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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, May 13.
The house sat at four o'clock, and heard witnesses
the Warwick Bill, up to six o'clock. Upon the
name '6f a fresh witness being called,
me Earl of ROSEBERRY rose and said, it was
t1.0;',1 six o'clock, and he had understood the pub-
-1%,c business was to commence at five. He had a
bill of very grtat Importance that was fixed for to-night,
And if titty proceeded much longer with the Warwick
business, he was afraid the attendance of peers would
kw Very small indeed. He begged to ask whether it
would not be proper to go on at once with the public
business?

The LORD CHANCELLOR was sorry that his
noble friend should be incommoded in any way, be-
cause certainly as far as his predilection was concerned
it was a matter of absolute indifference to him
whether he heard the Warwick matter or a discus-
sion upon the Scotch Entail Bill, for one was just as
important as the other. He had never considered the
Warwick Bill as a private bill in any way.
The Earl of ROSEBERRY had not stated that it
was a private bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said the noble
lord had stated it indirectly, because he said public
business ought to begin as near five as possible.
They were then upon public business according to his
sense of the word. ( Hear, hear.) They had been on
public business ever since four o'clock, because he
considered 'the question of disfranchising a borough
a very great public question. (Hear, hear, hear.)
At all events, he did not consider it like a
thrnpilre act, or an estate bill, therefore he must extri-
(carehimself from the charge of having wished to
keep the house so long on this matter, as if it
).rO,ll been a private bill, to the exclusion of more
important affairs. Perhaps their lordships had more
pleasure in hearing this than he had, but he had just
as little pleasure in hearing this as his noble friend or
any other noble lord (Hear), with this exception,
that he had been there ever since 10 o'clock, and the
matter which he had been hearing since that time up
to 6 o'clock, was, if possible, still more uninteresting
than the Warwick Bill. (Hear, hear, and laughter. )
The Earl of ROSEBERRY did not mean to de-
tain the house, and far less did he wish to enter
into any competition with his noble and learned
friend ; but he had never said that the Warwick Bill
was a private bill; all he meant to say was, that he
had understood the public general business was to
commence at five o'clock. ( Hear.)
SCOTCH ENTAILS.

The Earl of ROSEBERR Y then rose to move
the second reading of the Scotch Entails Bill. In
doing so he felt all the difficulties which attached to
the opening of a measure dry and uninteresting to the
bulk of their lordships, and was conscious of his inability
to arrest the attention of the house, or to do justice to
the merits of the bill. That the subject was one of great
magnitude and importance to Scotland would be at
once apparent, if their lordships would only consider
that in one point of view it related to the whole terri-
tory of that country. Although attempts had been
made to legislate upon the subject, no satisfactory mea-
sure had been passed ; and although during the last
year several bills had been introduced, none of them
had been brought to a successful issue. The delay,
although detrimental to the public interest, had at
least enabled him to consult all the authorities and
opinions delivered, with a view to mature the best and
safest plan for the correction of the evil. He had not
omitted to follow this course, and the bill then before
the house was the result. He had reconsidered the
opinions he had expressed in a committee of the other
house some years back, and he was fully confirmed in
the opinion that a remedy should not be longer delayed.
Their lordships were aware of the nature and baneful
effects of the Scotch system of entail, the principle of
which was founded in the personal ambition of a few
families, and was directly hostile to the general in-
terests of the community. His wish was to assimilate
the law of the two countries ; and what was good for
England he had no doubt would be found good also
for Scotland. The Scotch act of 1685 was the basis
of the machine since constructed for the creation of
entails to the ex cell+ to which it had been carried in
Scotland. The object of that act was not so much to
'upport or create a landed aristocracy as to defeat the
operation of the Law of Forfeiture, a law since
overruled by an act of the British Parliament. (The
noble earl then went into some details relative
to the origin and progress of the law of en-
tails in Scotland.) He had procured two documents
which would throw the utmost possible light upon this
subject. They related to the extent of entailed and
unentailed land in all Scotland. He had visited fifteen
counties indiscriminately, some in the north and some
in the west, some highland and some lowland, some of
good land and some of poor land, and from this aggre-
gate he hid deduced his facts. In ten counties out of
fifteen in the year 1828 he found that a considerably
larger portion of the land was entailed than unentailed.
In two he found the proportions were nearly equal,
and in two others he found that there was one-third
more entailed than unentailed. The first two were
Argyll and Ross-shire, the other two Berwick and
Kincardine. He was satisfied that the greatest public
mischief would ensue if the power of entail was not
modified. The two acts which had been passed upon
the subject had increased the mischiefs they were in-
tended to restrain. The principle of his bill was the
same as that of the noble earl opposite ( Aberdeen) for
the regulation of widows' jointures, in which it was
clearly established that where a right of change was con-
ferred there ought to be a commensurate power of liqui-
dation. One of the beneficial effects of this measure would
be the foundation-of new families by opening the sale
of lands in different districts. The effect of it would also
be to establish a class of yeomanry in Scotland, a class
the most scarce in that country, but the most respect-
able. He called upon their lordships to act upon the
report of% the select committee, which stated that the
law of entails should be altered with all prudent de-
spatch. He merely asked their lordships to do that by
a general measure which was daily done by means of
private bills. Against his proposition he knew it
might be said that there was now in the market more
land than could obtain purchasers ; but, notwithstand-
ing this might be the case, he was satisfied that un-
shackling land from the trammels of this law would
tend greatly to improve the condition of Scotland.
The noble lord concluded by moving that the bill be
read a second time.

On the question being put,
The Earl of MANSFIELD said that he felt it to
be his duty to oppose the motion of his noble friend.
It had been his intention to move that this and the
other bill should be referred to a select committee.
The Earl of RO SE B E RRY observed that if the bill
were allowed to pass the present stage he would not
object to having both his measures referred to a select
committee.

The Earl of MANSFIELD said, in that case one
or other of the bills should be allowed priority, and
that priority, if given at all, should be given to the
Future Entail Bill. He was free to admit that some
objections had been made against the law of entails ;
but he must deny that the subject had, up to that hour,
become one of general complaint. It was not, he
believed, the practice of the legislature to pass laws
which were not called for, and upon this ground he
thought their lordships ought not to give their sanction
to a measure the object of which was to change laws
that had been found efficient for more than a century
and a half. Whatever evils might during a long course
of years have crept into the system, it was quite clear
that the law of entails had not thrown any obstacle in
the way of improvement; and, therefore, thinking the
proposed alteration inexpedient, he begged to move
that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
The Duke of HAMILTON supported the amend-
ment, and expressed his entire concurrence in the ob-
servations which his noble friend (the Earl of Mans-
field) had made.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he did not
altogether agree with the noble duke, nor did he go
the length of the noble earl (Mansfield) in opposition
to the bill on the table. He (the Lord Chancellor)
intended to vote for the second reading of it, with a
view to refer the discussion to a select committee, as
he agreed with his noble friend (the Earl of Roseberry)
that the subject required great attention, and would
be more satisfactorily discussed in a committee than in
the house. He agreed with much that was in the bill
of his noble friend, but, as he stated when it was in-
troduced, there was much that he did not approve of.
The noble duke seemed to regard the act of 1788 as
the magna charta of Scotland, and at the same time
seemed to wish to carry the principle of entail farther
than that act went. The doctrines laid down by the
noble duke would.,engender extreme opinions. Did
the noble duke mein io•assume that it was essential to
the idea of-property that there should be entails?
He (the Lord Chancellor) differed as much from
those who said that there should be no entail as he did
froitithose who wished to carry the principle of entail
to an extreme. He believed that when carried to a
moderate extent it was most-useful, and thought that
it was advantageous to the extent it existed in Eng-

land. The opinion which he (the Lord Chancellor)
had just stated was entertained by most of those who
had turned their attention to the subject. Both
the opinions—that in property there should be no
entails, and that all property should be tied by entails—
were now abandoned by considerate persons as extra-
vagant. He repeated that he did not think that the
law could be in a much better state in this point than
it was in England. Neither himself nor his noble
friend (the Earl of Roseberry), however, had any wish
to introduce the English law into Scotland. Indeed,
he knew that any attempts to do so must be unsuc-
cessful, in consequence of the difference in the habits
of the two countries. Formerly both the English and
the Scotch law assimilated on this subject, and there
was considerable doubts which was the original law ;
but he believed that antiquaries stated that the former
was the oldest. Since the time of Brackton, who
stated the old law, very great alterations had been
made in both England and Scotland, and the princi-
ples and details of the law of entail were so different
in the two countries that it would lead to nothing but
confusion to introduce the English law into Scotland.
He did not believe that any such wish existed in the
mind of any rational man who knew any thing about
the subject. At-the same time, however, he thought
that it was possible to take a chapter, on principle,
out of the English Law Book, and adapt it with ad-
vantage to Scotland. He did not see any advantage
or necessity in tying up property for the
" Nati natorum, et qui nascentur ab illis,"
for five thousand generations. He recollected hearing
of one case in which a man directed that his property
should be tied up for a period as long as the rain fell
or the river flowed. The noble duke in his admiration
of the act of 1685 seemed to consider that the aboli-
tion of the heritable jurisdiction was an infringement
of that act. He (the Lord Chancellor) thought that
these jurisdictions were most objectionable, and he be-
lieved that a greater curse never existed; and the act
of 1747, which abolished them, was one of the greatest
benefits ever conferred upon a country. He was sorry
that the noble earl (Mansfield) objected to the second
reading of the bill ; but he (the Lord Chancellor)
trusted that'when the noble earl considered that it was
only to be read a second time with a view to be sent
to a Committee up stairs he would not persist in his
opposition.
The Duke of HAMILTON denied that he had
said any thing to justify the idea that he was favourable
to heritable jurisdictions.
The Earl of ABERDEEN said the few words he
had to address to their lordships would principally
refer to the allusion that had been made to a bill re-
lating to the Scotch entails which he had had the
honour of introducing a few years back. That bill
was intended only to be a temporary measure, prepa-
ratory to one that should pass the whole of the entails
of Scotland in review, and fix them on a permanent
basis. He was quite aware that the very existence of
this law rendered some other measure necessary. He
could not exactly say whether the present bills about
to be introduced by the noble earl would come up to
the object for which they were intended, but he feared
they would not, since they seemed too partial in their
tendency. In voting for the second reading of the
bill he hoped his noble friend would not consider him
pledged to the details of the measure. He was will-
ing to go into committee on the bills, in order to see
whether they might not be amended. He reserved
himself for a future opportunity to offer more extended
remarks on the bills.

Lord MELVILLE said the few observations he
had to make would be merely a repetition of what had
fallen from the noble lord who had just sat down. He
approved of the course that had been pointed out,
namely, to have the bills referred to a committee above
stairs. He hoped, therefore, that their lordships would
allow the bills to be read a second time.
The Earl of ROSEBERRY replied.
The bills were then read a second time, and ordered
to be referry to a committee.
RWICK BOROUGH BILL.

The examination of witnesses against this bill was
then resumed.
- -

Benjamin Mullins was the first witness examined.
Elizabeth Mullins, the wife of the last witness, was
then examined. _ _

......
Jabez Richardson was the next witness examined.
The next witnesses called were Edward Mannell
and William Huxley, whose examination lasted until
ten o'clock, when the house adjourned to ten o'clock
to-morrow (this day).

. HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 13.
The SPEAKER took the chair at half-past live.
Mr. A. BARING presented six petitions from
places in Essex, praying that the house would not
sanction any measure to injure or diminish the effici-
ency of the established church.
Mr. H. HANLE Y presented two petitions from
Lincolnshire, in favour of the Islington Market Bill.
Mr. K. TYNTE moved that there be laid before
the house a return of the names of the British Con-
suls and Vice-Consuls holding offices or appointments
under the Government, with the amount of their sa-
laries.—Ordered. Also, a return of the number of
imperial gallons of British and foreign spirits entered
for home consumption in the year 1833 (as we under-
stood). •
Mr.'JONES brought in a bill relative to the levying
and appropriation of the tonnage duties of the corpora-
tion of Londonderry.—The bill was read a first time.
BENEFIT SOCIETIES.

Mr. WILK S said that he had given a notice which
stood for to-morrow relative to benefit societies. As
he understood that a noble marquis was about to intro-
duce a bill with a similar object in the other house,
he would withdraw his notice for the present.
POOR LAWS' AMENDMENT BILL.
Mr. HALC OMB gave notice that on Friday next
he should move certain amendments upon the house
going into Committee upon, the Poor Laws' Amend-
ment Bill.
Mr. H. HUGHES presented a petition from a
place in Oxfordshire, praying that the house would not
pass the bill for the admission of dissenters to the
universities.

Mr. PR YME said he had long since given notice
of a motion (which seemed to him of very great im-
portance), in order that he might have an open day for
bringing it forward, but as there were other matters
of still greater importance likely to engage the atten-
tion of the house— _ _ _

The SPEAKER begged to know if the hon. mem
ber intended to go on with his motion or not ?

Mr. PRYM g' said he did not.

The SPEAKER said the hon. member could not
make a speech, unless he intended to conclude with a
motion ; and, if he put it off, he could not of course
do so.

Mr. PR YAIE said, then he should go on with his
motion. There was another question of great impor-
tance to which himself and several other hon. mem-
bers were willing to give way—he meant that for the
establishment of a general register of births and deaths,
but it was not to be supposed that he would yield if
the other hon. members would not do so. ( Cries of
" Move, move.")

Mr. WYNN rose to order.
The SPEAKER asked what was the hon. mem
ber's motion? (Laughter, and cries of " Move, move,'
in the midst of which the hon. member sat down.)

Mr. H AWE S would not detain the house snore
than a minute. He merely desired to state that Go-
vernment on the one side, and the Trustees of the
British Museum on the other, had assented to the
appointment of a committee on the subject of
which he had given notice to move for a com-
mittee. He tendered both parties his grateful thanks
for this acquiescence. The subject, however,
was not one that pressed, and he would not proceed
with it this session.

Upon Mr. O'CONNELL being called on,
Mr. A. BARING begged to present a petition
on the subject which he understood was about to be
discussed by the hon. and learned gentleman. It
affected the admission of students to practice in courts
of justice. It was a petition, signed by many of
his constituents living in the neighbourhood of Col-
chester. It was short, but worded in a most
able manner, and to save his going into the details
he would request, with the permission of the house,
that the clerk should read it. Hon. members would
not be surprised that individuals who had been in the
habit of listening to the eloquence of the hon. member
for Colchester, felt proud in having such a represen-
tative, and also indignant on this subject. The object
of the petition, however, was not to impugn the deci-
sion of the members of the Inner Temple, but to ex-
press that in which he cordially concurred with them,
that it was a most important subject for the considera-
tion of the house, when any body of men should be
allowed in their private apartment to decide that any
-person should be excluded for life from :entering into
one of the great professions of this country. The
question involved a great general principle, and the
petitioners respectfully but emphatically called the
attention of the house to it. He (Mr. B.) would
not at the present moment enter upon Abe discussion
of it, as it was going to be debated by. the _hon. and
learned member for Dublin, but he would request the

petition to be read, because it stated fully and power-
fully the views of the petitioners.
Mr. S AND ERS ON presented a petition upon the
same subject, from the inhabitants of Colchester.
Mr. L ENNA RD said he had a similar petition
to present from the southern division of Essex,
signed by 1,500 individuals, many of whom he
was well acquainted with, and to whose character
he could bear the highest testimony. The petitioners
said that they had been induced to sign the petition in
consequence of a gentleman connected with the coun-
try having been unjustly excludedlgtin the Bar ; and
because they considered such a right of exclusion, in
the exercise of which the public had so decided an
interest, ought not to be confided to an irresponsible
body of men. They deprecated the proceedings of
the benchers in the case of Mr. D. W. Harvey, and
expressed their desire that they should be brought
under the consideration of the house.
INNS OF COURT. _

Mr. O'C 0 Nlsl E CL rose to bring forward his mo-
tion upon this subject. He would be very brief on this
occasion, because he felt sure that any hon. gentleman
who had read the sixth report of the Common Law
Commissioners, must be convinced of the absolute ne-
cessity of an inquiry into the present state of the
different Inns of Court. He meant to extend
his motion to include special pleaders. The powers
of the King's courts could not be exaggerated ; they
had the power ofpreventing any man acting as attorney,
barrister, or special pleader. The object professedly
was to prevent improper persons practising at the bar.
Now, no barrister could gain any emolument unless
employed by the public. The monopoly in itself
was not close, but men whose politics were not agree-
able to those tribunals were rejected, and he himself
might have been affected in that way if he had com-
menced his political career before he entered the
profession. ( Hear.) It was impossible to exaggerate
the importance attached to those tribunals. His own
opinion was much against any very close examination
as to the fitness of any man being called to thebar, and
he would not say that there would be any great evil
in allowing any man, unstained with crime, to
practise. He might allude to the instance of Mr.
Wooler, who exhibited so much talent that his friends
thought he might rise in that profession, but he was
refused, because he was a printer, without remedy,
and without explanation. He applied to the Court
of King's Bench, the only result was a declaration
that he could not be received. Was his Majesty's Go-
vernment prepared to countenance such proceedings as
these ? There was no necessity for much argument,
because there had been an investigation and a report.
The tribunals which decided the fate of young men
designing to come to the bar were, the King's Courts
in Ireland, and the four Inns in this country. How
did they acquire this power, by charter, by grant,
or by an Act of Parliament ? (Hear, hear, hear. )
To all those questions he replied in the negative.
There was no charter, no grant, no prescription,
no act of Parliament; indeed, there was not any-
thing that came under the description of law. ( Hear,
hear, hear.) The report of the commissioners was
confined to that one object. The Inns were in fact
trades' unions, and similar in their formation to the
tailors' union. The late Lord Mansfield had described
those societies as voluntary ones. The origin of them
was their being seminaries of learning, and intended
only to teach the law ; they originally confined their
power to that object, and he ( Mr. O'Connell )
had found that fictitious causes were now ar-
gued, and meetings--as they were then called—
were held. The judges and sergeants (if there
were any) heard the arguments in those ficti-
tious causes, and gave their decision on them, and
the meetings were a species of lectures. It ap-
peared from Judge Fortescile, that those inns were
then frequented by the sons of the nobility and gen-
try ; and that not only were they taught the law, but
also taught to dance, &c., thereby adding to their
serious and solemn studies, other accomplishments.
Now the qualification seemed to be the eating a certain
quantity of mutton and drinking port wine. ( A laugh. )
At the period he (Mr. O'C.) was studying, so parti-
cular were they in their regulations, that there was
actually an enactment of Queen Elizabeth, requiring
the students to shave themselves once a fortnight.
(Loud laughter.) The special pleaders, it appears,
were merely to hold their situations at the pl6.sure
of the bench, and the house would agree with him that
this was a most unjust and improper regulation.
It was stated by Mr. Curwood that he was prevented
for twelve months from being called to the Bar, not
for any fault of his own, but from an unfounded pre-
judice raised against him, because a friend of his hap-
pened to be engaged in a quarrel with one of the
benchers. (Hear.) That was a sample of the kind
of " wholesome power," as it was called, exercised
many a time by the benchers, and of the salutary pro-
visions of their laws in excluding men of genius, in-
dustry, and erudition from the Bar. Why should any
self-appointed body of men, raising themselves to the
importance, by certain private regulations of their
own, of arbiters over the pursuits, fortunes, and pros-
pects of individuals, expect that the Legislature of the
country would shield or encourage them in the absence
of any statute of law or privilege from the Crown
granted for their incorporation or protection? Oh,
but he (Mr. O'Connell) would Le told that the Judges
were visiters, and that of course no wrong could exist ;
that the ermine of the Judge wouldrub off all abuses.
Now, if the Judges had leisure to attend to the duties'
of visitation, as they had not, yet he questioned the
constitutional exercise or the policy, of their ower to
visit. What was the power at present in the
benchers ? Why, they might decide on th • ..*rns of
any one for admission behind his back, without even
allowing him to call witnesses. Tli • might conde-
scend to hear his witnesses, but t -as optional with
them, and there was no power of . cing their attend-
ance. A man might be obliged to eull his enemy ; the
enemy might not wish to attend; and he could not be
compelled to do so. Even if he did attend, he was
not called on to give his evidence on oath. The
honourable member for Colchester was deeply inte-
rested in the present motion ; but he (Mr. O'C.) was
persuaded that he did not intend, any more than
he (Mr. O'C. ) wished, to impugn the integrity of
the judges. Mr. Harvey was returned six times by a
popular constituency ; they knew him well, and were the
best judges of his character. Large bodies of Intelligent
and honourable men stamped him with the broadest mark
of their approbation ; and though he was pronounced able
to sit in parliament, he was pronounced unfit to hold a
brief in court. (Hear, hear.) His was a case that,
trumpet-tongued, called for investigation. The report of
the case he (Mr. O'Connell) read, and he staked whatever
personal or professional character he possessed on the asser-
tion that there neverlived a man more grossly and grievously
injured. If he appealed to any common jury on the merits
of his case, he (Mr. O'C.), as a professional man, would
risk h s reputation in saying that he would obtain a verdict
of acquittal. He concluded by moving, " That a select
committee be appointed to inquire into the practice ob-
served by the Four Inns of Court in London, and also by
the King's Inns, Dublin, upon the application of persons
to be admitted students, and to be called to the bar ; and
also to inquire into the revenues of each Inn, and the appli-
cation thereof."
The motion having been seconded by Mr. ROEBUCK,
and put,
Sir J. SCARLETT said, it was very true that before
any person could practise either as a special pleader or as a
conveyancer he must be admitted by some inn of court ;
but really the proceeding was so much a mere matter of
form in as far as the benchers were concerned, that upon
their account he, as one of them, could have no objection
.o any change whatever. The present system was pursued
under an act of Parliament which required the course to
be taken that was now followed. The chief, if not only
difficulty imposed, was in the shape of certain stamp
duties; and if it should please his noble friend at the head
oc
of u
lthdehEa
vxec hne
oq uoebri
et
cot
iroepe a ho
n,al
and
dse doubtless duties,
gentlemen
e
ng
to become conveyancers or special pleaders would be
thankful for the • change. (A laugh.) But the hon. and
learned gentleman appeared to think the practice oppressive.
Now he had never heard of but one complaher with respect
to it, and that was a complaint from the respectable prac-
titioners of a neighbourhood, that a hedge lawyer had
received his certificate to the prejudice of the character of
the profession. He certainly thought that ample, if not
too much, facility was given to the obtaining of the certi-
ficate, which the hon. and learned gentleman appeared to
think was to be gained only by the benchers being bene-
fited. In consequence of the complaint to which he had
referred most of the courts had, he believed, adopted a
rule requiring that a party on applying for a certificate to
practise either as a conveyancer or a special pleader
should produce certain evidence of his respectability.
But then it was asked upon what authority did
the benchers of the inns of court interfere with the mat-
tar? He knew of none other than the Act of Parliament.
Another object of the motion was to institute an inquiry
into the property of the inns of court. It was well known
to those who had taken the trouble to make themselves ac-
quainted with the subject that these societies were volun-
tary, that their funds arose out of subscriptions or gifts
from the different members, and that the property was as
much private property as was the estate of any gentleman
in the country. In saying this, however, he did not deny
that that house had the power to institute an inquiry. Of
t
. course it had. It had also the power to institute an in-
quiry into the property of his noble friend (Lord Althorp)
over the way, or of any other hon. member ; but he
thought the experiment would be rather a dangerous bne.
(Hear.) He had only to state the fact as to the character

of the property. The history of these societies wits known
to those who had taken an interest respecting their rise
and early proceedings. They originated chiefly in a strug-
gle between the church and the gentry, andothers anxious
to cultivate the profession of the common law. For the
purpose of establishing the study of the common law with-
out the church those voluntary societies Were formed) and
they were countenanced and assisted at dilterent times
ti
the Crown. The hon. and learned gentleman had asked
upon what authority the Weeleers of the inns of court took
upon then tlX'es the Veever of refusing to admit a ,persoe to
the bat ? Wh'y Lord Mansfield had answered that ceees
tion. The benchers had the authority of the Judges. The
case of attorneys was somewhat diffeeetet. by the act of
the legislature that power evis vested in the judges under
certain specified regulations. The inns of court, therefore,
had nothing whatever to do with the admission of gentle-
men as attorneys. Now the hon. and learned member had
moved for a committee of inquiry, and he therefore con-
tended that, in order to support his motion, the, hon. ~.ha
learned gentleman ought to have speeffieellY stated the
cases which rendered such inquiry necessary. He had,
however, not done ed. To two cases only had the hon.
and leeened gentleman even alluded ; the first was the
case of Mr. Wooler. The hon. and learned member stated
that Mr. Wooler had been refused admission as a student
on the ground that he was a hard-working printer. If he
remembered rightly, 3lr. Wooler was refused admittance,
not because he was a hard-working printer, but because he
had been twice convicted of a seditious libel. (Mr. D.
W. Harvey, we believe, said only once.) That might be.
He would not be positive, but he thought that he had been
twice convicted. He would not attempt to say whether
the decision of the benchers was right or wrong on abstract
principle, but he would contend that it offered no ground
for inquiry by that house. If the house, however, thought
that one case of this kind was sufficient to call for an alte-
ration of the present system let the proper means be taken
to effect it.
Mr. O'CONNELL suggested that Mr. Wooler had not,
in fact, been convicted at all.
Sir J. SCARLETT could tell the hon. and learned
gentleman that he himself was present in court when Mr.
Wooler was convicted. (Hear.) The universities ex-
ercised a similar, power as to the admission of students,
and he had not heard that any objection had been taken
to their authority. In his opinion the facilities given for
the entrance of students were already ample. All that
was required in the great mass of cases was the security
of two householders for the payment of the commons, and
the certificate of a barrister, a member of the court, as to
the respectability of the party applying. In the inn of
court to which he belonged there had been adopted a rule
requiring that any person, befpre he was admitted a stu-
dent, should give evidence that he was possessed of the
rudiments of a liberal education. No deep or consumate
knowledge was required, but it was deemed necessary
that the applicant should be versed in the elements of those
branches of liberal knowledge, the pursuit of which was
considered absolutely essential to a fit and efficient dis-
charge of the duties of a barrister. Nor could he quit
that point without stating that this rule had been followed
by the happiest effects. It was in the Middle Temple that
it had been adopted, and that inn had since its adoption
risen very much in public estimation. Then as to the tax-
ation of which the hon. and learned gentleman had com-
plained so heavily. These societies did not profess to pro-
vide gratuitously eating and drinking for their members.
The students, therefore, attendance at commons being a
part of the discipline they had to go through, were called
upon to pay a proportion of the cost incurred. In com-
mons the societies were divided into messes, each consist-
ing of four. The cost of the dinner for each mess to the
society was, he believed, about 165., and each student
was charged for his dinner ls. 6d. Besides that sum he
had a fee of 51; to pay ; but then he had the wine allowed
without charge, and therefore he thought it something ex-
traordinary for the honourable and learned gentleman
to talk of the inns of court raising money by taxation
for their own benefit. With respect to the stamp payable
on admission to the bar, with these the inns of court had
nothing whatever to do. If the noble lord (Althorp) chose
to remit them, then the benchers could have no objection.
He then came to the second case which had been cited as
a grievance. He would say this, that if the hon. member
for Colchester, or any other hon. member, thought that
this case required inquiry at the hands of the house, the
benchers who had judged it would be ready to furnish not
merely a report of their proceedings,
_but of every scrap of
evidence adduced before them. (Hear, hear.) It was
complained that the decision of the benchers in 1822, of
thejudges who had confirmed that decision, and that the
subsequent decision of the nineteen benchers recently was
wrong. Then why, he asked, did not any hon. member
entertaining such an opinion bring the case fairly and fully
before the house? And look at the argument of the hon.
and learned gentleman. " What !" he exclaimed, " after
the people of England have returned the hon. member for
Colchester to this house six several times, shall the bench-
ers of an inn of court be allowed to say that that hon.
member shall not be admitted to the bar ?" There were I
some in that house old enough to recollect the case of
Colonel Cawthorne, who for several years represented
Laneaster. Colonel Cawthorn was tried before a court-
"martial, and convicted of suppressing marching billet-
money. After his conviction the case was brought under
the consideration of the house, and Colonel Cawthorne was
expelled. The people of Lancaster, however, again elected
him, and he sat subsequently to his expulsion for three par-
liaments. Now, no one would contend the house had not
acted with great propriety in expelling Colonel Cawthorne,
because when elected he was not the criminal he was after-
wards proved to be. Once expelled, however, the house had
done its duty ; and if the people of Lancaster chose to re-
elect Col. Cawthorne as their representative, they had a
right to do so. But Colonel Cawthorne could never after
his conviction have been admitted a member of the bar.
Such a thing would have been impossible, and in fact,
although Colonel Cawthorne was a student, he never
applied to become a barrister. He would not then go
into the case of the hon. member for Colchester.
("Hear," from an hon. member near Mr. Harvey.) He
repeated that he would not then go into the case, simply
land plainly because it was not properly before the house.
Let any hon. member bring the case before the house, and
he would be ready, point by point, to justify his conduct
in coming to the decision he had as a bencher of the inn of
s feeCor
re°dt NatakhsNeenaE
court. This much, however, he would say. The hon.
and learned gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) had said that he
had read the case, that he had considered it, and that he
was decidedly of opinion that the decision come to was un-
just. Now, he would assert, and with as much confidence
as the hon. and learned gentleman could by possibility as-
sert anything, that there were not to be found in England
nineteen gentlemen actuated by the feelings of gentlemen
who would not concur in the decision come to by the
benchers in the case of the hon. member for Colchester.
With their exception he knew of no other motion in which
a person applying for admission had been refused. It was
true that when he was a student Mr. Horne Tooke was
rejected, but the ground was that being in holy orders that
gentleman was not eligible for the Bar.
matter
interest
tt
et
er
confine
osontd deniedeeffidabinnunoaecfut)or
education.
tttothethineAememm. strictpru p.opsptrtrHuthcoboonHlehr importance
e Tooke was
in holy orders.
f
Sir J. SCARLETT—At all events Mr. Horne Tooke
be considered was the rector of Brentford. (Hear, hear, and laugh-
ter.) He did not know whether in that house it would
tisthheouwclhasdarabcter of the bar ; but his own opinion was that, as
theiwsnueteac most important duties were intrusted to barristers,
everan: thatorthao:koornmd, s maintain
hdni
a:,
hcnt ar
ragi
.aroa
snhe)rs
far
integrity,
are
isns
hsP hisscashni badlrea feeling,etgetorooo gooddf
menat oh
pas
jogbo
Some
ht pmedeuob li
his
actedc e
ainjury.se.
for
T H
themselves
made
hn a
deo n
o.
complaintamemberod others for
were
ol Colchester he
doinges
advised t e r hs a do
by their friends. Perhaps it would be always better if
the advice was professional. He had not read the case as
published by-the hon. member for Colchester, but he had
seen some of those who had read it, and he must
say that their opinion was that the hon. member for
Colchester had better have said nothing about it. That
case was heard in 1822. It was decided by the benchers
against the hon. member, and that decision was confirmed
by the judges. Many years afterwards, when only four of
the benchers who before tried it were alive, and only two
of the judges who had heard the appeal were on the bench,
the hon. member again brought his case forward. It was
again heard by the benchers, and nineteen of them unani-
mously decided in the same way as their predecessors had
done. If that decision were not satisfactory the hon.
member might have appealed to the judges. The
benchers were ready to give up every particle of the evi-
dence to any competent tribunal.
Mr. M. D. HILL supported the motion. He denied
that Mr. Wooler had been convicted. His hon. and
learned friend (Sir J. Scarlett) was mispwtahlasaiksceetandhp.eptlahicTueaththmieoornfiastnhtfdoei-:
find-
ing was such that
obitAcimhi
ftailheilratiehhypbreaeeoßmoncofeeapochdslohaedheul
benchers
hosdtaoefdut;
ob accusedbi
‘bt.
yeir.ureo.ti nru Yorke
that
Wooler judgment
upon it;
and, in fact, there never was any. Tht.oeleinrsolvle offence of
Redheadf
e itselfre Irnv
oa
Yorke
oss
roukffil-
fiwobfi
ocehiyiaeieocno enhttearttht
aot
admission.thahi
itnena gdtppeoßoonoesl
uisetf gentleman
had been convicted of a seditious libel, and the bench of
the inn to which he belonged as student at once rejected
aungohthtoerpstriollvemothrea,tcopoovliinticciaolgepornosoif-,
namely, that on Mr. Redhead Yorke's doin
owh•asadintoitmseelifltieonno
his application for admission to the bar. That circum-
stance
derations were weighed by the benchers • but in addition
what Mr.
Wooler never would do—on his recanting gpublicly his
toith
liberal opinions—the same bench who before rejected sub-
sequently granted his application, and he was accordingly
called to the bar. These were instances demonstrative of
a bad principle, and, in his opinionpowerf powerful arguments in
favour of the reform which the hon,. and learned member
for Dublin contemplated. With respect to the case of the
hon. member for Colchester, there was a point which he
felt very anxious to ascertain. He wished to know
whether, if the hon. member (Mr. Harvey) did cause an
appeal to be lodged against the unanimous decision of the
benchers of the Inner Temple, towards whom he begged
to be understood as entertaining a very sincere respect, the
judges, on the hearing of that appeal, would go into

evidence ; or whether they would not be at once estopped
by the benchers' certificate?
Sir J. SCARLETT said it would be perfectly at the
discretion of the judges ?
Mr. O'CONNELL said they might have the discretion,
but they would the care ,ifat to Use it:
Sir J. SCARLETT thoUghAit *bald be better if the
hon. and learned Member for Dublin *gild not make as-

sertions on points of which he *is.*holly,igtibrint: (Hear,
hear.) The judge-S troajd have th'e pokker a instituting
Ant investigation; shatld the party applying be able to
piOVe ti it his case had not been fairly inquired into by the
benchers.

Mr. HILL was glad to hear the judges had such a
power, but still thought it would be better to render the
extent of it less a matter of uncertainty than it at pre-
power .of cOrnrellifig ittendince of
pre-
sent was. He was of opinion that a mode of trial where
witnesses;the party
ministering
sum-
moned, was a bad mode of proceeding, and on that ground
alone he should give his humble support to the present or
any other motion tending to give to the appealing party
those means by which his case might be better inquired
into than it could at present be.
Lord ALTHORP thought the question which the house
had to decide upon was, not whether any alt Oration in the
present system of ashilitting students to the bar should
take place, but whether it was necessary to go into an in-
quiry, with a view of ascertaining what were the defects
of that system, as well as the most effectual remedy for
those defects. Now, considering that the commissioners
of common law had in their report stated very fully what
were the objections to the present mode of admitting gen-
tlemen to the bar, as well as the remedieS which Struck
them as most likely tb obviate those objections, it did
Strike him that the course the house had to pursue was
most clear, and that it would be much better to found
a measure of reform on the subject upon the report of
the law commissioners a body much more likely to
give effect to the question than any other that could
be selected—rather than upon the result of an inves-
tigation instituted by a select committee of that house.
The commissioners had, it was true, not gone quite as
fully into the subject as the motion would propose, but still
he thought they had gone quite far enough to enable the
house to legislate upon it, and that the appointment of a
select committee would only cause delay, without at all ad-
vancing the question. One of the recommendations of the
commissioners was, that the party dissatisfied with the de-
cision of the benchers should have power of appeal to the
judges, as well as power to insure his case a full and effi-
cient hearing before that tribunal, by the production and
swearing of witnesses and appearance by counsel. These
were specific recommendations, coming from a body of men
quite competent to entertain the subject ; and until it was
shown that those recommendations, if carried into effect,
would not insure the object which the hon. and learned
member stated he desired to effect by his present motion,
he (Lord Althorp) could not see any necessity whatever
for an investigation before a select committee of the house.
The case of the hon. member for Colchester had, he
thought, been far too much mixed up with the question
under consideration. That question was quite indepen-
dent of it, and could only be adduced as an argument inci-
dental to the case which it was sought to establish.
Mr. LENNARD thought, that as it was agreed upon
all hands the present tribunals were most unsatisfactory,
the sooner a more perfect one was established the better.
Mr. HALCOMB thought it but justice to the character
of the hon. member for Colchester to say, that he had
carefully examined into his case, and that his solemn con-
viction was, that he (Mr. Harvey) came out of the inquiry

• perfectly clear of all stigma.
Mr. C. FERGUSSON would not impeach the verdict
which the benchers of the Inner Temple brought in in the
case of the hon. member for Colchester, but at the same
time did not hesitate to express his conviction that that ver-
dict was come to solely because by the mode of trial in use
the benchers were precluded from investigating the subject
satisfactorily. It was to him totally incredible that a man
of sense and shrewdness like the hon. member for Col-

chester should commit an act by which his character must
be ruined, without in the slightest degree benefitting
himself. With regard to the motion before the house, he
would content himself by saying that, as some of the law
commissioners happened to be benchers of the several inns,
he would much prefer having an inquiry before a select
committee to legislating upon the recommendation which
the report of that commission held out.
Dr. LUSHINGTON objected in toto to that part of
the motion which related to the state and application of the
revenues of the several inns of court. He would tell the
house that admissibility to the bar did not and ought not
to depend alone upon high professional talent ; no; to talent
and professional knowledge ought to be added, above all
things, the highest possible character for spotless inte-
grity and for untouched reputation. These were the first
and only ingredients which were indispensable to the call-
ing of any man to the bar of that land. (Hear, hear.) An
hon. friend had said let a public trial of the professional
abilities of a candidate be the test of admission, but he would
repeat that that was not a proper test. The system had
worked well. Let the hon. member look at the bar of
this country, and ask himself if he could devise a system
that could work better. He would consent to any neces-
sary emendations, but he was persuaded that the system as
a whole could not be left in better hands than it was at
present. Let the house look at the benchers who had de-
cided upon the case of the hon. member for Colchester.
They consisted of men of all parties, of Tories, Radicals,
Whigs, such, for instance, as the hon. and learned member
for Norwich (Laughter) ; and a tribunal could not be
more fairly and impartially constituted. He was, how-
eVer, perfectly ready to consent to those emendations which
had been recommended by the law commissioners. He
could conceive no object in the motion of the hon. and
learned member for Dublin, unless he really meant to in-
quire into all the abuses that could be raked up for the last
fifty years. If the hon. member for Colchester wished
thi; house to express an opinion upon his case, he as an in-
dividual member would say upon his solemn word of honour
he had no opinion whatever to give. He had no data upon
which to form a judg ent, and in the present stage of the
proceedings he did not think the house competent to come
to any conclusion. The hon. member had stated that the
judges would not receive evidence on the case. He de-
nied it.
Mr. HARVEY—They have not the power. They can-
not receive evidence if they would.
Dr. LUSHINGTON—I do not believe it. If the
judges did not admit evidence on the case, and come to a
decision on that evidence, he would pledge himself to sup-
port an investigation into the hon. member's case.
Mr. HALCOMB rose to explain. He could not sup-
press his feelings of indignation at what had fallen from
the hon. and learned gentleman who had just treated the
house with such a display of his political consistency. He
(Mr. Holcomb) had not introduced the subject. It was
the hon. member for Norwich (Sir J. Scarlett) who had
commented on it. He could not envy the feeling of any
man who could decide upon such a question after an avowal
that he would not investigate— .

Here the SPEAKERinterposed upon the tone and lan- t
guage of the hon. gentleman, who eventually sat down. t
Sir F. VINCENT supported the motion, but regretted 1
that it did not go far enough. The benchers had assumed '
an improper situation, and they ought to be made to revert
to their original state.
Mr. PRYME supported the motion. The hon. mem-
ber for Finsbury had said that the examination before the 1
benchers ought to relate to the purity of the applicant as I
well as to his knowledge. In fact it alluded to neither. 1
With respect to purity, he would r elate one case that had
come within his own knowledge. A student of Lincoln's '
inn had applied to be called to the bar. In the reading of '
his
te exercises
iort hewhheiac
tor of a periodical, who had been convicted of a libel. The '
rhi
nagr eb
epnecchuel irasr
rteo,
ot
gh z iendn
h)
mi t
ahsa happened-
that
hear.) He had
been imprisoned some months, and the barristers came to
morapnubhlaidc,
pbleuatdead ipnrivjuatsetifilcibateilot
.n tHateaitr,was not a political '
a resolution that they would not hear read another exer-
cise from that individual. He appealed to the benchers of
the inn, party spirit ran high, and the benchers actually
overruled the decisions come to by the barristers (Hear),
and he was called to the bar. He was persuaded that the
case of the hon. member for Colchester had not been fairly
heard.
Mr. O'REILLY supported the motion.
Mr. PLUMPTRE thought the motion,if carried, would
form a precedent for any unjustifiable interference in pri-
vate property.
Sir H. VERNEY supported the motion.
Mr. SHAW said a few words in defence of the Four
Courts of Dublin.
Mr. O'DWYER supported the motion.
Mr. LLOYD contended that public opinion ought to be
the only tribunal by which admissibility to the bar ought
to be decided.
Mr. LEFROY maintained that the benchers had suc-
ceeded in keeping the bar in a state of purity.
Mr. ROLFE opposed the motion, but would support a
bill calculated to reform the evils which were acknowledged
to exist.
Mr. SINCLAIR supported the motion both on public
grounds and on the ground that the hon. member for Col-
chester had suffered an act of injustice.
Several Hon. Members now rose, but the call of the
house was for Mr. HARVEY.
Mr. HARVEY rose and spoke with great emphasis.
He had been in that house for sixteen years, and he had
had a fatal experience of how little was the chance of re-
dress which any member ever had in it from a class of per-
sons if he were unfortunately unallied with any of the great
families of the country. But, whatever might be the
strength of party, he was convinced that in such a case as
the present the house itself never would, as it never yet
had done, forget its paramount feelings of honour and re-
spect for justice. Yes, it was to those feelings, and to
those feelings only, that he now appealed. He might,
were his objects different, allude to his own case in terms
which might excite the sympathy of all who heard him—
he might state his mental sufferings—he might slate his
pecuniary losses—he might depict the clouds which had
been thrown over his prospects in life ; but he would ap:
L peal to no sympathies. He would appeal to that c
he had instructed his counsel to appeal to the Ben 5,
to
e
their respect for justice and love of integrity. He migo
hho:s
% admit that he had not, more than other men, upon alloc-
) casions been proof against the inconveniences of humanity;

but whether his transgressions were to be referred to tile
nature of youth or of more advanced years, as far as re-
garded the matter upon which he had been refused admit-
tance
to the bar what lie had done he Would do again ;he • ,
did not regret it, and liei'er had he regretted it. He would
not go into the general question. It was a question of
character, and deeply affected the house itself. Nothing
could be so
,MOristroqs.4.l OR prpßosition ; nothing could
be so derogatora-, liar, so irisilltiiii; to the• aalserOlY
which he then addressed, as to say Witt i tn_.,a ,n
might be unfit, utterly unfit., from a want of Per'
sonal integrity, to hold a half-guinea brief in the Court of
legislators,ti hl
he was,
Oldas Bailey,htoe hh woladnedav
erryaenbtke heet
on ,mwwihigiihleihtit
gba,elltfihotothitvoeugr
others
sl,eoyrcaei antdseuteNo-ointrh:
subor-
dinate in a freepcesewovreasnceooirun-engnetxort\ttvhyeio.tnt (Hear hear.) He repeated that
fidently willing; to refer the tleciSitin, of . the, case to ail
half dozen persons who were free from party Prejiidiee.
He had offered to submit the case to the distinguished In'
dividual whose presidency over that house was to be esti-
mated by his decisions having invariably gained that confi-
dence from all parties to which he was so justly entitled.
(Hear, hear.) He had further offered to conjoin with him
the hon. members for Kirkcudbright and Edinburgh, be-
cause they Were persons of esteem who were totally uncon-
nect6d vt-,itll himself; and Who were unbiassed by any stn
eng
party feelings. lie still thr64 out this sadie offeri it wit . r/
utterly impossible that the matter could 'rest there: ."'•
ptoppst
(1 lfro):
iteav:hs askt:ese errhedsb!ool 4
,:aefrttrhes.
was all very well that hon. members might say that the
case rested on general principles ; but what had been tli,
speech of the hon. and learned member for Norwich ? 11'9
had been a speech the most sincere or the most slanderous
slander. He
1 neHteeohrua
dl
di hnn
oet%th,
eiairat :
v:/ei,:bereA::::
If sincere tet the liotiFie niter into His vievts • if ,Slan, :ft:
rous, let the house express the contempt it had' ever '''''
from honour in that house upon the temptations of private
profit, and if he had done so--if he had pursued the course
J
standing there to ask justice of that house. The learn'''.
member for the Tower Hamlets had said that he had a red-
medy by an appeal to the Judges ; but let him be perinitte
in Whitehall. The appeal Was ildt to the Judges, wh,„?,,se,
twelve Judges had power to do justice, but it vas had
so in his case. What was the system ? The Judgies,`",-
seirslueivsejes,uelst,l_giilvtnehshhtsieshirteeteiianrsdgejiu:?
ist:iihNeheyoitst;cititaae:r?ta:,...ni.Y;
'Westminster Hall? rid, at ...eigeitita' Inn Hal Their
'l'44 here
functions were not a duty but a concession. An--- t ,
a jealous, intelligent audience? No, nobody but the a,-:
cuser and the accused were allowed to be present. In his
case he had been attended by the two most distingui wished
law officers of the crown; the present Lord sigh Chau".
cellor of England and the present Lord Chief Justice of
the Court of King's Bench, When the case had coin-
Is 1 said was,
menced, the first thing Lord Tenterden -a' a
" This is not a court of law—not a court of jtiStice—aii,
every person who is not a party concerned must instanti7
retire." Shortly after the present Lord Chancellor of
England, before he was raised to the peerage, had calle°
him out of that house, and had stated to him (it was on
the following Monday) that he had to attend as counsel in
a case similar and almost as flagrantly unjust as is.
He,
had invited him to attend, but he had reminded him that
he had forgotten the remarkable fact that Lord Tenterden
had made it a secret court, and had ordered all persons but
the parties engaged to retire. A few days after the present
Lord Chancellor had said to him (\lr. Harvey), " WI
are perfectly right, Mr. Harvey ; as in your case, Lord
Tenterden would not allow persons except the parties con-
cerned to be present." Surely they were not to have ao
Inquisition and a Bastile in England, because it was th°
fact, or said to be the fast, that no persons were tortured
or oppressed in them. He would give a case he,:
these secret irresponsible powers were executed. in t_h
Middle Temple a person had applied for admission to the
Bar, and it had been objected .against him that he ito r,
tax-gatherer and a foundling. In fact the man had
inducedbeen
a foundling, and his intelligence and integrity had
__
that wealthy establishment to make him a depositary of their
rents, and this the benchers decided to hadgadig, though
the Vice-Chancellor of the Exchequer been the collec-
tor tor of Mrs. Laurence, and it was known that many of the
most respectable members of the bar derived their principal
ed pr°
incomes from receiving the rents of the great land
p„,.1
prietors of this country. But the benchers had compaig
this man to give up his employment, and thus
by
TO' iate
himself a beggar for a year he qualified himself o,'s
to talked
with gentlemen of the bar. Hon. members
e in cases
about the power of producing additional
evident- cases of • ..,
of appeal, but it was very well known that in all
~, nc, !
appeal, whether to the cockpit or the privy council,
additional evidence could be offered. Ile had a
..It, .-
opinion of the judges when they sat in Westminsterettr fe ,
but he had no opinion of any tribunal which sat under the
canopy of secrecy. There must be some dishonesty where,
canopy secrecy was preserved. It was incompatible Wino ‘ ,
honest purpose. It was true they kindly suggested ~,
secrecy was beneficial to the individual, because if and
~
thing appeared of a nature calculated to prejudice In
.. ,
in public opinion it would not transpire. For hi1',41,,.
sell, however, he was for the utmost publicity. ''''' .
wished the case to be thoroughly gone into, not te
establish his innocence, but to convince the boil
of it. As to establishing his innocence, he 01°1'
degrade himself, he should degrade the 5,000 inhabitant'
of Colchester who had done him the honour to send ling '.
to that house as their representative, if he doubted that Or
au instant. What he called upon the house to de, 04iii; ~.'.
inquire into his case, in order that he might convict
~..e
oppressors.of injustice. When hon. members read in !".11 :
newspapers that the hon. and learned member for NorW• ~
inert •
went down to such or such a place, on a special reel.
__. ,
with a fee of 400 guineas, they might be sure that the boos ~ ,
and learned gentleman was considered as a very dexaaau,
man ; that he was considered as an exceedingly:.
_':'al ~
man ; that he was considered as a man woo hthtle 'gorse • ,
powers in glossing over the truth, and in making .
learned ;
appear the better reason. When the hon. and
.
jury
gentleman addressed his argument to a nisi przivej
traor.. 1
efforts we x
his fee were as heavy as himself, his ative •
hat cornpar
dinary ; but it was astonishing
with
w 1 e fee was com-
lightness he touched upon his case when
t ihat was pretty
paratively small. (A laugh. ) In
fact,
t There was not
much the case with all learned gentlemen.
advance ere
one of them who could not be virtuous to
that were
cause, and he could not understand the eulogies
moat be re-
passed on their honour and independence. It moat
,), it ;
collected that what passed in that house wenteo_
on:
and ,
and that the public would know that, with all th h
vr poi :
learned gentleman's expressions of regret and srrtoahio
tilia .
with all his practised verbiage and cant, he had the
oils
:..
house that nineteen honourable men (of wh°fliunanitilaus :
and learned gentleman was one) had come to a
vise per- -
decision on his (Mr. Harvey's) case, and that hen`,
.i, the
suaded that any other nineteen honourable m itgear,
kingdom would come to the same decision. I,eople ~
hear.) All this would go forth to the publi.c._.boin tha :!.i
would ask one another, who was the person t ' ;
Ud that nine"
had sat fit for' '
hon. and learned member for Norwich not
teen honourable men had declared that albsvb nineteen
the society of gentlemen; and that an., were acquainted
honourable en in t 4 kingdom, if theY w.
d •la the
.e would cc lured ,
with the erneumstances ot the ea, , accomp `-
same ? However this statement
I might be
hraseol4l
a
by expressions of fictitiouitdelicacy, and by the pwe ,til in , 4
of pLI shed hypocrisy, Jit must still have a po learnpond
,
most injurious effect. NOW, when the hon. ana ot
ng• !At P- "
gentleman was candid for Lewes some years -0,?!...,, (alr• 't
long after the decisio f the benchers against him
s father
Harvey), he wroie a letter to his (Mr. tiarvey's/ ~.. h
in-law, to whom he was under great obligations
ii...e aid ,
election, stating that no one could regret more than .1' a it .
what had occurred, and that if he could have pretent.er he' 7
it should not have happened. ( Hear.) Soon aft'n,e-
(Mr. Harvey) had lost his seat in that house, hi em° ly,
queace of that which had been his lot all his life, n,a, ehe
urlaieubrtnldhml
learned
instancesaanr
nh d
gentleman—he
ei inoeftni
n),
Leaf jammed up between two factions (A laugh, and
ka.l_it ,n the hon. and learned member for Norwic'to be
asked him if. he would support Sum in his etfort.seluda
called to the bar ? The hon. and learned gent' ' I
doing so.
answer was, " I shall have great pleasure learners
had of your ,
need not tell you, after the cape, ience
llbtnink you a pc
talents in the riouse o Commons, that,
have heard some
caliarly lit Joan to go to toe Lax ; 0
:be necessary to clear ;
re iris et Lench dinners whi, h it will;eaurr of the Society",
ty. Y.,u kow Mr. ‘S',lsh, the le
,o honourable and inde;,
He is a tri _xi of leisure and u-ds .our nomination I shall.
pendent mind. If be will seer yout" mr welsh re',
.o,sosag Y • • tea
have
,rest iltasure in r
13 i tlemanly manner,investiga
~ ~
caved him in toe most g
'e case se, and then said, " Give 03
all toe eircumsti.n.ses o.
b:6
.ti.t, and tell him I will seer
complie,ents to Mr. Scarf e) The same gentleman, ?eh('
your nomination." (Hear. during the greater part ot ' e
Welsh, remained in the ream
benchers, but at length eatnt
discussion on his case by the ,_ere o
1 that he would not stop tn s was
out in tears, and declared ii vey) 'ed ,
with which he (Mr. ar in s
witness the injustice deter,'' that I
• mentary inquiry he now , tha .
treated. A full parha .t notic a
noble lord opposite wte
to have ; and he ~ave the which Prother
he would avail nimseii of every occasion . or ,
the civil list, „., that
itself, of every motion respecting to tn.' • 5
questions which would admit of his doing so,
a_, he %At.,
he had a right to have,astn: ~,,biolic.
inquiry, for an inquiry
determined to have it. All that he wanteidatNev‘l:rit 0,,, ito
his case to a committee of impartial and
didiiii:t 010 lie
He wanted no gloss upon his aetio
•nrishis youth, ait,t„hi;'tli't
plead that what he had done
waaisdl he pledged ',inn eon,-
became wiser as he grew i
UP
.c 'satisfaction- of sue"' - •etill
if he did not prove to the entn
t ill-treated man, tl,'„e ci.osl'
mittee that he had been a in
all u'bad assi is l'e °ger,
of malice, jealousy, and other ' P' '0! ;,,,i,be
himself move a new writ for the borough of '-'"‘„t hoe;
and leave that house for ever. (Hear, hear.) ,'A itop7v,
mbers look at the effect which these unfoune.l.7 0,,e _
metn he
tations had upon him. Every man took that
felt ooe
sure of his own capabilities. He, doing so, any,
_,. .
had as much right to sit on the opposite bench a'sceset,l7,
who was there at present ; and if this charge in,,,
moved from him, he was ready to serve the King
Tat
capacity which he might be thought fit to occupy not
declaration, however, of nineteen men, that he hat said:'
for the society of gentlemen, was such a stigma u. 1
to h°2:l Os •
it remained upon him he neither could nor oug(ht.
_re•
ced
situation of trust, either in that house or els 'WII.. pia .0
only asked what had been conceded to all otnesti„. r.,
in a similar situation. When a charge had teen 4. 'lll'
brought against the hon. and learned membeu