The Sun.
London, England, 1829-06-06 00:00:00

COLONIAL APPEALS.

Mr. C. PALLMER gave notice that early next
Session he should move for a commission to inquire
into the jurisdiction and practice of his Majesty's
Privy Council, with respect to appeals from the
West India Colonies, and acts of the Colonial
Legislatures.
Mr. HUME, in moving for additional returns re-
lative to Light-houses, complained at great length
of the difficulty of obtaining returns, and of their
irregularity when obtained. On the 24th of March
he had moved for returns relative to Light-houses,
but he had only received them two days ago,
and this negligence had prevented his making a mo-
tion on the subject during this Session. He, how-
ever, begged to state, that early in the next Session
he intended making a motion, by which he expected
to be able to show as great an abuse of the public
funds as had ever been discovered.
Mr. HUME moved for Returns of the Fees of
all Officers, Judges, Advocates, and Proctors, be-
longing to the Ecclesiastical Courts, for the years
1826, 1827, and 1828.

Sir JOHN NICHOLL said it was most unpre-
cedented to call for all the private emoluments of
the officers of any Court. If the House thought it
ought to be agreed to he should say the returns
ought to include the Solicitor and Attorney• General,
and all the officers and practitioners of every other
Court.

Mr. FERG US SON must protest against agreeing
to these returns; the House had as much right to
call for returns of the profits of any private mer-
chant as of those of respectable practitioners in any
Court.

Sir J. MACKINTOSH thought the returns
ought to be called for. In this age of reform-
ation of the practice of the several Courts of
Law, it was necessary for the House to know that
the expellees attending litigation were not of that
unreasonable kind as to operate against obtaining a
due administration of justice.

Mr. Secretary PEEL would be sorry to see any
order that would go to expose the emoluments
necessarily arising from private practice, which
would be the case if the return, as worded,
were agreed to. The House might as well enquire
into the profits of the medical profession. He
therefore hoped the Hon. Member would alter the
terms of his motion, so as only to include fees paid
to public officers.
After a short discussion between Sir J. MACKIN-
TOSH, Mr. D. W. HARVEY, and Mr. TRANT,
Mr. HUME said he would alter his motion by
inserting the words " by virtue of his office," as
he had no wish to pry into the affairs of private
practice.
The motion, as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. HUME then said that with the view of get-
ting the whole costs of a suit in the Ecclesiastical
Court, he would move for an account of all the costs,
fees, and emoluments, awarded against the suitors in
the case of !‘ prime v.Briscoe."
This gave rise tQ a conversation rather than a dis-
cussion, in which Sir J. Nicholl, Dr. Phillimore, Mr.
Fergusson, Mr, Trant, Sir C. Burrell, and Mr. D.
W. Harvey took part; after which the gallery was
in part cleared for a division on the motion.

On our return we found that no division took
place, and after some further conversation, Mr.
HUME allowed his motion to stand as a notice for
Friday.
Mr, BROUGHAM suggested that it would be
desirable to include in the termer returns of fees, an
account of the amount of fees to advocates, taken in
those Courts about a century ago, with the view of
showing whether they had increased since. He.knew
that in the Courts at Westminster there had been

no increase in the fees of barristers within that time.
On the contrary they had diminished.
The motion was allowed to stand as a notice for
Friday.
____