The Sun.
London, England, 1828-02-08 00:00:00

slight kw
Party in t
uently,
analaughter•
story of tbi
t warranted

'Ay—a more
ces did not
nes and auf-
n fee-simple
file the heir
:ourse to the
was only a

obliged to
acv, in order
. Another
quity Courts
may be pm-
ars, but this
)Ugh he has
t his agree-
irts of Law.
multiplied.
as a lease,
to sue the
,o sue in his

observed
es to their
rength or
nterest of
sts of jus-

same. It
n those of
come out
t of what
ially. In

en instru-

tdversary.
in dispute

One of
the sum

Aland the

eipt must

The
given to

ay money

as raised,

ics ought

t of corn-
Fit money

it money
[lowed in

liers, by
of adopt-
evidently

ieficial to

h I havelry;
y be coo,
ns makftw
law c0n,14
ie
t ought
[i do not..
.0 banish

Veers of
pies and

the vu-
Swift's
V s4ll'

ing a Chaneerysuit. -I ash any man acquainted with the
law, to say how inanY-oT the cases entered in the present
'paper for trial at Westminster might not have been kept
7,-" out of Court, to the advantage of all parties, if the suitors
could have been brought before a plain arbitrator to settle
their difference? This system of arbitration exists in
- France, in Denmark, and in the maritime country of
Holland. ' At Laneaster Assizes, 141. was the average
•amount of fifty of the actions entered for trial. The costs
were of course much higher. A majority of these causes
vrould never have seen the light, if the parties, in the ab-
eenet of their attorney, could have been brought before an
arbitrator. This • principle has never been tried in this
country, but it ought to be, for it has been introduced into
others with the most eminent success. It is also founded
in justice, and in the obvious dictates of common sense.
In England, it was only after the parties had had their
.
passions worked up and their purses workeddown, that
arbitration was thought of. My fist object is to expedite
the proceedings in cases of debt. Secondly, to let the
debtor know the precise cause of proceeding ; so that he
may defend himself if right, or yield if wrong. Thirdly,
to give him no unnecessary inconvenience till he is found
wrong, as Par, at least, as is consistent with the due secu-
rity of the claimant. Ilse present practice is, to arrest
the debtor instantly, and then to bring him into Court.
I need not allude to the privilege of Parliament—that
is very well understood. A rich man may easily get bail.
—.He gets his butcher or baker to stand bail for him.—
To be sure he cannot immediately afterwards he hyper-
critical in the examination of the bill, nor over fastidious
in his judgment of the meat. But the poor tradesman
who is arrested, is put to far more serious inconvenience;
if he cannot procure hail he must he confined in gaol. No
man who is imprisoned ever holds up his bead as lie did
before, except, indeed, for political offences, and then the
doctrine is reversed.—(A laugh.) Why should a man be
arrested on mesne process at all ? Is it likely, that men
in general will leave their wives and children, their
homes, or their country, because a process is served on
them for a debt, say of 50/. ? Our law proceeds on a
supposition that men always run away the moment they
have a notice of an action for debt. Do you le-
gislate wisely—do you legislate like men of sense
—do you legislate with common consistency, when
you legislate against all men upon a case which
may happen only to one in a thousand ? Alter the
law and what will be the effect ? Will it injure any person ?
No ! on the contrary, it will benefit all classes. Its first
effect will be to make tradesmen less easy in giving credit.
At present tradesmen do not compete in the goodness of
their articles, or in the honesty of their dealing, but in
giving credit ; and often in giving credit to profligate, ex-
travagant persons whom they ought not to trust. Those
who can and do pay, have to pay for those who don't—a
sort of dividend in all bad debts. Why not serve a writ at
the usual place of business or residence, and only call on
the party to find bail, when there is a reasonable suspicion
of an intention to fly? Holland is a mercantile country, and
Scotland is a wary country, and in both this is the law. A
defendant ought to receive some security from the plaintiff,
lest he should be put to unnecessary expellee, in a vexatious
prosecution, or by a person who, if he fail, may take the bene-
fit of the Insolvent Act. The process of outlawry is foolish
in its nature, for if a man does not choose to be
present, why not proceed without him? Outlawry
is a sad engine to harass an absent man. Ilia goods
are forfeited. For relief, in certain cases, the party must
apply to the Lords of the Treasury. What have the Lords
of the Treasury to do in the administration of the laws?—
Next comes the law where the parties are supposed to be in
Court, and are called upon to state their cases. He ap-
proached the subject of special pleading with caution be-
fore a person (the Solicitor-General) so very intimately
acquainted with the subject. Anciently this pleading was
by word of mouth ; it was originally in French, then in
Latin, and it is now in English. The present practice is,
however, liable to many great objections. It is a fertile
source of absurdities. Lord Coke had eulcgised the spe-
cial pleading in his day, and had declared it so excellent
that good pleading was delightful to every body. I would
wish to make it as pleasurable now as formerly. Lord
Itirnafield had said, that the rules of good pleading were
the rules of good sense, accompanied by no little subtlety.
The Courts of Law have given themselves too much to
these subtleties ; the evil is increased by the Legislature
lending itself to the frequent pleading of the general
issue. I wish to revive the system of old, mending it
where time has shewn that the original may be improved
upon. The principles of special pleading are very short
and easy. The first great object is to compel each party
to disclose, fully andfairly, the claim and the defence. The
second is, that no needless impediment in the termination
or decision of the suit he allowed in either the plea, the
replication, or rejoinder. Thirdly, all repetitions of words
and circumstances should be prevented, as well as all re-
pugnant and inconsistent grounds disallowed. On these
three principles the ancient pleaders founded their system.
At present what is called the Count, gives no knowledge of
what the action is about. I will show this by referring to
a common count for money bad and received. The plea is
for a thousand pounds, though the demand may really
be for only ten. But the same words are used for seven
different kinds of actions. Money paid from one person
to another for the use of the plaintiff. Money received on
failure of a consideration. Money paid on a mistaken
- point of fact. Money paid by a stakeholder, in conai-
deraiioia of an illegal contract. Money paid to a re-
venue officet for releasing goods. Fees of office to try
an assize of officr, and many others. I will instance eight
different pleas to recover a gun which the plaintiff has lost.
First, it is stated that the gun came into the defendant's
bands by finding ; though, in fact, it was not lost or found
by either party. Secondly, the gun taken by a man in any
way, not a felony. Thirdly, a deposit. Fourthly, stopped
for money unpaid. Fifthly, an Action of Troyer, brought
by the Assignees, if the gun was sold after the bankruptcy
of the vender. Sixthly, against the Assignees, to try the
bankruptcy. Seventhly against the Sheriff, to try the
validity of an execution, and every variety of action under
this bead; Eighthly, Inisdeliversd or detained by a carrier.
All these actions differ as much as light from darkness,
and yet they are all brought under the same form of spe-
cial pleading. The next instance in which the same com-
plaint may be made, is in actions of trespass--under which
general denomination actions of assault of all kinds may be
brought, and the same language will be employed in de-
scribing them. I will not repeat the various terms etn-
ployed alike in every sort of action included under this
bead, for they are too ludicrously absurd for this oc-
casion ; but my complaint is not so much the absurd
rigmarole of the terms used in the declaration, as that
in all actions for the seduction of the wife, the seduction
of the daughter, or that of the servant maid, the same
words are employed as in actions for hostile attacks upon
the person itself. The consequence of all this is, that these
declarations tell me nothing of the merits or nature of the
individual case
; they give the Court no information—
they afford none to the opposite party ; perhaps you will
say, but the opposite party, ought to know what is the sub-
ject of the action in which he is thus made defendant ;
well then I will agree with you, that he ought to know it;
but surely if be is bound to possess that knowledge, the
plaintiff is equally, if not more strictly, bound to have the
same knowledge; and if he has, he ought to communicate
it. Under the general head of trep the particular ac-
bon in which the pleadings
afford- the most definite in-
formation, is that of ari action of trespass in the plaintiff's
close, and just in the same proportion is that information
more useless in that than in any ether
case of the same
kind, for the action being generally brought to try* title to
landed property, the damages give* are only ie., as that sum
will as well decide the right as any other; while in those ac-
tions of trespass arising out of personal misconduct, in
which
the feelings of the individuals are deeply concerned, and where
the amount of damages is most material, we are left in
the dark, the present form of pleading only giving as „re
else information where it is least material. I have `'"
thus
Called your attention to the evils of pleading in the declare
tion ; I will now proceed to the second point of this part
of the subje
ct—namely, to the pleas which the defendant
pots upon the record in answer to the plaintiff's complaints,
en this stage of the cause we encounter the same evils. If
the plaintiff tells us little, the defendant does no more; in
that respect, at least, they are even. This is, perhaps, in
consequence of 'the former evil ; but be it what it may;
they ought to be
to tell the defendant the real nature of his complaint, and
the defendant
oughtremedied together, The plaintiff ought
to make him equal! acquainted with
the matter of the answer. If this were always done, per-
jury would not
.30 often be committed ; every thing in-
tended.to be proved ought to be stated on each side, and the
rallies knowing the evidence on which the respective state-.
'went! must be estabtished, would have an opportunity of
examining into the character of the witnesses, and of pro-
curing the best evidence to elucidate the point. At p resent the
mystery6l.o. leading leaves them in doubt,and the vague state-
,ents on the
record, unaccompanied by other information,
open a door to the admission of falsehood in the witnesses.
Whenever the parties fight each other on the record in 'the
orot instance, they always renew the fig ht by perjury in
Court. I will now give the House some instances of the
evils of this system of pleading. In the action of Assumpait
the defendant may plead the general issue alone, but it is
oisti-Within his pleasure to put any or all of the following
dface, Upon the record. The defendant may first deny
the supposed contract, saying, " I did not promise you ;"
the next 'Plea may be payment-,-then usury—then that the
,iittged debt was won et gaming—then infancy—then ac-
cool- and elltillikiioll.o4h4lla 4 relates -of the claim by the

• -- . •
plaintiff—and, lastly, eoverture. Every one of these plias
differs from the other, but they are all introduced in the
same manner to the Court. The action of trover is another
example of the existence of the same evils.' In that action
the statements of the plaintiff are equally indefinite, and
the same general allegations will describe many dif-
ferent claims. To this action, if it be to recover a gun,
the defendant may plead that he took it as a gatnekeeper,
bringing thus many questions into discussion ; if it be for
goods, the defendant may set up a right of lien ; and this
right of lien may be claimed by a number of different persons
—by an attorney, by a banker, and lastly, by the captain of a
vessel for the payment of passage in his ship. All these
different pleas may be pleaded in nearly the same manner,
and the defendant, but especially the Court, will receive
little information from the matter thus put upon the record.
Let rue not be supposed to be speaking incautiously. I
have cases chewing the existence of these evils, which many
perhaps would hardly believe possible. In almost all these
cases the pleas are couched in nearly the same words ; and
if the counts in the declaration teach us little, the pleas are
equally defective on the same point. These matters have
been the subject of consideration with Mr. Justice Black-
stone, who has alluded to many of the distinctions of
special pleading, and who, in describing the generality of
the counts and pleas in assumpsit (which he has not des-
cribed very accurately), and those in trover and trespass
(where he has more nearly approached oorrectness), he has
taken occasion to conclude his'book on Civil Actions with the
following most eloquent and elegant, and I will leave you
to say whether most just and appropriate, eulogium :
" This care and circumspection in the law, in providing
that no man's right shall be affected by any legal proceed-
ing without giving him previous notice, and yet that the
debtor shall not, by receiving such notice, take occasion to
escape from justice ; in requiring that every complaint be
accurately and precisely ascertained in writing, .and be as
pointedly and exactly :answered ; in clearly stating the
question either of law or of fact ; in deliberately resoving
the former after fnll argumentative discussion, and indis-
putably fixing the latter by a diligent and impartial trial ;
in correcting such errors as may have arisen in either of
those modes of decision, from accident, mistake, or suns
prise; this anxiety to maintain and restore to every indivi-
dual the enjoyment of his civil rights, without intreuching
upon those of any other individual in the nation—this
parental solicitude, which pervades our whole legal Con-
stitution, in the genuine offspring of that spirit of equal
liberty, which is the singular felicity of Englishmen."
—[The Honourable Member in reading this passage laid an
emphasis of so peculiar a kind on the expressions parental
solicitude and felicity of Englishmen, as to cause a gene-
ral laugh. ]—Now, Sir, the inconsistency of the rules of
pleading is the next head to which I shall direct your at-
tention, and that inconsistency is as manifest as the vague
inaccuracy I have already pointed out. Why shall infancy
and coverture be allowed to be given in evidence as:they are
under the general issue, which other defences must be
pleaded in order to be proved? If it is rght that some
specific defences, of which your general plea gives no notice
to your opponent, may be proved under that plea, why is
he compelled to give notice of oihers, in order to enable
himself to put witnesses into the box on purpose to
prove them ? Why do you in one case multiply counts,
which in the other your own practice declares to be unne-
cessary ? Where there are ten different ways of stating
a defence, and all of them pre employed, it is impossible
that any two can be true ; at the same time they disable
both the opposite party and the Court from knowing the
real question intended to be tried. Yet this practice is
generally resorted to, because the party does not accurately
know what course his opponent may make. He has there-
fore thrown his drag-net over the whole ground, In the
hope that in some part or other he may be successful. In
fairness this ought to be avoided on both sides, but such is
not often the practice; and the instance of an action of
debt on bond will afford, by the manner in which the op.
posite course may be pursued, a strong instance of the in-
consistencies in pleading to which I have alluded. In the
first place, the defendant may deny that the bond is his ;
then he may plead that he has paid it (a circumstance not
very likely to happen if it is not his bond) ; then that he
paid it before the day ; then that he paid it after the day
(things equally unlikely to happen if it was not his bond);
and, lastly, a general release from the plaintiff to the de-
fendant (a thing which, if the bond was not the defendant's
bond, would be at best unnecessary) ; and all these incon-
sistencies a man may run into, if he does not choose to
rely upon one of these pleas. I ask, Sir, whether the de-
fendant ought not, in justice, to say on which of these va-
rious pleas he intends to rest his defence ? If these seve-
ral pleas were consistent with each other, well and
good ; but while so contradictory, ought they to be al-
lowed to be put upon the record together ? I will
mention a case which occurred to me at York, and
which exhibits a singular proof of the folly of the tech-
nicalities with which special pleading so often abounds.
That action was on a wager regarding the life of Napoleon
Bonaparte, and the first count of the declaration stated it
as a wager on the life of a certain Napoleon Bonaparte,
describing hint with a minuteness which an individual un-
tutored in the admirable science of special pleading would
have deemed at least unnecessary, The second count spoke
of him as " a certain other Napoleon Bonaparte" (a laugh),
and the third count using the same form of expression as
the second, again described him as a certain other Napoleon
Bonaparte—(renewed laughter.) There was no sense in all
this—it did not afford any additional ground of complaint
to the party—it was no advantage to him, but it was much
to the practitioner; it made the suit more costly, and that
is the only advantage I can find to have been derived from
it. By a particular law a defendant is prevented from
pleading double, but he is allowed to do so if the leave of
the Court can be obtained for that purpose. Now that leave,
from being a matter of favour in the discretion of the
Court, has become almost a matter of right, and the mo-
tion to plead double is now treated by the Courts as a rule
of course. On this subject I have one remark to make.
This motion is generally made by Counsel on a half-guinea
fee ; and the mischief arising from the manner in which
this motion is now treated by the Courts is this, that frauds
are often committed, and attorneys' clerks are frequently in-
troduced into a course of fraud by a practice which I be-
lieve to exist among some of them, of defrauding Counsel
of the half-guinea fee given on such motions. The facility
of possessing this sum of money afforded by the manner in
which the Courts meet the motion, which they still con-
sider necessary, seduces them into acts which are but the
forerunners of a bad practice in another satiation in the pro-
fession. The Counsel's name may be put to the motion—it
is a mere matter of course; and the clerk, whom circum-
stances induce to take advantage of ehis circumstance, be-
gins with pocketing the Counsel's fee, and ends, when he is
an attorney, with being struck off the roll for having em-
bezzled or misapplied the money of his client. There is
another inconsistency in the law of pleading. A defendant
may plead nine different pleas, but the plaintiff's replication
(though it might well include them all) must be single.—
If the defendant pleads infancy,sl may admit his infancy at
the time of the original contract; but I may state a pro-
mise made by him after he came of age—or I may deny his
infancy : but I must not do both. It seems reasonable,
that as the defendant may plead in a certain manner, I
ought to have all the same advantages in answering him ;
but such is not the rule—the steps must be multiplied ; and
the consequences of this multiplication are obvious, as we
may remember in the tale of the horse-shoe, and the pro-
gressive value of the nails. Now my proposition on this
part of the subject would be, to allow the plaintiff and de-
fendant each to plead two pleas, both of which should most
distinctly state the ground on which the respective parties
meant to rely. I have now to notice the subject of demur-
rers, and I shall go through it very shortly. In demurrers
it is a rule of the Courts that if you demur to the law, yon
admit the fact. Why such a rule should obtain, I am quite
at a loss to determine. I need not tell you that every argu-
ment in a man's life is a demurrer. If I am alleged to
have made a promise at a particular place, I may say that
I did not make the promise, which would be a direct issue
on the fact ; or I may say, that I could not have made the
promise, as I was not at the place, which would be a de-
murrer in argument ; but if I admit I waspla
ce,
surely the
surely I may add, that may being there is no proof of the
other part of the proposition—and that, although my ad-
versary
is right in one point, his argument on the other is
not necessarily true ; but this system of defence, though
perfectly
good in common sense, is not admissible in law ;
and the plaintiff who should frame his replication in that
manner, Would be met by an objection that he was plead-
ing double* I will now speak of objections on the record
and in arrest of judgment. On this point I say distinctly
that all merely
formal errors ought to be allowed to be cor-
rected in any stage of
variance.
the proceedings, and no man should
I would have no such
occur as that of which our Courts have lately pre-
sented turned round upon a
sented an instance in the case of the indictment of an indi-
vidual on a charge of
After the record had been
taken down, the cause, had
opened, the witnesses
incurred, an acquittal was directed as of course, because, in
• the word mother' had been inserted in-
examined, and all the expense and inconvenience
the pleadings, of a trial
in-
stead of grandmother. There could be no doubt that
the perjury, which consisted in the denial or a payment,
was equally committed, whether that supposed payment
was made to the mother or the grandmother. These, Sir,
are some of the inconsistencies which I am prepared to
prove exist in the present rules of pleading. In the first
instance they give to the opposite party and the Court no
notice of the real question at issue. But, perhaps, it will
be said that this kisvwledge is Dot afforded to the opposite

party, because he must he presumed to know all, and to be
prepared to defend himielf against one demand, in how
many different ways soever it may be stated to have arisen.
On these objections to our present system, I say, as I have
said before, I will legislate, not even on the ten thousandth
instance of error, but 'on the general fault, and not leave
open the door by which such numerous errors may continue
to be admitted. In the next place, I would allow no fai-
lure of a case on account of the want of a sufficient stamp.
In a case which occurred not long since, my Lord Dudley
was turned round, because, it was said, there were a few
words more in the instrument than we had counted, and the
tamp was some half-crown below the value required. It
was an undefended cause, and we got a rule for a new trial,
is it appeared that we had counted right after all; but sup.
pose that we had been wrong in the number of words,
what difference would that have made in the justice of the
ause ? and why should we have lost a private sight be-
%lose, through an error, we had paid a smaller sum than
we ought to the Stamp Office? I would allow the Judge
!-o inflict a penalty of 201. instead of 101. for the deficiency
if the stamp ; but I would not allow the party to be turned
,ound, and to lose his trial, because ge was supposed to
'lave got a wrong stamp affixed to his agreement or deed.
In order, Sir, that you may not 'suppose these objections
are altogether theoretical, I will produce a letter which I
have received from an eminent practitioner, detailing the
particulars of a case, in which the debtor took many of
those advantages which our present system of administer..
ing the laws allows. The case related in that letter is
that of a poor Welsh widow, who had a claim by way of
mortgage on some property. The interest on the mortgage
was not paid up, but she did. not foreclose and go into
Equity—she rather chose to .bring her action at law. The
letter states, that "the defendant was a Member of Parlia-
ment, and some delay occurred, as usual." I beg pardon,
:air.—(A laugh. )—Of course, I am not answerable for the
terms of the letter—" and some delay occurred as usual,
with Members of Parliament, in getting an appearance en-
tered." Finally, however, an appearance was procured, a de-
claration was filed, and then the defendant craved oyer of
the bond. That was obtained, but the requisition and the
Irant ofit occasioned some delay. The defendant afterwards
pleaded, first, that the bond was not hie ; next, that
he had paid the interest;. thirdly, that he had paid it be-
fore the day in question ; fourthly, that be had paid it
after that day ; and, lastly, he pleaded a general perform-
ance of the covenants in the bond. The fact was, that he
employed all these pleas as so many excuses to save him from
paying at all.—(Hear.)—The plaintiff took issue on the
points of fact, and the defendant elm demurred to the
replication, filing a sham demurrer soiety for the purpose of
delay. The plaintiff joined in demurrer, the paper books
were made up, and when all these expences had been in-
curred, every thing that had been done was found to be
useless—no defence was offered in law or in fact, and the
matter finally went in the shape of a Writ of Inquiry for
the assessment of damages ; but by this process of delay,
the pleadings had been swelled from 5 to 118 folios, and
the judgment had been delayed nearly one year. The de-
fendant then brought a writ of error, which delayed the
cause for nearly four terms longer. lie never followed up
the writ, but the expence incurred was grievous. The
costs of the original suit amounted to 841. 45., and those of
the suit in error to 191. 10s., and this expence was incur-
red for a cause which was literally undefended. So tender is
" this care and circumspection in the law, in providing that
no man's right shall be affected by any legal proceeding,
without giving him previous notice, and yet that the
debtor shall not, by receiving such notice, take occasion
to escape from justice, in correcting such errors as may
arise, and in maintaining and restoring to every individual
the enjoyment of his civil rights, without entrenching upon
those of any other individual in the nation ;" a care and
circumspection which is indeed a " parental solicitude per-
vading our whole legal Constitution."—(Cheers.)—The
consequence of this " parental solicitude " was, that the
costs amounted to thirty pounds besides and beyond those
which had been taxed between the parties. The 30/. she
never got ; no doubt he paid her attorney the taxed costs,
but she was 301. out of pocket ; a sum which, for aught I
know, might amount to six years' interest on the mortgage.
This letter was communicated to me by a gentleman, who
did not know that I was acquainted with the defendant ;
but so it was, I did know him, and a better or kinder man
there could hardly be—be was distressed indeed, and there-
fore he had had recourse to these expedients for delay ; but
he was not one of those who felt indifference to the pains
of the humble, if not actual pleasure in their miseries.
Had he been such a man as some there are, who are now
in this country, had he possessed wealth, and had he re-
joiced in expending it in pertinaciously and oppressively de-
feating, at least for a time, the claims of a poor and de-
fenceless widow, he would have argued the demurrers of
law by his Counsel before the Judges, and have defended
his cause on the facts before a Jury. He would then,
when the first Court had given judgment against him, have
carried the .11.13 e in error through the Exchequer Chamber
to the House .of Lords; and the extra costs, instead of
being 301., would have been I know not how much
--probably five hundred pounds.--( Hear, hear, hear.)—
So tender is " this care and circumspection In the law,
in providing that no man's right shall be affected by a
legal proceeding, without giving him previous notice ; and
yet that the debtor shall not, by receiving such notice, take
occasion to escape from justice."—Sir, after Air. Justice
Blackstone had written these words in his Commentaries,
there occurred a case which he himself has given to the
world its his Reports, and which, as he wrote it after this
splendid eulogium on the law, might well have made him
doubt the truth and justice of that eulogium. I wonder
much, that when the last edition of Isis Commentaries ap-
peared, he did not correct the error into which his great
admiration for our legal forms had led him: The case to
which I allude was in substance this :—A Mr. Robinson
(I hope he was no relation of the Noble Lord lately at
the head of his Majesty's Government (a laugh) tried an
action against a poor man, living near him in Yorkshire.
The declaration contained five counts, and twenty-seven
pleas, and occupied two thousand sheets. The pleadings
were held to he bad ; and it having been told tke Court
that Robinson had used certain malicious expressions
regarding his opponent, and had said that he understood
law, and would catch the fellow, that he would scourge
the man with a rod of iron, /sc., they refused to try the
cause, and ordered Robinson (who appeared for himself,
stating lie could get no Counsel to appear for him) to
amend his pleas, and directed Serjeust Maynard, and an-
other Counsel, to settle the issue between these parties.
These two Learned Gentlemen performed in one hour the
duty assigned them, and the issue then, instead of being
spread over 2,000 sheets, was included within the compass
of a quarter of a sheet, without, as I can find, any injury
to the real merits of the cause. Why, Sir, why, I say, did
Robinson declare that he would scourge this poor man with
a rod of iron ? Because he. was a pertinacious, obstinate,
and oppressive person, who would use his wealth to the in-
jury, nay, the ruin of his poorer neighbours. But why did
he threaten to scourge the man with a rod of irti? He had
DO occasion to have resorted to a rod of iron to scourge his
opponent. The flapper of parchment, that excellent and
" parental" corrector of our errors—that parchment which,
while it pretended to enlighten, served only to keep the
Court as well as the .poor man in the dark—was a far
more safe as well as effective, and a far more ruinous and
deadly scourge than any rod of iron which this wealthy op-
presser could have employed to gratify his vengeance—
(Hear.) And this brings me, Sir, to the next point—that of
evidence to which I wish to direct your attention; but
before I do so permit me to say a few words on a sub-
ject intimately connected with that of evidence—l mean
the subject of Juries, upon whom I wish to express an
opinion, as they have been of late attacked by some of
the legal Reformers of the day. I say then, that I con-
sider the institution of Juries a most wholesome, wise,
and perfect invention, for every purpose of judicial in-
quiry and decision. I say this the more readily, as I
have been lately erroneously represented to have entertai-
ned doubts as to their fitness for the intended object of
their institution. My words are the result of experience
in the practical profusion of the law ; and I declare that I
believe there is, and could be no other way, so admira-
ble in the administration of the law, so well calculated to
prevent wrong, to secure sight, and to do full justice be-
tween all parties, as that old and excellent, and constitu-
tional guardian of our liberties, a Jury.—(Hear, hear.)
They are meat useful, where no men in another situation
could hope to be so. In the first place, they correct the
impressions of the Judge, not only in a political rase (for
there are others in which all mustJudesbutin a
hlalvitaenesomnceeain
de-
gree
which, of
in any way,
ay
political or personal bias),
whether against party or counsel
(and more against the latter than the former), this
bias may exist. In the second place, they correct the
Court in errors into which learne
it woulddperso n
persons aortebesodmeceetirmouees
led from the want of knowledge of the common affairs of
the world--affairs which, perhaps
for them to attend to with accurate nicety. Thirdly, and
above all, who can so well weigh the evidence of men as
twelve impartial persons, of various habits, opinions, and
tempers, indifferently selected from the middle classes of
the country? Lastly, I wish to know, who are so well
able to assess the amount of damages? Where a wan com-
plains of any injury which is properly the subject of da-
mages, who are so properly fitted to determine whether
these damages shall be .50/. or 500/, or whether the party
is entitled to any compeniation at all? Sir, the Institu-
tion works well and admirably. It wants but one addition
to complete its utility, and that is, to draw over, or rather,
I should say, to draw back from the jurisdiction of the

Court of Equity, those causes which that Court has, in the
lapse of time, attracted to itself. I shall not press the sub-
ject further, for I begin to feel that I am exhausted with
the labour which I have undertaken, and I fear that by
more enlarging upon this point, I thould but exhaust your •
patience. I will, therefore, proceed to the subject of evi-
dence. In the first place, I will state, before I go into the
principles of evidence, one matter on which I am inclined
to support an opinion that may perhaps be erroneous,
but that certainly deserves consideration ; namely—that
the exclusion of the evidence of parties interested ought to
be abolished. Certainly, the law requires some revision
on that point. The friend of exclusion thinks, that to ad-
mit the party himself would but tend to the increase of per-
july. I acknowledge that there may be some reason to
`ear his eagerness will mislead hire, but that same cause
operates on other men, and frequently makes them swear
too near the wind. But the rules of law, as they at pre-
,ent stand, are inconsistent ; for a man, though he may
aot swear in his own cause in a Court of Justice, may ap-
pear as a witness in the same cause, if it is referred to an
arbitrator. It once occurred to me to examine a rich man,
against whom a claim had been made, and who had writ-
ten many letters on the subject of that claim. I pressed
him upon the subject of what he had before thought, or
'aid, or written about the claim, but he positively refused
to say any thing about the matter. I had the letters lying
in a bundle before me on the table. At length, after giving
him a great many hints as to his having written some let-
ters which did not agree with the evidence he was then
Living, I chewed him the letters as they lay under my hand,
and advised him not to be so eager iu his testimony, but to
reflect a little and try if he could not recal to his memory
•,ornething of the kind I had hinted. Me refused my advice.
I then directed myself to his Solicitor, suggesting to him
the true nature of the case, and I asked him whether
he would advise his client to continue to resist payment
of the demand ? He answered, certainly not ;--the arbi-
tration terminated, and the money was paid the next morn-
ing. Now this result could not have taken place in an
open Court. The party, I am persuaded, did not intend to
perjure himself, but he had entirely forgotten what he had
previously done. I mention that case in candour as one
against me, but I am not yet convinced that the principle
is erroneous. 'That witness, as the case was before an arbi-
trator, escaped the consequences of his eagerness ; but he
would have been ruined to the end of time if the same
occurrence had happened in a Court of Justice, where
nobody would have believed but that he was perjured.—
But whether parties are admitted or not as witnesses, still
I say that the rule should be uniform, and if a party to
a cause is not allowed to be examined before a Judge and
Jury, he ought not to be permitted to give evidence before
an arbitrator in a Court of Equity on affidavit. If any thing
can be, I must say, that I think the affidavits in the Court
of Chancery are a nest of perjury. Whether it is right to
admit or to exclude such evidence, I will not now
determine, but surely the dissimilarity of practice is
a sufficient ground for my asking for an inquiry.—
The first great point on which the evidence of parties
is excluded, is to be found under the head of their inte-
rest in the cause. That rule is constantly acted upon in
Courts of Justice ; but I do not know any reason why all per-
sons of good character, whether interested or not should not
be admitted as witnesses, subject only to the question
of the amount of credit which the Jury might think due to
their testimony. The case of Bent v. Baker first drew the
distinction between an interest in the question itself, and
an interest in the event of the cause, and determined that
unless he was interested in the event of a cause in such a
manner, that the first verdict could be given in evidence in
his favour, he was admissible. In that case there were ten
underwriters on a policy of insurance ; an action was
brought against one, and all the nine others were brought as
witnesses. It was quite clear that they were interested in
the question, and that if the verdict went against the first,
they would all be liable to pay the amount of their sub-
scriptions, but they were not interested in the event, as the
first verdict could not be given in evidence for them in the
other actions. They were, therefore, admitted as witnesses.
I will not pause, Sir, to ask your opinion on this case, but
proceed to state in what manner it operates. If I am
interested to the amount of one shilling in the event of a
suit, I am not a competent witness ; but suppose my father
is a man of large property; suppose him bed-ridden or
lunatic, and almost at the point of death ; and suppose,
for any purpose whatever, or by any person whatever, a com-
mission of lunacy should be issued, I may be a witness, and
swear myself into the possession of 5,0001. a-year. From
these considerations, Sir, I say, if a line is to he drawn, it is
not between one sort of interest and another, but between
competency and credit.--(Hear, hear, hear.)--Again,
a person who has this interest, if objected to, may
become competent by giving a release to the party
against whom his claim may exist. The drawer
of an accommodation Bill of Exchange is not a com-
petent witness without a release; but if he and the
other party execute mutual releases, his testimony becomes
admissible. The parties in this manner may cook up a
case for the Court, well knowing, if they are honest to
each other, the releases will be mutually redelivered the
moment the cause is over. In another instance the law
capriciously requires written evidence of a contract which
is not thought necessary in other cases. I am well aware
'of the great benefits of the Statute of Frauds, and I agree
with Lord Hale, that " every line in it is worth a sub-
sidy." Now I do not wish to diminish its worth, but, by
adding a few more lines, to increase its value to a still
greater number of subsidies.—(Hear.)---I would adopt
something like the French law of Contracts, and by that
law modify our own. I would not require that everycon-
tract should be in writing, but that every contract for a
vaiue of above one hundred and fifty pounds should be in
writing, and where almost all men are able to write cor-
rectly as at the present day, I do not think I should be re-
quiring too much. But the law of evidence of written
contracts requires alteration, as much as the law regarding
interested witnesses. The books of a deceased person are
evidence, if he has entered the receipt of sums by which he
makes himself chargeable for ever so small a sum. If he
only charges himself with 51. or 5e., he makes his books
evidence for his representatives, who may gain 5001. The
great ground on which they ought to be excluded is, that
of their having been made for such a purpose;, and with
regard to the case of Barker v. Wray, which was decided
with reference to that point, I will only say that it was
the common feeling of the profession, that such books
should be admitted in all cases in which it was
not proved that they had been manufactured with
the view of being made evidence. In another point is
this same law of the admission of such evidence incon-
sistent with isself. A person's book is evidence for him-
self, in a matter arising from the composition of tithes, al-
though he does not charge himself with a single item in it.
In the rules for the examination of witnesses, nothing can
be better than many parts of the system now established.
All I lament is, that different Judges lay down different
rules on this subject, and one will allow an advocate to
cross-examine his own witness, if he sees that that witness
is really hostile, while another will refuse the same permis.
siou. All tests are excluded, whether they apply to the
knowledge or the skill of the witness. If I want to apply
a test to his memory or to his skill, I am unable to do it.
First, as to his recollection. I may not allude to the con-
tents of one of his own letters, in order to ark him whether
the subject, which I know to be treated of in that letter,
has been so treated of or not. I must put the letter into his
hand, by which he, at once, becomes acquainted with the
contents, and perhaps defeats the object of my inquiry.—
There is another subject which I will mention, and that
but briefly, because I once had the honour to bring a Bill
before this House on that subject. It is one of exclusion
of evidence in the case of libel. In that case the test of
the malice or no malice, on which the action depends,
must be deciegl, not only by the truth or falsehood of the
alleged libel, but by the intention of the party. Now that
question I am not at liberty to determine, by examining
into the intention of the defendant, for that is
disallowed by the law. A man may be guilty of
publishing a libel—the falsehood of the publication
may be quite apparent; but then he is precluded
from giving evidence of tie: intention with which that
publication was put forth—a matter which I deem to be
peculiarly for the consideration of a Jury. I maintain
that such evidence ought to be admitted in all cases where
due notice is given. Again, why is it that one class of
persons should be excluded from giving evidence in crimi-
nal cases, while the evidence of all others was admitted ?
Why, for instance, should a Quaker be prevented from
giving testimony in criminal as well as in civil cases ? 1
was once engaged in a case where our principal witness
was a Quaker ; we forgot the circumstance; and, upon
going into Court, his testimony was refused because he
would not take an oath, and the consequence was that the
accused escaped. Why, I ask, should you refuse the evi.
dente of a Quaker or of any other Sectarian, provided he
believes in God and the existence of a future state, and ten-
ders that evidence according to the forms of the persuasion
to which he belongs ? Why should the testimony of any
man be refused, unless it appeared that he was rendered
infamous by the verdict of a Jury ? But this was no tall.
I may cross-examine a witness as to his general charater ; I
may ask him whether he has not himself had the foulest
charge preferred against him five or six different times;
and if be answer in the negative, I am bound to take thetas
his answer, unless I am in a situation to produce the re-,
cord of his conviction. Thus, an innocent person may be
made to suffer, while a guilty one escapese as I am bound
and concluded by his answer. I must here observe, that
all rules of presumption of evidence are bad ; and I par-

titularly object to what it, by Chancery - Barristers,
called egui pollent evidence. Upon the construction of
written instruments the Court always decides, while the
construction of parole evidence is left to the jury. But a
latent ambiguity might exist ; as, for instance, in a case
where John Noakes, of such a parish, was alluded to in
a document, and it turned out that there were two persons
of that name in that parish, then surely extrinsic evidenc,-
ought to be allowed ; and it should:be left, not to the Court,
but jury, to decide the point of identity. The I w
i
subject
has been laid down by my Lord Bacon.
iI
n haveo h
upon the subject, and merely throw
po t t thise
naydoubts
out these observations for general consideration. I now
come to the general construction of the law with re-
-pect to Wills and Deeds. I think it would be wise
'o get rid of all technicalities and obscurities in the
respect, and to place the law on a plain, a sound, and -
-traight-forward understanding on the subject. Why, I
tik, should there be a difference between the mode of be-
towing property by will and by deed ? A man may,
;t present, bestow property by will, and yet be as
.melt in the dark with respect to the disposal of it at
'ie would be when the will itself was about to he brought
•uto operation.---[The Learned Gentleman occasion
dly loivered his voice so much, towards the conclusion of
"is sentences, as to render the latter branches of them alto-
tether inaudible in the Gallery.) Another point is, that if
, man appoint another his executor, he is supposed to release
!um from any debt at the time owing by him to the testator.
Igain, if a man had made two wills of the same date, one
.f which was out of his possession, and if he destroyed one.
;t is presumed that he intended to destroy the other also :
lad if both wills be in his possession, the case is presumed
different, and it is held that he merely wished to destroy
the duplicate; and yet by the one act his intentions as the
lisposal of his property may be defeated, and his estate
conveyed away to his 150th cousin. If a man makes a
will by which he, for certain important purposes, conveys
An estate out of him, even for an instant, and takes it bacl:
,tgain, it is held that the estate reverts hack to its original
uses ; and it is well known that Lord Erskine lost a con-
siderable estate in Derbyshire in this way. In fact, in
cases where it is most important that a man should see his
way, he generally never knows so little, or is so ignorant to
the consequences likely to result from his own actions. I
should say, having laid down these principles that it is de
sirable that all descriptions of evidence,including all records,
all writings, and all the testimony of every kind, which a
party can possibly procure, should be brought into Court,
in order to facilitate the administration of justice, and
render it more perfect. By requiring the best evidence
which can be obtained, in relation to every subject—by
admitting and calling for the best that can be expected—
by only excluding such written and parole evidnese
as it is possible for either party to manufacture.
and get up to serve his private purpose—by allowing
all persons not infamous, and therefore, disqualified to
give testimony in every case—by permitting the fullest ex-
amination into all matters suggested or demanded by the
information arising out of the cross-examinatioa of wit-
nesses—by the adoption of these, and similar alterations
and improvements, we may hope to leave the law so ra-
tional, so perfect, and so consistent, that it will want
only one step to complete it—namely, to extend its opera-
tion to all the Courts, and render it applicable on all occa-
sions. Why written evidence shall be a subject for the
decision of the Court, and not for the consideration of a
Jury, I profess, Sir, I ant unable to understand. In
the Courts of Chancery no oral evidence is received—
no witnesses are ever seen. In the Law Courts a con-
trary proceeding is adopted, and with very beneficial
results. I would propose to make the same description
of evidence applicable in Courts of all sorts, and I would
have one uniform and rational law founded thereupon. The
Statute of Limitations is an important subject, and, as
I think, requires alteration. I cannot understand why
there should be no limitation on an action of specialty, as
in that arising out of a bond ; for a bond may be 20 years
old, and yet in law as good as ever. Lawyers cannot pre-
sume that it has been cancelled as lone- as it is there star-
ing them in the face. A limitation of ten years, during
which no interest has been paid, might be enough as re-
spects bonds. Why parole evidence should be allowed to
take away the effect of the statute of limitations I cannot
perceive. According to , the dictum of my Noble Friend,
now at the head of the Common Pleas in the Sister King-
dom—the House will perceive I allude to Lord Plunkett—
an individual not less distinguished by his eloquence than
by his legal knowledge—Time is armed with his scythe to
destroy evidence, but the Legislature has made use of the
healing under his wings to cure that destructive effect. At
one time the Courts of Law held that any thing, even the
simplest expression, would take a debt out of the statute
of limitations; for instance, if a defendant were to say. to
a plaintiff--" I have paid the debt," that assertion was
taken as proof that a debt had at one time existed, and it
devolved on the unfortunate defendant to show in what
manner he had paid the debt. Again, if he said, " I owe
you nothing," the assertion was taken as an acknowledg-
ment ; and he was also required to prove an acquittance of
the plaintiff's claim. The reply, " six years have expired"
was equally dangerous. In fact, so deeply did Lord Erskine
feel the difficulties which encompassed the defendant under
the statute of limitations, that he said, and perhaps was
justified in saying, that the only safe answer a defendant
could give, when his adversary sent a fishing witness to
establish his claim, was to knock him down—(a laugh)-._as
in that case the defendant could only be tried for the assault.
There are various processes by which different periods for
recovering property are fixed—if by formedon, the action
must be brought within a certain time ;—the right might
formerly be brought within sixty years; now the period
was limited to thirty years, and if the party sues to recover
property of which he has him been disseised, then he must
proceed within twenty years. And why, let me ask, does
this difference exist between these different modes of pro-
ceeding? Because one of the statutes was passed in the
reign of Henry the Eighth, while the other was passed in
the reign of James the First. But, Sir, look at the situa-
tion in which a defendant is placed by a Writ of Right.
He is at once put upon the proof of the title of his an-
cestors, while the plaintiff has nothing to do but lie by
and pick holes in his case. This however, is only one of
the many hardships and inconveniences to which a party
may be put by this course of proceeding, and that too,
without the other party running the risk of paying a far-
thing costs. I was myself engaged in a case of the kind
at York, in which the record was withdrawn on the part
of my client, owing to some unexpected defect in our evi-
dence. Three weeks after this, a document was found at
Exeter, which established the claim of the other party,
whereas, had the case been tried in spring instead of August
the successful party would hare been defeated. We find there
is no limitation with respect to the claims of the Crown or
of the Clergy. I would not wish to restrict the natural
rights of the Church. I would only regulate, not take
away, its power. I would not wish to repeal the Nullum
Temps Act, but I would limit its operations to sixty or
eighty years. The course of these observations brings me
to the trial of the issue ; and here I cannot help observing,
that I think the Judge is much hampered and inconve-
nienced by being left wholly alone during the progress of a
cause. Motions for new trials mainly depend upon . the
notes taken by one Judge, and sometimes read over by
another. Now, it often happens that one Judge is a slow
note taker, and is often inaccurate, while another may be a
quick and accurate taker of notes ; but few, if any of
them, take their notes in short hand. I think it would be
advisable, therefore, to have regularly swore short-hand
writers it each Court, not that the Judge was to be alto-
gether bound and concluded by the notes so taken, but in
order to afford him the satisfaction of knowing that any
little omission or inaocuracy on his part might thus be
remedied and set right. Another important point, as it
appears to me, is, that in all causes brought into Court,
• each party should be allowed to sift and comment upon
his adversary's case. I have myself been often obliged
to open a case, as it were, in the dark; I have, to be
' sure, made something like a guess at my adversary's
ease, but more I could not do; and I have been obliged
to proceed with the greatest caution, not knowing how far
my witnesses could bear cross-examination, or how soon
they might break doWn. The rule, as it at present stands,
is, that Counsel cannot reply unless the defendant calls wit-
nesses; but Counsel are frequently afraid to call witnesses
for the defence, from a fear of the effect which a powerful
reply might have upon the Jury. In a word, the present
system had a tendency to counteract, instead of advance,
the ends of justice. With respect to the law of arrest, I
would allow no man to touch the debtor or his goods be-
fore trial ; but on the other hand, I say, that I would sl;
Basquickly,
low of no let, no hindrance, to interpose between him 01"
his creditor after trial—sure, I am, that no hooestl:
will oppose me in the assertion (or, if I am oppetfdtilonn;
it must be by some crotchetty and fanciful itnsg'°
i athat no shelter or protection should be extern.edvewrdict was•
fraudu-
lent debtors.—(Hear, bear.)—When once A
obtained by a plaintiff, it should be acted 9°71
but, at the same time, as dimply
of chattel ty is
isting law of England, the recovery . „.
by replevin or detinue. If I bring
re-
covery of a gun, for instance, I'l°°lcno/
..
an
tacfsotron for the
the value of
the gun, but for the gun itself; and
take the body oi
the debtor in panam, although t gun is in existence.
But the worst chapter of the law is that in which you get
land in specialty. Suppoie 10,0001. of mine be laid out by
another in a dishonest speculation in land ; I caa the party,
but he laughs at one,
' and gives me land which has in th,
interim fallen in value to such a degree that I get not more
than 2001. a-year, being less than one-half the interest of
as passible.
propene ex..

my money. Bfst supposing the individual to be in Perlia-
ment, or to live abroad, or to die, the Court of Chancery-
would look upon it as a simple contract debt, for which
not one acre of the land would be liable after the death of
the party: Again, suppose I sue a titan who owes me
n I get a verdict, and send an officer te, seize, and'
money ;
on entering the house lie sees my 5,000 guinea._ lying on
the table, and yet----will the House believe, it?--he cannot
touch a farthing of the money ; he may take the
he may seize the goods ; but the money he cannot touch . -
This was the law as laid down by Lord INlanefield—a man,
whose legal knowledue and liberal opiniOue upon the law
if the country were exceeded by none—a man, who was
held in the highest 6stiffiation for his legal knowlelge anal
acquirements (however attacked on the subject by one of
the ablest writer of his day)--sa man, I say, who was nil-
mired by all, for the sound discrimination which he brought
et the decision of all questions of law, except, perhaps,,
,y those who were jealous and envious of an .exeelience
they could not attain; it was deeLded by that Totoble Lore,
,
that money could not be seized upets, because money
esuld not be sold. This opinion was aftertn.Lris c°llfi'ire.
~
by Lord Ellenborough. With all these anomalie: sta,"i3
es in the face, who is it, I ask, that is to be considered .
innovator ?—Those who are for preserving the letter, while.
they ate departing from the spirit of the law ; or I, who
am desirous of departing from the utter, in order to pre-
serve the spirit? The Funds lieve risen—money has be-
come plentiful—trade has almost grown up in the interval
and now, by adhering to the old law, tinder changed cira
eurnstancee, you in fact alter the law while you pretend to
adhere to it. I defy the wit of man to shee• !re a wronger
or a more complete ease, in which that mon is an amovater
who says, do not chaneeeasand that man a strict observer
of ancient forms and practices Who says change the position,.
',alt keep the relation.--(Hear, hear.)—The stately vessel
has gliding down the stream, followed by a smaller
hark, been
which, in the words of Pope, ""pursues the
triumph and partakes the gale" at souse distance,
but with equal speed)
you cannot stop the bark
:vitt-Mut producing a change, and to let it preened
No ma
is to prevent it. n, but such a one pointed
out by the Roman Poet, rust leus expectat, would thing of
impelling the progress of the bed( ; none but a fool would
exclaim, "stop the boat!" anti all but a fool most see,
that to allow themselves to follow each other, the cree
moving as the 'other move, and changing as the other
shames, is to preserve their relative position...-(Hear,,hear.) We are, as it were, floating down the great stream
of time; events daily happen...changes hourly occur, ii-:
opposition to which it would he ridiculous for us to hole
up a finger—changes which instead of producing murmurs
of dissatisfaction, ought to be blessed as thedispensationsof Providence ; and shall we convert them into curses, by
.in obstinate and blind adherence to that maxim, "Do not
change ?"—forgetting all the great alterations that hanc
teen going on in spite of us, and by avoiding change,
making the most violent and fatal innovation. Then
what do I propose? That all a man's debts should be
paid parri passe—that all his debts should be paid out of
Allis goode---4hat his person should only be taken when
he- refuses to give up goods which it is known he pos-
sesses—that his goods should be rigorously sifted, and bolted
from bine—that he should be prevented from practically re-
maining possessor of any property because it is the pro-
perty of his creditors—that whether real or peesonal, his
eoods should bey made available- But then I would nec
take the person if I were morally certain I had al/ the
goods, unless in cases of quasi criminal conduct, such as
where a debtor has entered into criminal speculations, or
where he has been guilty of buying goods, that he relight
sell them immediately, without ever intending to ply for
them. I would draw a line (which is easily drawn, be-
cause it is done every day by the Insolvent Debtors' Court)
between imprisonment which is nut a satisfaction of the
debt, stud imprisonment which may be justifiably used as
a listens of extorting payment, although chiefly and almost
wholly as a punishment for misconduct. The Insolvent
Court makes the distinction, and why should not other
Courts have the power to sepirate misconduct from the
payment of debt, stud thus affix a punishment of theca
inonthe-,in one mama of two months in another, and so iL.
proportion to the- decree of !asiminality? We Should then,
in my opinion, see the late on this subject brought to as
•
o'
great perfection as in the nature of thirsts it can acquits!.
(Hear, heere)., I have one or two other points to which I
must refer, and one of them is ehe subject of Appeals. .All
I have to say upon this topic, however, is so bvious, and
so manifestly and entirely directed to prevent vexatious
litigation, that it is hardly necessary for me to do moreehan
to state my principle. The Right Hon. Gentleman opppsite
(Mr. Peel) is no doubt perfectly aware, that what be did
on the subject of Writs of Error, has, in fact, occasioned
a great, increase of litigation. A man cannot, indeed, oh -
tai.n delay as formeily ; but the consequence has been, that
many more causes are defended, and at an enormous ex-
pence. Hundreds of actions are now resisted which before
were undefended. In the Court below the plaintiff his -his
judgment; and what I suggest is, that security shaft be ' '
taken from the defendant, in case the appeal shall be de-
cided against.him. When this security has been given, let
the appeal proceed' but the very necessity to give security
would almost put an end to the appeals. What I propose
is bottomed on the same principle as the extension of the
Statute of 3. Jas. I. by the Right Hon. Gent.—it is a mo-
dification, and, as I conceive an improvement. I would
also allow a Judge to have the power of saying to a defend-
ant, " You shall pay by instalments, upon giying good
security—(Hear, hear, hear.)—l, in my legal discre-
tion, will grant you this delay and facility." The result
would be, that property would not be needlessly torsi. to
pieces,and the honest debtor ruined. At all events,if his:could
obtain fair indulgence in a reasonable and honourable wayelle
would never think of setting up the frivolous defence we
now witness, nor would he resort to Writs of Error and
Appeals for the purpose of procuring delay. lam confi-
dent
eoacrc.) .Theincidentally-
in Housentally
that some such measure might be adopted ; and I
have therefore great hopes, from the further •and candid
ex
willexamination
be w moinf costs
—e thatao, of
I t theex es have subject..--(Heal,
ev: said
little
.—(
topic,llwhicha e u
l' h
or nothing
tion
in the course of this discussion—but one which is, per.
haps, of all the most important. A man, in ordinary
' eases, would in vain ark me to advise him to bring au ac-
tion. I should give such advice to no man ; for if he
proceeds against a rich and pertinacious debtor, he may ob-
tain a verdict for 201., and have to pay 30/. or 401. beyond
the sum recovered, for his taxed costs....-(Hear.)—l have
before me several instances of the kind : from one bill of
5001., no less than 2021. was deducted; from another
of 217/., 76/. was deducted, and that in the Court
where they are proverbially liberal. In a third instance,
4/. was taxed off from a bill of 261. It is to be observed,
that the whole expense would have been incurred, if the debt
sought to be recovered had been only 100/. instead pf
5001. How then, let me ask, is this to be remedied ? I
think, by better rules of taxation. Attorneys, by being
deprived of their legitimate charges, should not be driven
to insert items in their bills which ought never to find their
way into them. At present, as they ere not allowed to
practice ;
charge at all for consultations and for preparing cases, and
teisilee_onoe edbpiaisgt
not half enough for the expense of witnesses kept in at-
tendance—they are obliged, in self-defence, to make it up
-Tit):
expense way'
charged
defo
ro tthheer
lo my conscience,
oI
fan
sterintepodeecrsaciass:t
ets
,before r
almt,t,
which,
ne,2,hae3;Bor/ned.
tao r,-,enll'e.
taxa-
tion, not less than 147/.t.hsaovuentrheaoydrietclieuscteind..nd
contend, we see the evil effects of p,.ar.ttoialbceh
view to the general system of the law
you seem to be doing good when
unskilful surgeon,
mischief; you are acting like an T
without regard to the new organ
system of the law, as the whole system of the human
el
Reform
same. you
.
body, ought to be considered at
with its relation to anootht,er
I believe, would lead to
Then are we, at this tins° i
changes? We have grea
thethpe?nderout laws of Justinian, that 200
without going to the --;., ers—jealous of their
I von say, a, justly
ancient rights, a_n,d,', u der the sn jealous of their in-
vasion as any peorsa ton al --a S yet we know that there
existed a consall, noto ter the whole Civil Law of Scot-
land. They c:t.a assert of their Statute Book, as was
Weight, for tizhaetw"li.ole Sthateutewl.haerler
said, I thinirs
tinder a later Minister. But, pausing this
under their
camels ben
d vas
of Snott'i„ld a comprised in three pocket duodecimoi;
~et von ears. trenchant reform with an unsparing hand
' 'into that mint ,
even . 1)--first, under Lord Grenville, and
•
precedent, I will quote to you the authority of Lord Hale,
obeequently
than whom no man ever existed more tenacious) attached
to the ancient institutions .
of his counts' "In his
celebrated i' • , the
.Lau,
reattse on the Amendment of .
he says •
----" By long use and custellis men esPeciallY
that are aged, and have been' long educated in the pro-
,ession and practice of the law, contract a kind of super-
stitious veneration of it beyond what is just and reasona-
ble. They tenaciously and rigorously maintain these very
forms and proceedings and practices/ whi"ht though possi-
tily at first they were seasonable and useul; yet by the very
change of matters they become not only useless anti imper-
tinent, but burthensonte and inconvenient, and prejudicial
to the common justice and the common good of mankind:
not considering that the forms and prescripts of laws were "
not introduced fie their own sakes, but for the' use of public
justice; and therefore, when they become insipid, useless,
impertinent, and possibly derogatory to the end, they
may and roust be removed."---Such is the language of Sir
le. Hale; and after Lord Coke, and perhaps Littleton,
there isno higher authority in the law than Shepherd, the
well-known author of tke " Touchstone," who, in another

of his worka,- called " England's Balm, or Paoposals by
way of Geievance and Remedy, &c., towards rha Regti-
iation of the Law and better Administration of Juaticer
reminds his legal brethren, that " taking away the
abuse of the law will establish the use of the larr—stabiii-
jut u.F.unt qoi tollit abusum—and that rooting up the tares
evil, not destroy the wheat." If the House require further
authorities upon this point, I can refer them to one of the
ablest and must instructive books ever published, Itow Or
the point of issuing from the press, by a Mr. Parkes,' a
most respectable solicitor of Birmingham ; its title is a
*history of the Court of Chancery, but it incidentally dis-
plays an abundance of learning on the history of the com-
mon law of this country-.—(Hear.)—From this source it
pears that, in 165 t, a commission was appointed for the
ietbrin of the law, and the first member of it was no other
than the Lora General Cromwell, then representing the
University of Cambridge—themore martial, but less learned
predecessor of my Honourable Friend (the Solicitor-Gene-
ral). The body undertaking this great eubject was com-
posed of individuals. who did, and who did not, belong- to
the profession, and the name that earliest occurred, among
-,hose who were not in Parliament, was that of Mr. Mat -
?hew Hale, afterwards well known as Sir Matthew
Hale, one of the greatest authorities of the law, one of the
most strenuous defenders of our system, ecclesiastical and
civil, and one of the most enlightened practical lawyers uf
his OWD, or of any age. With him, among others, were
joined Prideux and Manly, and the acts they recommended
were of the most important and judicious deScription.
Many of these changes have been made since, while other.
have not received that sanction of their value. The fol-
lowing are the titles of the draughts of Acts presented by
the Commission to Parliament :-
1. For taking away Fines upon Bills, Declarations, and
Original Writs.
9. Au Act touching Marriages and the Registerine
thereof, and also touching Births and Burials.
3. An Act against Customary Oaths.
4. For raking away Common Recoveries, and the un-
necessary Charge of Fines, and to pass and charge Lands
entailed as Land in Fee-simple.
a. For ascertaining of Arbitrary Fines upon Descent
and alienation of Copyholds of Inheritance.
b. For the more speedy recovery of Rants.
7. For the better regulating of Pleaders and their Fees.
8. For the more speedy and easy recovery of Debts and
Damages not exceeding the sum of Four Pounds.
9. For the further declaration and prevention of Frau
dulent Contracts and Conveyances.
IU. Against the Sale of Offices.
11. For the recovery of Debts owing by Corpora-

tions.

. 1-2. Against Challenges, Duels, and II Provocations
whatever.
13. To make Debts assignable.
14. To prevent solicitations of Judgce, Eitbeiy, Ex-
; tortion, Charge of Motions, and for restriction of Pleaders.
15. For the better putting in execution the laws contra
&mos mores.
• 16. For County Registers, Wills, and Administrators;
flicl for preventing Inconvenience, Delay, Charge, and Ir-
regularity, in Chancery and Common Law (as well in
Common Pleas as criminal and capital Causes 4 e and for
settling County Judicatures, Guardians of Orphans, Courts
or Appeal, County Treasurers, and Workhouses, with
Tables of Fees and Short Forms of Declarations.
At that period it was the law that the wiinesses for a
defendant. should not deliver their testimony upon oath, and
so it remained until the time of Queen Anne ; the prosecu-
tor roily, until then, was allowed to prove his case, upon
oath, and the connesunication of the same right to the de-
fendant in a criminal prosecution may be looked upon by
soirle as a rude invasion of the ancient system, and a cruel
departure from the wisdom of our ancestors—( Hear, hear.)
The Commissioners deliberated upon these great subjects
during no less than five years, and the result was what I
have already stated. Immediately after the restoration, a,
Committee was appointed to examine into the law and its
practice; and Sergeant Maynard, and many other learned
crnaraents of thelegal profession, 51 in number, took part in
the inquir. If they btought in three or four bills for the
general ainendutent of the leiv, which went through several
stages in Parliament, I am sure we cannot more honourably
to ourselves, or %beneficially to the country, employ our
time, than in following the course which they commenced.
When we have accomplished this object, then, indeed, may
"evett Constituents justly thank us for our services ; -and let
as speedily and vigorously, though with that deliberation
which the great matter requires, enter upon our task. In
the performance of it I look confidently for the support
and co-operation of the King's- Government, and on what
ate my hopes founded The vine and the fig-tree have
been planted--they are now vigorous and flourishing, and
give promise of an abundant fruitage. I have little fear
that those now entreeted with their care and cultivation
ill so far neglect their duty as to allow the young plants
r to be smothered in the thorns and briars of political
erasion, or to run will in barren luxuriance. There
• . are in the present Cabinet, Members, whose liberal opinions
have•had the sanction of their own recent declarations.—
(Hear.) ipine others indeed may not agreed with them
(and lileeply lament the discordance of opinion) upon all
subjects ; but nevertheless, upon sonic most important
noestions, as is known to all the world, they will grant
their cordial support. But be they, or •be they not, my
supporters, to the House I look for superintending them,
and assisting me—if Igo too far, by controulling my pro-
gress—if I run too fast, by checking my speed. In the
House I repose my confidence, and I believe it will act •
constitutional!), because it will act honestly : it has a
gt eat end glorious race to run—the course is clear before it.
I should see to the British house of Commons, you may
snake your name descend to posterity by deeds of higher
!mind and more useful import than those of any Parliament
that ever sat within these svallst You have lived to see
the day when the greatest conqueror of the age—the victor
of Italy, the humbler of Germany—held all his triumphs
poor compared with those which you also are
now in a condition to achieve. You have lived
to sae him, despite of the inconstancy of fortune, breathe
his latest and truest boast, " I shall go down to posterity
with my code its my liand."—(llear, hear.)—You
have defeated him in the field ; now strive to ilea' him in
the snore sacred arts of peace.---(-1-lear, hear.)—The glory
of the Regency, glittering as it was, will be eclipsed by the
more useful and enduring splendour of the present reign.
The flatterers of our Edwards and our Harrys might call
them the Justiniaus of their day ; but men of sense and
wisdom, scorning the baseness of adulation, map justly pay
that tribute to a Monaree, beneath whose rule the work I
have feebly recommended shall be performed with the appro-
bation of his Parliament, and the sanction of his Minister,.
Let those Ministers bestir them in the work, and begird
them for its strenuous accotnplislitnent. Crowns and sceptres
in my view, have no more happy incidents than that they
enable the wearers and the holders not to conquer, but to
preserve—not to subdue by arms, but to secure affection
by pre.eminent utility. , It was the boast of Augustus—
add it casts its lustre through the shade of the cruelty and
perfidy that deformed his rule—that he found Rome brick,
and that he left it marble. How much loftier and nobler
may be the boast of our Rine, if this great undertaking be
found law dear, and he made it cheap
—(hear, hear)
completed, that lie l
thae lie found a sealed book, and left it a
hying hear)—that he found it the patri-
mony of
letter'—(hear,
anChear'd left it the inheritance of the poor—
(hear, hear)--that lie found it a two-edged sword in the
hinds of craft and oppression, and left it the staff of the
honest, and the shield of the innocent.—(Loud cheers.)--_
To
which'
on these subjects it hasalways
Ilse, much reflecting
seemed that there is no prize of ambition a man can
honestly covet desirable the glory of havingbeen tied
• humble instrument of directing ti's • ,tention of the Legis-
lature to these neeno matters. I value it far above office,
whose patronage would be irksome, whose emoluments
I disregard—content, like the rest of my industrious
countrymen; with providing by
the labour of my own
hands for my own
(Repeated cheers. )
necessities.
As to the power which belongs to great
place, in which, as
has been truly
" men are thrice servants," I have
lived for nearly half a century, Y and I have learnt that its
p.,al worth can only consist in the ability it affords to aid
cur fellew-ereatures in obtaining their just rights'pThat
over I poetess : the grievances
of my countrymen I can
assist in redressing, whetker an their advocate in this House,
(a as their coadjutor Out of it that power no Ministry
• no change can take away (L • • tied
can give— ong copula
to move " That ar`
cheeri".) beg to
praying that he
eumble Address be
presented to bi! •
jbe issued, to Will be pleased to
direct a Commission to quire Into the Defects,
and otherwise,Laws of
occasioned by time in the the Realist
he Court of Common
Law, and into
of England, and as t be expedient for the e
the Remedies which may
s • sane, »__
Gentleman'speed, lasted nearly
(Hear, hear.—The Hen.
six hours.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought, that at that
period of the night, and considering the immense import-
ance of the subject, the variety and quantity of matter in.
d Friend, in his
and- Learned
traduced by his Honourable a better to
enable Hon.
astonishing and brilliant speech, it would be
-
poet-
pone its further consideration, in order to pon it.
:Members to come to a sober and sound decision u
hat the
Ile would, with the leave of the House, move,
further discussion be adjourned to to-morrow (this day)
fortnight.
Mr. Secretary PEEL commenced by complimenting
the Honourable and Learned Gentleman on the elo-
quence, the reeeasch, the moderation, and the sound
iyhOimult Vanct ill 41 Admirable addtzta to the HO U.
•

,

lie was sure that the Honourable and Learned Gentleman
himself would see that it would be unwise for the House
to conic to a precipitate vote upon a subject of such im-
portance as the alteration of our legal code. He had him-
self attempted to proceed in the course pointed out by tic
Honourable and Learned Gentleman, but experience had
shown him that calm deliberation teas necessary to arrive
at a wise and proper conclusion. In some of the points
suggested by the Honourable and Learned Gentleman he
felt disposed to agree. The equalizing of the business of the
' Courts of Law was certainly desirable, but the mode in
which it could be effected must be the first consideration.
To the alteration of the practice in the Court of Common
Pleas, by destroying the monopoly of the Sergeants, he
thought it possible uo great obstacles would be opposed. He
believed the Chief Justice cf that Court had the subject al-
ready under his consideration. Neither was he (Mr. Secre-
tary Peel) so much attached to the number (twelve) of the
Judges, as to refuse his coucurrence in extending it, if a
essi ty
at
for
such increase was made out. But he was un-
willing present to express any positive opinion on this
point. It, however, he understood the Honourable .and
Learned Gentleman correctly, his proposition was, that one
more Judge should be added to the Court of Common Pleas,
and one to the Court of King's Bench ; that was to sey,
five in each Court, and leaving the Court of Exchequer
with four, as it now was. He (Mr. Peel) presumed that
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman meant the Judge who
did the out-door business to be occasionally replaced, be-
cause Certainly no particular Judge ought to be suffered to
hold a situation of less importance and respectability than
another. It might be asked, then, would not the public
business be more delayed than it now was, when it .was
found necessary to procure the opinion of five Judges in-
stead of four. He did nut wish to give a positivo opinion
upon it, but the point was at all events one which re-
quired consideration. There was another point also on
which he differed from the Learned Gentleman, more than
with respect to any to which he had adverted. He enter-
tained no doubt that it was most wise and proper to pay to
the Judges a fixed salary instead of suffering them to be
remunerated by fees. The Honourable Member had stated
his wish to have those fees limited, but had also stated that
he would give to the Judges an interest in the dispatch
of business, and that upan such dispatch a part of their
emoluments should depend. Now, a very great portion of
the efficacy of a Judge depended on his dignity, and on that•
impression which, through the medium of his office, he
was enabled to make upon the minds of the public, and
especially upon those of the lower classes of society. Surely
such an effect would be produced with greater certainty by
its being universally known, that the Judges had no inte-
rest in the progress of any cases they had to try ; and,
surely, such an advantage would be of more importance
than that obtained even by a greater dispatch of business,
when it was known, that in such dispatch the Judges
were interested. By such an arrangement, it was cer-
tainly to be expected, either that the hope of additional
emolument would stimulate the Judges, or it would not;
if it did not, no possible advantage could be gained, and,
if it did, might there not arise a very general impression that
the Judges used too much dispatch in their business—might
not the party (and there was always one party) who was
dissatisfied with the decision on his ease, consider himself as
unjustly treated, and so treated because the Judges by
whom his case was tried were interested in dismissing it
as rapidly as possible, they receiving their advantage in
proportion to the number of causes they despatched ?
He (Mr. Pesl) could not avoid thinking that the present
system:, which had abolished payment by fees, and fixed a
particular salary instead, washy far the better system,although
he was willing to allow that the natural indolence inherent
to human nature, might give rise to certain evils which it
were well to avoid. In his opinion, the disadvantages
that would he created by the one would be far greater
thap those created by the other; and he considered that
the emolument of the Judges being fixed, and depending
on no particular circumstances, could not fail to be more
satisfactory to the public, and more likely to beget eonfi -
deuce in the judicial authorities, than a systen which was
most likely to beget suspicion and discontent. There wee
also another voint in the speech of the- Hon. Gentleman
to which he would beg leave to refer—a point on which,
from discussions that had heretofore taken place, he knew
that the Honourable Gentleman and he most differ. The
Hon. Gentleman laid it down as a strict and settled rule,
that the Puisne Judeges ought not: on any ocasion, of
-under any circumstances, to be elevated to a higher seat in
his particular Court. As a partial rule, he (Mr. Peel)
'night, perhaps, agree in its propriety ; but, as an in-
variable rule, be could not but consider it as most impolitic
and unjust, and as greatly injurious to the public service.
To say that a Puisne Judge, however distinguished by eha-
raster, however conspicuous for learning, and however
reverenced for integrity, for independence, and for all that
adorns and dignifies man, should have no chalice of fining
the highest situation in his profeseion, for no other reason
than that he bad filled one which was, in a degree, subordi-
nate, could scarcely be called wise, could scarcely be con-
sidered as just even by the strongest advocate for the rigid
adherence to the rule. He agreed perfectly with the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman, that to promote a Judge because
he had manifested a disposition to become subservient to
the Crown, would he most culpable ; but he was equally
certain that to prevent his promotion merely because he had
filled the office of a Puisne Judge, was quite as culpable,
and quite as unjust. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman,
in the course of his speech—a speech which had been
heard with so much satisfaction by the House—had re-
ferred to two Judges, and to two only, on whom it could
not be said he had lavished panegyric—because such a
phrase would intimate that he had gone too far—but on
whom he bad passed a warm and most deserved compli-
ment : one was Lord Tenterden, whom he had described as
among the ablest and the most upright of ali who had
ever filled the seat he filled with SO much hanour ; the
other was Chief Baron Thompson—a name, as he said,
respected by all, and most deservedly respected. These
individuals were the only two to whom he made reference;
and it should be remembered that those very two Judges
were placed in their high station: after having filled those
of Puisne Judges, and on the grounp of their great merits
and high character bad been promoted. Now, surely,
it would have been a hard case if the public had been de-
prived of the services of these distinguished persons, merely
because they were considered as unfitted for their offices,
having filled the offices of Puisne Judges. Such would
have been the case, partfeularly with regard to Lord Ten-
terden, who had been described by the Learned Member
as by no means so able an advocate as he was a Judge.—
The Hon. Gentleman, then, according to his own showing,
had heee taken a wrong around. With respect to the
fixing of Terms, he (Mr. Peel) :was at a loss to say why
they should be determined according to the changes of the
moon, or why two of them being fixed, the other
two should not be fixed also. He thought it
would be far more advisable that the Gentlemen,
particularly those from the country, who had to attend
Grand Juries, and other duties, should be enabled to
make their arrangements accordingly, and to know precisely
when they would be called upon to act. By making the
terms moveable, he considered that much injury was sus-
tained, the mere natural and more proper course would be,
to fix them at some precise period of the year which would be
most likely to be convenient to all parties. It would be,
considered, a most eatraordinary class of persons who
would argue against such an arrangement. There was
also another point on which he was disposed to agree
with the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, and he was anxi-
ous to show that there were many points on which be agreed
with him. It was as to the equalizing of the salaries of the
Admiralty Judges, which stood as low as 5,0001. is
time of peace, and as high, perhaps, as 11,0001, in time of
war. The public certainly could not suffer by an arrange-
ment which should fix the salary of thoSe Judges at a cer-
tain sum, and carry the fees to the public account. Such
a plan would, he thought, be most easy and most proper.
There was another point on which he was most anxious to
make some observations ; it respected the appeals before the
Privy Council, and on this topic bethought the Hon. and
Learn Gentleman was incorrect, and concluded that he
had collected his statements from the Parliamentary -Re-
' turns, which were very likely to lead him into -error, be-
cause these Returns contained all the cases that had ac-
tually been compromised, aatl on which, therefore, appeals
had not been formally made. This was one reason why
the Returns were erroneous; another was, that they con-
tained all the cases from Jersey and Guernsey, on which
summonses had merely issued ; and another was, they COO-
tallied all the East India appeals, on many of which no agent
bad appeared, and on which, therefore, the Privy Council
could not adjudicate. At the same time he would say, that
he state of the East India appeals required consideration.
The state
t of
those before the Privy Council since 1800
thus :---there had been from that period eighty ap-
was ee of which no agent had appeared on
ls, on fifty-
either side ; and on sixty-seven out of the eighty no case
had been laid before the Privy Council. In point of fact,
t upon
at the present women only six cases out of the, .
n p 'lanKios6esibtolereftoirthe Pljrpiovn
y
Connell to proceed to adjudicate. But whether or not
this proceeded from the ignorance as to how the agents
to
no Isnadyi,a eavoetri e
ethigehtly.emhaaelinandeyr,spteheeianl, caits_es‘n.aesen
called for consideration. T ontlyhatonetohtehersupbojeinctt
tthoeraeefot,re hehecould not take it on himself
to which he now wished to refer—it was that which h
etlheoNuvgahm t
re-
ferred to the Justice of the Peace. The HON. and Learned
Gentleman doubted whether the best way of their nomina-
tion was by the Gusto &fulcrum of their particular

counties. He (Mr. Peel) considered it would be imposssi-
ble to appoint them without reference to some authority ;
and he considered that the high and responsible authority
of the Lord Lieutenant of the county, for this office was
generally united with the Custos Rotulorum, was the best
that could be consulted. He had always felt, that in Ite-
land, where the system was different, much inconvenience
arose, for there the recommendations came from persons who
generally had little opportunity of judging of the pretensions
of those they recommended. With respect to the licensing
system, to which reference had been made, he presumed
that the Hon. and Learned Member was not aware that a
Bill had been brought into Parliament by his (Mr. Peel's)
lon. Colleague in the representation of the University of
Oxford, correcting the abuses therein, and which abuses,
he thought, existed most in the large towns. One parti-
cular provision of that Bill was, that in all cases iu j
which the jurisdiction of the. Magistrates was exercised,
when there were not six, the County Magistrates should
have the power to act. The subject, however, required
consideration, and the Bill was postponed only to give
time for further deliberation. The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman had referred to a Bill which he (Mr. Peel) in-
troduced into Parliament during the last Session, with re-
ference to the payment of expences of witnesses
by Magistrates. In cases of assault he purposely ab-
stained from giving that power, with a view to prevent
frivolous prosecutions, although he brought within its scope
all cases of aggravated misdemeanor. He had not heard
that this Bill led to any evil, but if it had, let the law
he altered. Of one thing he was satisfied, that the
small volume he held in his hand contained the substance
of no less than ISO Acts of Parliament. And he had
learned, that the system he had introduced had worked
well, that it required no act of explanation or of altera-
tion, and that it had given rise to no inconvenience. He
had heen told at the Home Office, when the Marquis of
Lansdowne was at the head of that department, that no
complaint had been made of any misapplication or mis-
conception. He could venture to say so much, because
the credit was not his, but those whose technical know-
ledge enabled them to prepare it. Ile would he far from
resisting any alteration that circumstances might require.
He had been desirous of making sonic observations on the
inure popular points contained in the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman's speech, but lie considered it would he unwise
and an ill compliment to the Learned Gentleman himself,
to attempt to enter into the whole of them at the present
time. It would be, he conceived, infinitely better to de-
fer the discussion on the topics therein contained until some
days had been given for consideration. There could be
nothing more difficult than to determine what points ought
to he referred to a Committee. If the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman sought to refer every point to which he had
alluded, lie (Mr. Peel) doubted whether such a mass of in-
quiry would not obstruct the object which the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman had himself in view, and create a la-
bour to which no issue could be seen. He (Mr. Peel) was
not prepared to say that, on all those points, alteration
ought to be made, but he would say that, on none of them
ought alteration to be suggested without due consideration.
The Honourable and Learned Gentleman had pursued a
most wise and proper course, he had not sought to obtain
fame by seeking to subvert a leng-established system, but
by proposing a remedy for evils that existed ; he had
been conducting his investigation apart from all personal
attack and from all personal consideration—and he had con-
ducted it in suoh a way as must incline any one in favour
of his suggestions. In what manner such a commission as
that sought for ought to be formed, he (Mr. Peel) was at
present quite eta loss to determine ; and he was anxious to
consult those who, from their high stations, were naturally
entitled to be consulted—he meant the Attorney-General
and the Lord Chancellor—before he came to any decision.
He trusted the Houourablo and Learned Gentleman
would readily acquiesce in the proposition of his Hon. and
Learned Friend ; and having expressed to the House his
particular proposition, would not call for a discussion.
For his part, he (Mr. Peel) was not prepared either to
resist or acquiesce in his proposal for the appointment
of a Committee, and wished for a few days to deliberate
upon it. If the Hon. and Learned Member were tette-
tied to grant this, and found his Majesty's Ministers un-
willing to go certain lengths with him, the matters in dis-
pute could be submitted to the House. At all events, it
would be more satisfactory if they were not now called
upon to decide. He proposed this delay not with any un-
fair motive, not with a view to rob the Hon. and Learned
Member of any fame he might acquire, and which might
justly belong to him, but merely for the purpose of giving
time for consideration to those who were deeply interested
in the question.
The SPEAKER then put the question on the adjourn-
ment, and it was decided that the question should be ad-
journed till to-morrow (Friday) fortnight.
?h. C. W. expressed Ms desire to make
a few observations relative to the hearing of appeals before
the Privy Council. The number of appeals arose not from
the neglect of the Privy Council, but because many of them
were without the instructions of agents, and therefore, on
which the Privy Council could not adjudicate, To this
grievance the attention of the Privy Council had been al-
ready drawn, and the appointment of a proper officer had
been suggested to the East India Company, with a view
to remedy the evil. There was every reason to believe that
the suggestion would he acted upon.
Mr. BROUGHAM observed that in what he stated, he
had no intention of casting any imputation on the Privy
Council. Of the distinguished persons who attended
there as professional Judges, he was bound to speak in
terms of the highest respect ; and of the present
Master of the Rolls, in particular (Sir Jonn Leach),
who sat as a Judge, he would say, that there never
was a man who attended the Privy Council or any other
judicial body, more anxious to do his duty with greater
rigour or despatch. So it was since that individual sat
there ; not, however, that he had any objections to make
• to the conduct of Lord Gifford, Sir J. Copley, or Sir Win.
Grant, who sat in the Court for twelve years, and was
the greatest Judge that this country ever produced.
But certain it was that a great difficulty existed in the way
of hearing appeals there—a difficulty known only to pro-
fessional men. It was a fact, that the Court sat but eight
or ten times in the year ; and that it was only upon holi-
days, when the law-officers were not engaged_ elsewhere,
that a Court could be depended upon. Thu', not more
than ten appeals were heard in a year. With respect to
the proposal for adjourning this question, he considered it
would be fruitless to enter upon it now, and he could have
no possible objection to its being deferred. He himself
only hesitated as to the means, and was quite certain that
• a remedy was desirable.
SUPPLY.

Sir ALEXANDER GRANT brought up the Report
of the Committee of Supply, and the resolutions were
agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS.
The Committee of Ways and Means was fixed for to-
morrow.

COMMITTEE OF FINANCE.

Mr. Secretary PEEL gave notice that, on Tuesday
next, he should move for the appointment of a Committee
to consider the state of the Financial Expenditure of the
Kingdom.
The House adjourned at Twelve o'Clock.