met the appro.
bation of the great body of the Clergy, for they had met
the disapprobation of almost every one of those bodies whose Interests
were concerned—almost every Chapter and Dean in the country
had made strong complaints against it. There were strong objec-
tions and the authorities were divided, but even if they were all ar-
ranged on the one side, he apprehended that when the report of the
Committee assumed the shape of a Bill, each Member of this
House should act for himself, and judge for himself; and there-
fore the measure ought to be as much considered as if it
came on the simple recommendation of her Majesty's Government.
This was a Bill of detail, and it could not be fairly examined without
giving an opportunity to the House, and to those who were affected
by it, of considering the measure in all its bearings.
Mr. HUME said this appeared to him to be a most extraordinary
course, and it only showed the Noble Lord that if he gave the mini-
mum of reform, he would get the maximum of abuse.—(Laughter.)

which,
Mr. BERNAL read as follows : "That the Judgcs of the Court
of Session of Scotland, who have attained the age of seventy years,
and who have acted in the capacity of Judge for a period of:15
years, be entitled to an annuity or superannuated allowance of the
same amount as the full salary pertaining thereto."
Mr. HU ME had no objection that judges who were Incapacitated
by age, or otherwise, should retire on a fit and proper salary.
The resolution was then agreed to.
Mr. BERNAL then read the following resolution : " That it
is the opinion of this Committee that provision be made to enable
her Majesty to increase the salaries and retired allowances of certain
Judges of the Court of Session of Scotland."

Mr. GILLON objected to the resolution, and contended that no
grounds had been laid before the House to warrant them in snaking
any addition to the salaries of these Judges. With respect to
what had fallen from the Hon. Member for Cockermouth as to get-
ting persons of eminence at the Bar to accept the office of Judge, he
contended that a salary of 2,0001. a-year would enable them at all
times to have a sufficient number of candidates for the office. Con-
sidering the business that these Judges had to do, and that the
average duration of each sitting was not more than an hour and a
half, the remuneration appeared to him extremely ample. The
Hon. Member concluded by moving as an amendment, that " while
that House was desirous that every Judge of the land should be
adequately remunerated, they were of opinion that the whole time
of those of those Judges should be devoted to the public service ; and
that although the salaries of the Judges of Scotland were less In
amount than the salaries of the Judges in England, it was suffi-
cient to maintain the dignity of the office, and to promote the due
administration of justice, which would never be endangered by the
want of first rate talent at the bar to accept the office,"
Sir GEORGE SINCLAIR had to take the rather unusual
course of tendering his grateful acknowledgment to her Majesty's
Ministers for the introduction of the present measure. This satis-
faction, however, was not without some alloy, for he had hoped that
it was intended to ground that motion, and to determine upon the
amount of increase to be proposed, upon the terms of the Record
presented by the Committee of 1834, of which he had been the Chair.
man, Lord Althorp was at that time Chancellor of the Exchequer, and
he revised the lists carefully, adding some names. The resolution
was adopted by a large majority of that House, and he (Sir G. Sin.
1 emir) had only to regret that he so long remained in abeyance.
Some of the first men of that day supported the resolution. He
was astonished to hear the Hon. Member for Falkirk come forward
in :the manner that he had done, stating that 2,0004 a year was
quite sufficient for any of the Judges of Scotland. He was the
more astonished at it, when he recollected that the Hon.
Member had come forward to support an increased allowance to a
Royal Duke, who was at the present moment in receipt of an in-
come of eleven times the amount of any of the salaries of the
Scotch Judges. In his (Sir G. Sinclair's) opinion it was the duty
of the House not to consider what the Judges would take, but
what they ought to give to enable them to enjoy the
comforts of life. He trusted that her Majesty's Ministers would'
adopt the suggestions of the resolution to which he had referred.
He (Sir G. Sinclair) was satisfied to rest the decision of this ques-
tion with the gentlemen connected with Scotland, and he would con-
fidently appeal to both sides of the House whether her Majesty's
Ministers would not best obtain the objects they had in view by
making the report of the Committee the groundwork for their future
proceedings.

Mr. HUME considered that the Right Honourable Baronet had
advanced the strongest arguments against the motion that any man
could by possibility have done, and he could not reconcile the
statements that he had made. They had already the best men on

the bench that Scotland could produce, and what more, he would ask,
could be required? The Right Hon. Barontt had said that the
House ought to be liberal upon such a subject. Who were the
parties that were to be liberal ? Why, the Members for Scotland.
Who were the parties to receive the benefit of that liberality ?
The judges of Scotland. Now he was one of those who was not
inclined to vote away the public money unnecessarily ; he would
never vote public money for services when those services might be
obtained at a cheaper rate. They had already been told that they
had the most talented men in Scotland on the bench, and what
necessity was there, he would ask, to raise the salaries of the
Judges in order to insure a succession of talent? Why, he would
ask, should the people of England and Scotland be taxed to please
the Scotch Members ? He was sure that the people of Scotland
would be dissatisfied with their Members if they allowed them to be
taxed unnecessarily. With respect to what the Lord Advocate had
stated he wished to say a few words. That Learned Lord seemed to
be sore that any question should have been raised about voting
money without any reason being shown for it. The Learned Lord
must state the opposition to have proceeded from the narrow mode
of his proceeding. As to his telling him (Mr. Hume) that he knew
nothing of the evidence, what was the fact ?—why it turned out
that the Lord Advocate was wrong and that he (Mr. Hume) was
right.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Did the Learned Lord
admit there was any truth in the evidence of Lord Jeffrey ?
His testimony for an increase was held to be good, but in
what situation, he would ask, did that Learned Lord
stand. Why, he was the expectant Judge.—(Cries of " No, no,
and Oh, oh !") Hon. Members might cry, Oh, oh! but he would
say, Yes, yes. Did the Lord Advocate say that one part of the
evidence, because it favoured his view of the case, was true, and
that the other was not so. He would allow the evidence on both
sides to be exceptionable, but, admitting it to be so, a different
course might surely be adopted. The Learned Lord, notwithstand.
ing all that he had stated, would never find him desirous of opposing
that which was just and reasonable.—(Hear, hear.) The oppo-
sition which the Learned Lord seemed to dislike so much, was
not from any wish to give him trouble. On tire contrary,
if he was desirous, as he (Mr. Hume) believed him to be, to carry
out the reforms proposed, he would be one of the first to assist
him. All that he wanted was, that the hands of the Learned Lord
should be strengthened by that House. He had not heard from
the Learned Lord whether the salaries of the Judges should be in-
creased. It was true that he had stated some reasons of his own,
but no facts upon which he founded his motion for an increase of
salary—no reason having been given, he (Mr. Hume) thought that
it would be a waste of the public money to adopt the resolution for
giving greater salaries to the Judges of Scotland, when it was ad-
mitted on all hands that they had men of the first talent on the
Bench in Scotland.

If the Noble Lord were to propose extensive and efficient reforms,
he might, then, perhaps, give Hon. Gentleman opposite just grounds
for complaint. The necessity of having an efficient Church was so
frequently admitted, that he was surprised that airy measure of
that sort should be quarrelled with. If the Bill to be introduced
this Session was to be similar to that introduced last Session,
it would go to pot an end to a certain number of sine-
cures. The public money, which was granted with a view
to promote religious instruction, was scandalously wasted.
The object of the present Bill, he believed, was not to take away
that money. He (Mr. H.) wished it was—(Hear, hear)—he would
take the money away and apply it to other purposes. But when
the Government proposed to apply the money in a proper mode,
Hon. Gentlemen opposite came down and stated they would object
to that, b, cause forsooth it was interfering with the Establishment
Why, it was the duty of Parliament to dispose of the public funds
to the greatest possible advantage. On a former occasion he had
objected to the Bill introduced by the Noble Lord, because
it did not go far enough, and he told the Nobthele Lord that
he might as well be abused for going whole way
as for only going half way.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Half
measures of that kind did the Noble Lord no good.—(Renewed
laughter and cheers.) The Hon. Baronet who had last addressed
the House had said this was a Bill of details. He (Mr. H.) con-
tended it was a Bill of principle ; and the principle was to put down
sinecures, and secure efficient service.—(Cheers.) He could only
conclude that money, money, money, was the object sought, and
not religious instruction ; and the reason why the measure was
opposed was because those funds were to be taken from the idle, the
lazy, and the useless, as all sinecurists were.—(Hear, hear, and
laughter.) Those who wished to promote the best inter_
ests of the Church ought not to oppose the measure for
putting an end to that which was declared by the
heads of the Church to be a scandal and a disgrace to it.—
(Hear.) If Hon. Gentlemen desired that which they pretended,
the welfare of the institution, they ought not to come forward and
protest against the abolition of sinecures.—(Hear.)
Lord J RUSSELL had no doubt that the Hon. Baronet the
Member for Devonshire was sincere in the opinions he entertained
as to the measure intended to be proposed.—(Hear.) It had been
said that certain parties could have no personal Interest in the
matter, but some of those Deans and Chapters who were referred
to as having no personal interest, it was proposed to reduce. He
did not wish to say anything that could be considered as offensive
to those bodies. He did not think that was the spirit in which the
question should be argued. But he would ask the House whether
the object they had in view was not one worthy to be sought ; and he
could further ask whether there were any means by Which that end
would be obtained with so much satisfaction to the People, and even
to the Church itself, as the means which
the Church Com-
mission had recommended.—(Hear, hear, hear.) There were
no doubt some parts of the Bill to which some of the mem-
bers of the Church Commission would not assent, but there were
many parts to which a large number of the members of the Church
would agree ; and with respect to the lea ding and osmium
parts of
the Bill, he was happy to say that if he
incurred the censure of the
Hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford, he would
have to bear that
eminent prelate, the Lord Primate of
censure with a very England,
the Archbishop of Canterbury.—(Hear.)
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
COURT OF CHANCERY,

Sir GEORGE CLERK thanked the Lord Advocate for having
brought this question before the House, and so far from the Mem.
berg for Scotland being deserving of the complaint which had
been brought against them by the Hon. Member for Kilkenny,
he (Sir G. Clerk) considered that they had been guilty of a neg.
lect of their duty for having permitted this question to remain so
long unsettled. This question had been brought forward in 1825,
but it was not pursued further, because at that time it was in con-
templation to introduce great and extensive changes in the construe-
_ _ .

tion of the Scottish Courts of Justice. Various causes had inter-
fered to prevent this ; but in 1829 or 1830, the then Lord Ad-
vocate (Sir William Rae) did bring forward some most important
measures relative to the administration of justice in Scotland.
He had brought forward measures for the abolition of the Admiralty
Court, he had abolished the Commissary Court, and reduced four
Judges in the Court of Exchequer, and it was the intention of the
Government with which he was connected to have proposed at the
same time an increase in the salaries of the Judges in. Scotland.
The Committee of which the Hon. Member for Caithness was
Chairman had sat in the year 1834 on this subject. That Com-
mittee, which had been composed of Members chosen indiscrimi-
nately from both sides of the House, after having considered atten_
ively the evidence produced, had come to an almost unanimous
resolution recommending an increase of salary to the Judges of
Scotland. His only objection to the proposition of the Lord Advo.
cate was, that it did not go so far as the recommendations of the
Committee of 1834, but as that subject would hereafter be brought
before the House, he would defer the discussion of it to another
opportunity. In the present resolution he fully concurred. But
it was asked what was the necessity for this increase of salary ?
If Hon. Gentlemen would read the evidence produced before the
Committee of 1834, he would there find evidence much more con-
vincing than any arguments could be supposed to be which were
produced by Members who were not ro competent to decide what
is necessary to keep up the dignity of the office of Judge. He was
surprised at the manner in which the Hon. Member for Kilkenny
had alluded to Lord Jeffrey.—(Hear.) No Berson could have been
more constantly opposed to his politics, during the time that he was
a Member of this House; but no person, whatever his political
opinions might be, could for one instant imagine—it was monstrous
to suppose—that Lord Jeffrey could have been influenced—(Cheers).—
in the evidence which he had given before that Committee—
(Cheers)—by the idea that it was in contemplation to raise him to
the Bench.—(Loud cheering.) The fact mentioned by the Hon.
Member for Caithness, that the Bench was at present occupied by
some of the best lawyers in Scotland, had nothing to do with the ques.
tion. It is impossible to get lawyers in the full possession of their mental
and bodily powers in the full vigour of life to accept of seats on
1 the Bench. To many of those now on the Bench offers of a
Judgeship had been previously made and rejected. Lord Jeffrey
bears evidence to this effect. He says that as far as private corn.

High Court of Chancery in the years
Mr. BLE WITT thee rose to moveßeturns of the number
of Bills filed in Her Majesty
1835, 1836, 1837, and 1831 ; of the number of Answers filed in
the several years 1750 to 1754, inclusive ; also, for the several
years 1760 to 1764, inclusive; also, for the several years 1770 to
1774, inclusive; also, for the several years 1780 to 1784,
inclusive; also, for the several years 1800 to 1804, inclusive;
also, for the year 1808, and each succeeding year to the 31st
day of December 1838; also, of the total number of folios con-
tained in the bills, and of the total number of folios contained in the
answers, filed in each of the years above specified.
From the said
Court, of the number of causes, exceptions, and further directions,
pleas, and demurrers set down to be heard in and for the years
1836, 1837, and 1838, and the number of decrees and orders made
on the hearing of the same; co( the number of cause', exceptions,
further directions, pleas, and demurrers ready for hearing on the
first day of each term, and also at the close of the sittings after each
term, in each of the above years : of the number of re-hearings
and appeals before the Lord Chancellor set down in each of the
same years, and standing for hearing on the first day of each term,
and also on the last day of the sittings after each term, in each of