Star.
London, England, 1830-06-12 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE JOURNALS.

Crtnowto.t..—Mr. George Dawson entered on the consular cam-
paign with some show of vigour last night. On a former night he
was taken by surprise when Sir Jamas Graham dealt out his sar-
calms so unspringly, and quite forgot that he had an excellent
defence. In short, he was so occupied with the sarcasms, that he
had omitted to state that errors had crept into the Estimates, and he
hoped his Honourable Friend would be so far softened as not to in-
Julio in them any more. Sir J. Graham gave Mr. G. Dawson due
credit for the happy afterthought, the discovery of the errors being ex-
ecedingly opportune after the recent division, and in contemplation of
aliother. After the corrections were made, ample materials for an able
speech still remained, and Sir James skilfully availed himself of them.
Ile introduced some instructive contrasts too into it. Our diplomatic
and consular expenses in 1792, including the charge for super-
snnuations and pensions, were 113,9271. in 1829, 366,000 L The
charge for Consols alone was 8,0001. more than the whole diplo-
taatic expenses in 1792. But he furnished a still more in.
structive contrast. The entire charge of the civil government of
the Crated States was 20,8121. the civil and military go-
ea:intent taken together were 24,2891. and the whole charge
for its civil government, diplomatic and consular expences, was
52,4201. A Republic is unquestionably an odious form of govern-
silent ; what a pity we cannot devolve on such a Government our
diplomatic extray.tgance, our military mania, our palace-building
propensities, and our superannuation., and borrow from the Repub.
!icons for our beloved Monarchy a little of that economy which
causes loyal subjects so many a heart-ache, when the frequent visits
Of the tax.gatherer remind them of the expense of the Government
in America.—Sir James moved that the Estimate of Consular Sala.
rhar be reduced from 89,9701. to 79,979 E—The Chancellor of the
Exchequer " challenged the Honourable Baronet to name an Admi.
titration in this country that had ever been so little desirous of
ex.rciaing for its support, in the reward of adherents, the cx.
runt of political patronage."—(Hear, hear, from the Treasury
Itenehes.)—This may be allowed, without any great stretch of
c4ntlour. The Government can only he carried on by means of
corrupt influence ; and where corruption is the system, it would he
difficult to say which Administration is moat corrupt. What Sir
J. Graham said, will he eternally applicable to all Administrations
under our system. " When their professions were brought to the
test of their acts, they did not appear to be marked with sincerity.
All their reductions affected Subordinate Officers—men power.
101, destitute of influence; but they uniformly avoided any.
thing like reduction ; when they came to deal with men having votes
in tither House of Parliament, or influencing votes in Parliament,
the spirit of reduction immediately dropped, and they were found
pertinaciously adhering to anything in the nature of patronage that
could affect the two Houses of Parliament." It is past of the business
of a Minister to profess: economy, and practice corruption. It is
rat of the business of an honest man, who can afford to keep a
conscience, to make that evident on all occasions. The minority
was great. The vote was carried by only 121 to 98. This is
encouraging.
11/CAALD.It is scarcely more than two hundred years since Sir '
Edward Coke, then Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench,
disputed the most essential point of the jurisdiction of the Court of
Chancery, namely, the power to give relief after or against the judg-
ment of a Court of Common Law. The contest upon this subject
was so warmly carried on In the year 1616, between this learned and
eminent Judge and the Lord Chancellor Ellesmere that in-
dictments were preferred against the Counsel, the solicitors,
and the suitors, together with a Master in Chancery, for having
incurred the penalties of pramunire by questioning in a Court
of Equity a judgment obtained in the Court of King's Bench
upon alleged gross fraud and imposition. This dispute, which
involved almost the existence of the Court of Chancery, was
finally decided by the King in Council against the opinion of
the Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, which decision
may be said to have laid the foundation of the present enor-
mous and still increasing power of the Equity system. Of so tom-
paratively recent a date is the growth of that vast and formidable
jurisdiction. It was subsequently to this dispute that Lord Bacon,
who was the successor of Lord Ellesmere, reduced the practice of the
Court of Chancery into something like a regular system, though he
did not preside there long enough to enable him to complete its for.
mation in a manner worthy of his accurate and comprehensive mind.
Nor was it until the time of the Earl of Nottingham, who
was appointed to his high office in 1673, that the system of
the Court of Chancery was really consolidated, and made avail-
able to the decision of those questions of property which arose
out of the extension of trade, and the abolition of the military
tenures. From that time to the present, what a change has
taken place in this branch of our juridical system ! Not only
has the Court of Chancery, whose existence was almost disputed
in the reign of James the First, become the most important
Court of the realm, but two more Equity Courts have been added,
and the erection of a third is now proposed, which would make
the Courts in Equity equal in number to what the superior Courts In
Equity and Common Law, taken together, formerly were. But as
to the necessity of a new Court or a new Judge in Equity, as pro-
posed by the Lord Chancellor's Bill, now pending in Parliament,
considerable difference of opinion exists in Westminster Hall. The
opponents to the measure among lawyers appear to be by far the
inure numerous body, and to coincide in opinion with Sir Charles
Wetherell that such an appointment will not materially tend to fa-
cilitate the dispatch of Equity business. It is quite certain that
such an appointment would increase the quantity of appeals ; and
we think Sir C. Wetherell right in calling on Parliament to ewer-
tain by evidence the necessity of such a measure, before they
saddle the country with the expense of it. We believe the pre-
sent Lord Chancellor to be as well disposed as any of his
predecessors to administer his high office with that pu-
rny and rectitude which are sure, sooner or later, to
secure that honourable and lasting reputation, which, unlike the
ma:lsl.:lit praise of party, is confirmed by the unbiassed suffrages
of a discerning public ; but, at the same time, we are of opinion
that it is not in the power of that learned Lord, or of any other in.
dividual filling that station, to obviate the evil consequences of the
radical defect in a system which unites the office of a Judge with
that of a politician, and makes it necessary for a Lord Chancellor
to divide his time between the duties of the Bench and the duties
of the Cabinet. We venture to say that, until the political cha-
racter of the Chief Judge in Equity is separated from the Judicial
t,ne, the system will always be complained of, whatever number of
additional Equity Judges may be appointed ; and, if these two in.
enatpatible characters be once &netted, the appointment of a new
Jinig.: in Chancery will he found to be quite superfluous.
Ti MES.—We recommend to our readers an attentive rinse' of
the conversation in the Ilcuse of Commons respecting the mode of
paving onsuls. As a mere question of expense, there is no doubt
teat on the face of the subject the system of tees is nor: economical
t:;an the system of salaries. But another question arises: is it (*pally
fair? is it squally responsible ? In the Lords, the 31arquis of Lon-
4ondery exhibited Inure zeal titan information on the Greek ques-
ten. It would be curious illustration of the familiar Latin proverb,
Par part gantlet," if this ex-Ambassador should turn out to be a
principal adviser of the ex. Sovereign of Greece. indiscretion is a
Common result from two apparently very different causes—timidity,
which blunts the vision, and temerity, which overlooks the mark.
When this noble Lord talks of England being reduced to a second-
rat ePower, indignation at such a charge, from such a quarter, stops
cur utterance. If we do burst our silence against hint and his de-
raamil relation (whom we wish to forget), would we direct that
Teen of contemptuous animadversion which we are quite willing,
tf unprovoked, to suppress But though we forbear, the public do
net fiaget. The result of the proceedings in the Lords exhibited a
striking proof of the weakness of hastily concocted coalitions between
parties *ho have no common principle of adhesion. The " rash.
let lot sirength" of Lord Londonderry, and, Prole pude+. !
his new liberal allies, quailed when the moment of action
'JAW. Yucy could not stand the ordeal of a division. We
stirnire the principles and respect the motives of many of the
itanent persons now in opposition ; but by their love of justice and
muth, and, most of all, by their own well-earned reputation, we ad-
;are them nut to enter upon a forced alliance with a party with
ahem they have no affinity either personal or political. What
sammunion hath light with darkness ?" Equally con.
!NI), to the nature of things would be an union between
Lord Grey and Lout Eldon,--between Lord Holland and
Lira Lundonderty. We do not now investigate the prin.
: Pies of the respective parties : we put out of the question
vaich of the two parties was right, which was wrong; but, diame-
*tical4 Opposite, essentially adverse as were almost all their ob.
:cts and all their modes of attaining them, we say that nothing
tri some manifest State-necessity can justify an attempt to amal-
::::,ate elements so decidedly discordant ? What is that State-ne-
essity i Surely not the petty question of the boundary of Greece ;
"rely not tile paltry question of the pretensions of Prince Leopold.

\.t'rl',NAl. REPOBITORT.—One of the most unob-
r.;:iv. articles in this exhibition is a con:rivance invented by Mr.
Atri,sbury, and exhibited by the manufacturer, for the purpose of
*listing in the removal of contractions of the knee joints. These
r• tractiuts generally arise from some disease in or about the
to:11, and, in many instances, are with difficulty removed by
4:1 of the common means. The violent and irregular force
4nPloyed to get over contractions frequently reproduces the disease
ahtch gave rise to them, which must be regarded as a great evil in
•i! usual system of management. Dlr. Ameabury's object sp-
ikes to be to remove the complaint in the most gentle manner,
"ibkh he cites by the nice adjustment and management of a
'crew, which is so contrived that he can act upon the brink
41th any degree of force, varying from the smallest quantity to
"11 pounds. The advantageous influence of this instru-
.:ient is shown by a case extracted from Mr. Amesbury's Syllabus,
which is so striking in its details, that were it not for Alt. Ames-
well.known veracity, and the circumstantial evidence about
•ti we doubt whethet it would not require more faith than most
:"Ple pesseas to give him the credit to which be la entiticd.j