Star.
London, England, 1830-06-11 00:00:00

PORTUGAL.

Lord J. RUSSELL asked, ether the existence of a Regency
in Terceira had been notified to the Portuguese Government; and,
sew: idly, whether any negociation was proceeding with Brasil as t:
Portugal, and the succession to its crown ?
Sir R. PEEL said, he must answer the first question in the affir-
mative; and, as to the second, that negotiations on the subject were
continuing.
Lord PALMERSTON asked, whether any relation had Ihet.
substituted between this country and the Regency of Terceira ?
Sir R. PEEL replied, that no relation with that Regency exist,d
nothing that could be properly tamed a relation between that It..
prey and this country.
31r. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from an indivi.lust
named Warren, complaining that Chelsea Ho.pital would not pay
his arrears of pension.
Mr. W. PEEL moved for the third report of the commissioners
on real property.—Ordered. He also presented accounts of suits of
Equity, &c.—Ordered to be printed.

GREECE.
Mr. HUSKISSON said he wished to move for various papers
relative to the negociations regarding Greece, and he trusted that
there would be no objection to the motion. His object was not to
promote discussion, but to get papers which he considered were re-
quisite to illustrate the negociations ; he meant particularly the
answer of the Reis Effendi, dated 10th Dec 1829. The authorities
Isonsidered that answer no answer at all—hut that answer did not
appear in the papers. The Reis Efftndi also wrote to the Duke of
Wellington, to which the Duke personally rrplied : both thou.
documents most properly appeared.
Sir R. PEEL said he reluctantly interposed. He had intimated
that he had no objection to product the papers required.
Mr. HUSKISSON observed that he had only been desirous of
showing the importance of the document. They ought also to have
the Reports of the Ambassadors. It was not because Ministers ac-
quiesced in the production of such papers that a Member was to be
precluded from showing the utility of such papers; because to ea.
pect Members to travel through those voluminous papers was too
much. He concluded with moving for the answer of the Reis Ef-
fendi of Dec. 10, 1829, and several other papers.

Sir R. PEEL was ready to produce the papers i • he had only in.
terrupted the Right Hon. Gent. because be understood there was to
be no discu.sion. If discussion were not intended remarks might
tend to prejudice the main question. When a minister intimated
readiness to produce papers, moving for them was not generally
'considered as requiring remarks. The government was ready to
produce any papers, so long as they were not calculated to interrupt
or irritate the friendly feeling that existed between this and other
countries. He did not consider that these papers, which, indeed,
were rained to in the protocols, would have any such effect; he
was ready to produce these papers.
Lord J. RUSSELL asked whether there would be any objection
to produce the documents assigning reasons for departing from the
boundaries settled March 22, 1829.

In answer to a question tram Lord PALMERSTON,
Sir It. PEEL said that every effort was made to counsel Turkey
to come to an amicable settlement with Russia; but as there was
no ambassatlor from this country at Constantinople, those efforts
were made indirectly, through the ambassadors of other powers;
and as this correspondence was of a confidential nature, he did otijea
to its production.
Lord PALMERSTON :irked if it was distinctly intimated to
Turkey that this country, in any event, would not interfere in her
favour ?

Sir R. PEEL said that such an intimation was certainly con.
veyed to the Porte, but through the same indirect channels .0 the
other communications passed through.
The returns were then agreed to.

PARISH VESTRIES IX IRELAND.
Mr. O'CONNELL, after expatiating at considerable length on
the evil resulting from the state of the law, as respected parish ves-
tries in Ireland, and upon the manner in which those evils acre
ageravated by the very law which the right hon. gent. (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) had caused to be introduced for
the purpose of remedying those evils, moved for leave to being
in a bill to repeal so much of the statutes of force in Ireland,
as to enable parish vestries to assess rates for building, rebuilding,
and enlarging of churches and chapels ; and also for the repair-
ing of the chancel of churches, and also for providing things ft-
=miry for the celebration of divine service therein. His object
was, he said, to take away from the Bishops and Archbishops in
Ireland the power which they possessed to order churches to be
built whenever they pleased, at the expense of the inhabitants.—.
It:would be equally as much for the benefit of the Protestant as it
would be for the Catholic and the Dissenter; and as all be sought
was to place the law on the same footing as the law of Etigland in
this ease, on which footing it formerly stood, and from which it
ought never to have been altered, be trusted that this motion would
be agreed to. lie was sorry to see so thin an attendance of
members, particularly of Irish sees,-to wheat constituents this
siestas was of such importance; but he bad see consolation--
for a thin house was attended with this advantage, that be was
not likely to be intarupted ia his speech by prima cenvonadon

among the members. The hon. member then entered into a history
,f the particulars in which the common and cannon law of Ireland
differed from the common and cannon law of England, and of the
injurious manner in which the former operated upon the interests of
all classes, and concluded by moving for leave to bring in the bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he was not
prepared for this discussion that evening, but there were parts of the
Aubject which were deserving of attention, and which he had already
ar.deavoured to remedy, though not by any application to the le-
gislature. The right honourable gentleman then defended the va-
rious provisions of the last Vestry Act, and concluded by saying
that he would resist the introduction of the bill of the right hm.
gentleman.
Mr. SPRING RICE said that he also was unprepared for the
discussion that evening, and he should therefore detain the house
but a few minutes. He concurred in a great deal of what had
fallen from the right honourable gentleman opposite (the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer) as to the advantages to be derived from
some clauses of the bill, which he had caused to pass that
house, for remedying the evils which were admitted to exist ;
but he must at the same time declare, that of his own knowledge
lie knew that many of the abuses which existed prior to the
passing of the act, were still In existence in defiance of the act,
and others had grown out of it, or had at least grown up since the
passing of the act. If the government would but inform the house,
in intelligible terms, that the subject was under consideration, he
would be most anxious to leave the subject in their hands, but they
refused to give any pledge, and the house was approaching the
close of the session without the Irish members being enabled to in-
form their constituents that any effectual step towards reform was to
in taken. He objected at present to the indiscriminate admission
of Catholics and Protestants to parish vestries, though
irh he hoped the
time would come when all the inhabitants of • might unite,
without any sectarian feeling, in the transactions of the parish bu-
siness. He could not, however, agree to the hon. and learned gen-
tleman's motion, but would move an amendment, for leave to bring
in a bill to amend Act of the 7th George IV. for regulating the Ves-
tries in Ireland.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS said the church-rate in Ireland was
not a personal tax, but a tax on land, and should be levied by
the landowners by whom it was eventually paid. The hon. gen-
tleman read a number of returns to shew that the highest rate in
many parishes did not exceed ninepence per acre ; and that in some
parishes it was not more than three farthings.—The tax, whether an
evil or not, did not affect any man on account of his religion, but
merely as an occupier of land. He should oppose both the motion
and the amendment.
Lord 1.. GOWER thought the learned gentleman had treated the
question u was natural to his profession, by urging every thing
that was possible against the law he attacked, without adverting to
its benefits ; but he thought his right honourable friend had fully
answered his objections. The subject had been so repeatedly dis-
cussed, that he should not enter into it, nor into the unhappy state of
things which bad made the established church of Ireland the object
of so much attack. He would freely state that it was in contempla-
tion to introduce a measure next session, which should remove all
ambiguity from the existing law, and should give facility to ap-
peals against parish-rates ; but farther than this, he could not
pledge himself to go, and must oppose both the motion and the
amendment. _ _ . .

Mr. HUME was surprised that after the anxiety which ministers
had asserted they felt to remove all cause of irritation from Ireland,
they should oppose such measures as the present, which were aden-
lated to produce peace and good-will in Ireland. His hon. friend
asked nothing for Ireland but what was the law of England. Would
the people of England submit to have ten or a dozen persons in a
parish taxing a population of three or four thousand ?—(Hear.) It
was impossible to expect that peace or quietness should exist under
such a system. It was treating the people of Ireland as the Greeks
had been treated by the Turks, and if persevered in the consequences
must be the same.—(Hear.)
Sir R. PEEL said, he never expected that any bill that the legis-
lature could agree to would satisfy the hon. and learned gentleman.
The question was, whether if there was an established church, a
decent provision was not to be made for its service? It was admitted
that the charge ought to be a parochial charge; then was it possible
that where there were but ten Protestants in a parish, to a thousand
Catholics, that the Catholics should be admitted to vote with the
Protestants? He would admit that the objects for which the rate
was to be paid should be defined by the legislature ; and, if it was
said why not bring in a bill for the purpose this session, be could
appeal to the house that it was with the greatest difficulty the go.
vermnent could get a heating for any bill, and it was not for the
hon. gent. (Mr. Hume) who occupied some hours of the house every
night, and prevented their getting a hearing, to turn round and say,
why not bring in a bill this session ? No doubt all the hon. gentle.
lan's speeches and arguments were of the utmost importance; but
if there were twenty members in the house who took the same rein
of their ditty, not only no bill could be passed, but scarcely any bill
could pass the first reading.—(Hear.) For himself he could truly
say, that he often spent sixteen or seventeen hours a day in dis.
charge of his public duty, and he must own that he had not time,
during the present session, to bring forward a bill sufficiently
matured, and he would not, y taunts, be induced to bring in a crude
and unprepared measure.—(Hear.)
Mr. PROTHEKOE said, he could not hear without indignation
the attack made on his hon. friend the member for Aberdeen, who
was so exemplary in the discharge of his duties, that it would be
well for the country if many of the representatives of the people were
to imitate his conduct.
Sir R. PEEL explained. He did not object to the hon. gentle-
man's right to discuss any subject; he merely stated the fact, that
it' many members occupied the same time, it would be difficult to
pass any bill.
Mr. O'CONNELL replied.
Lord KILLEEN said, if the right hon. hart. (Sir R. Peel) had
given any hope that he would bring in his bill during the present
Session, he would not vote for either the motion or the amendment;
hut, as he did not, he must support the amendment of the hon. mem.
ber for Limerick.
The House divided—

Aes
Noes

Majority against the Motion.. ...... ..... 124
The amendment was then negatived without a division.
COURT OF CHAXCZRT.
Sir C. WETHERELL said, after the house had been five hours
in an Irish vestry room, he must take the liberty of introducing
them for a short time time into the Court of Chancery, which he
thought was a place of not less importance. The Court of Chancery
• p already consisted of three tribunals, with three judges, and a bill was
now before the house, to add a fourth court, with a fourth judge ;
and this bill was introduced with two others, one of which was to
abelish the Welch Judicature, and the other was to appoint three
new judges for the three law courts of Westminster Hall. He
thought such precipitate legislation was not fair towards the public.
—Besides the Lord Chancellor's bill for adding a new judge to the
Court of Chancery, the Solicitor-General had brought in two bills
to increase the officers of the Court. (Hear, hear, hear.)--
When he bad the honour of sitting at the other side of the
house, he constantly declared, as he did in Westminster-
hall, that a fourth judge in the Court of Chancery was not nixes.
eery. It was his deliberate opinion that a more noxious, pestilent,
or mischievous bill never passed the house than that under consi-
deration. The bill, according to the Lord Chancellor's own *hewing,
was a bill for his own convenience, for the office was to be discon-
tinued at the pleasure of his Majesty, which proved that it was only
to be passed for a temporary convenience to the Lord Chancellor.
The office was not to be permanent—why did the Chancellor call
for it ? Was he unable, or was he unwilling to discharge the duties
of his office ? The resolution he meant to move was, that the hones
should not proceed to consent to the appointment till it had satisfied
itself by evidence that such an appointment was necessary. In the
year 1813, the Vice-Chancellor was appointed, which gave; the
public three equity judges instead of two; and in the year
1829, an additional Speaker was appointed for the House of
Lords, which discharged the Chancellor of a portion of his
labours ; and now it was intended to make a further diminution by
the erection of a fourth Court. It was notorious in Westminster
Hall, that the Master of the Rolls had given his opinion that a
fourth Judge was not necessary. The Vice. Chancellor had given
the same opinion. [The Solicitor-General said, " No, no."j He
mutt take leave to say, that he knew the Vice.ClUincellor had
given that opinion. (A laugh.) He knew that when that learned
person was examined before the Chancery Commission, he said
three Angels were not sufficient to perform the duties of the
Court; but he had since changed his opinion. lie did full jus.
rice to Lord Lyndhurst when he allowed his opinion to be equal
Alpto that of either of his associates ; and when they had both de-
dared their opinion against the appointment as unnecessary, the
house would not legislate on Lord Lyndhurst's unsupported opi-
nion. in 1828, it appeared by Hansard's debates that the has.
member for Weymouth (the Solicitor-General) had said the ap-
pointment of a new Judge would be a revolutionary measure.—
(A laugh.) The honourable and learned member then quoted
tl2iffeech of the Solicitor-General in 1628, to show that he at that
was of opinion that an additional Judge was unnecessary.
He C. Wetherell) was certain, and he had good greossuanri;
for his belief, that if the whole of the members of the Chancery Bar
were examined before a committee of the house, not one of them
would be found to say that an additional judge was unnecessary ; in
short, by the. appointment of a new judge the Lord Chancellor
would be put in this predicament, be would have nothing to do,with
two journeymen to assist him.--(Laughter.) He now called upon
the house to chew cause why, on the 10th day of June, 1830, it
should depart from the opinion entertained in 1828; in that year
there were about 100 bankrupt petitions lying for a heating in the
Lord Chancellor's Court; and it appeared, in consequence of a mo-
tion made by him (Sir C. Wethaell) on the 9th of February last,
that there were only 29 petitions in arrear on the Chancellor's

paper, and the Vice-Chancellor had none before him—(Hear,)
and since that period he knew that no more had occurred ;
stain, at Hilary Term, 1830, there were of various cases pend-
ing in the Chancery Court 1,061 ;—what, he would ask, was
the case at the Easter Term of te same year ? Why, that
they had 'decreased in that short interval 348. It was clear
that since the hearing of bankrupt causes was extinguished, the
business before the Lord Chancellor goes in an undisturbed current
of hearing and adjudicating. From the statements he had made
of the number of cases of all sorts on the lists of the Court, it ap-
that there rat-mined 713 cases. Now if this number were
grviTtelceld between the Lord Chancellor, Sir Lannalot Shadwell, and
Sir John Leach, he did not hesitate to say, that if either of these
judges did not dispose of his aliquot part, he either cannot or will
not do hit duty. He would assure the house that he had no great
predelictim fot his motion, considered by itself; what he wanted
most was, that honourable members would not decide in the dark,
and in the teeth, too, of the members of the court, and of
the two other judges, who, be it remembered, were as well able
to give an opinion on the subject as the Lord Chancellor him-
self. He was satisfied, that if a new judge were appointed,
that the Lord Chancellor would rarely find his way into Court,
because another lord bad been appointed to do his duty ; and by
what name that other Judge was to be called, he (Sir C. W.) was
somewhat at a loss to guess; he supposed that he might very pro-
perly be called the Orderly of the Lord Chancellor—(a laugh)—by
his appointment the house would literally be unfrocking the Chan-
laugh.)—He should take the liberty of quoting the opi-
nion of Sir Samuel Romilly on this subject, and with which opinion
he (Sir C. W.) perfectly agreed. That great lawyer had said, that
on the appointment of a new Judge, the Lord Chancellor would
change from a law Judge into a political one. Lord Bacon also, on
the same subject, says, that there was a danger of having a hack.
neyed Chancellor. He (Sir C. W.) was fearful that it might turn
out to be hackneyed on both sides of the question.—(Laughter.)—
He trusted he had shown to the house that there was no lunar of
business, and no increase; that there was no more than one Judge
could fairly get through; and that if a Judge were appointed, there
was a presumption' that a Lord Chancellor might turn out as Sir
Samuel Romilly with telescopic eye had described. The hors. and
learned member bore testimony to the great dispatch of business in
the Rolls Court, which, with the other Judges, made as good as
three Judges and a half.—(A laugh.)—He might, with great pro-
priety, apply the words of a writer of antiquity to the Lord Chan-
cellor with his new Judge—

" Vacua re: taus In solo."

The hon. and learned member concluded by observing, that he
thought he had said enough to convince the house that the courts
were in a situation to do without the appointment of an additional
judge; and he hoped that the hon. gentleman on the opposite
benches would not mix up the present question with the two other
similar questions which were before the house, but rather that they
would confine themselves to the present, and allow of sufficient
material for proper] judging of the whole matter.—(Cheers.)
Mr. Alderman WOOD having seconded the motion,

The SOLICITOR.OENERAL rose and said, that he conceived
he had some right to complain of the course pursued by the
honourable and learned member who had brought forward the
motion. Neither of the two bills which he (the Solicitor-Ge-
neral) had the honour of bringing before the house, stood
for discussion that night ; yet the hon. and learned member anti-
cipates, and mixes up the principles of these Bills with the motion
he has brought forward. He complained also of the indecorous
terms used ; it certainly was not very becoming in that House to
designate any great and learned lord as "Jack Rugby;" but pass.
ing from these remarks, he had to observe that the hon. and learned
member had mentioned witnesses for examination at the bar of the
House in support of his assertions ; amongst these witnesses was
the Master of the Rolls ; that learned person was not the most fit to
become a witness in such a case, not that he had not sufficient infer.
motion on the subject, but that he might be able to form opinions of
a peculiar description. With regard to what he (the Solicitor. Ge.
neral) had said in 1828 on this question, he admitted that he bad
stated that the appointment of a new Judge would tend to revolu-
tionise the state of the Courts; but at the time he made that user.
Lion he spoke and was heard under great disadvantage, and he could
not be now answerable for his statements, and when he spoke against
the appointment, he could safely aver that 09 out of 100 members
of the bar were of the same opinion. The Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber then quoted, among others, Mr. Bull. He (the Solicitor. G-
eneral) if that learned gent. were brought to the bar of the House,
it would put him to the painful necessity of hearing read a letter
ftom himself in which he distinctly states that an additional Judge
was unnecessary. The Right Hon. Gentleman then took an
amplified review of the state of the Chancery Court since 1620, con.
treating it with the present, contending, as he went along, that the
only object the law-officers of the I Crown had in view was, that
no suitor should wait, but that every case should be heard the mo.
ment It was ready for bearing ; he impressed upon the attention of
the House the multifarious transactions that were brought before
the Court; there was at present in its possession forty millions of
pounds sterling, much of which was at present the subject of liti-
gation ; other parts of it had been placed for safe keeping in the
hands of the Lord Chancellor till the parties were of age. In many
instances bills were filed for no other purpose ; the appeals too from
Ireland took up much time; and it ought to be borne always in
mind, that in no Court. were delays more injurious to the interests
of suitors than in the Court of Chancery. In Lord Hardwick's
time there were not half the bills ‘led there were at present. In Lord
Eldon's time there had been disposed of no less than 57,000 mo.
dolts, many of which were equal to causes ; for, knowing how diffi-
cult it was to get a cause to a final hearing, many persons brought
their causes In the shape of motions, in order to elicit his opinion,which
satisfied them as fully as a judgment. He thought it would be very
advantageous if the attention of the Lord Chancellor were to be con.
fined to appeals until disposed of, and then to attend to original
business. He would also suggest, that the Lord Chancellor should
take to himself the assistance of the other Judges, and sit as al
Court of Appeal, giving the suitor the option of appealing to that
Court, or to the Lords, but not from one to the other the decision'
of either to be final,—lt was absolutely necessary that two Regis.
tsars should be appointed, even if a new Judge were not, for the
present business could not be executed unless the number of Regis-
trars were increased. With respect to Masters also, they would
hereafter receive salaries, with such reasonable fees for copies, sa
would act as en incentive to dispatch without exposing them to the
odium of having it alleged that they forced copies on suitors foe the
sake of profits.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. FERGUSSON moved the adjournment of the question until
Tuesday next.
Mr. BROUGHAM agreed to the necessity of an adjournment of
the question, but feared Tuesday was already too fully occupied.
After a short conversation between Sir R. Peel, the Attorney.
General, and Mr. Ferguson, the debate was postponed until Tues.
day next.