Star.
London, England, 1828-07-18 00:00:00

[PRICE SEVENPENCIL

given, it should be in the power of the Patron to take
it again into his o*n patronage. Such bargains had
been and continued to be the practice, and to give Va-
lidity to it the present Bill was necessary. He admitted.
that the subject was one of difficulty, but as bonds if
resignation had been frequently given, it would be ne-
cessary that the parties giving them should be bound by
their own acts.

Mr. R.. GORDON supported the Bill, and thought it
did not go far enough. The laws of simony, as they
now existed, were extremely absurd, and the subject
should as• speedily as possible be brought before the no-
tice of the House.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL admited that diffi-
culties attended this subject; but if this Bill were not
passed, still greater would continue to eri.r. General
bonds of resignation were always considered to be le-
gal ; besides, by this Bill it was secured, that if the
person .to be subsequently provided fur did _not. take
holy orders. then that the person in. possession should
hold the ►enefcte. Tois would prevent a great deal of
. abuse. and would etrible those persons who could make
provision for the younger hranchescf th. it families, to do
an act of justice to their relatives, and give young men
of education and family to the service of the Church,
than which nothing could be more desirable.
Mr. SUG DES supported the Bill.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
BARILLA -SOAP.
Mr. ROBINSON moved for a Return of the quantity of Ba:
rilla imported into Great Britain since the year 1817; and a (de-
-1 turn of the exports of Soap since the year 1820 to the present

PREROGATIVE COURT.
Mr. HUME rose to present the Petition of wkich he
had given notice on a former evening, and upon which
much had been unnecessarily said by the Right Hon.

Member who was Judg- of the Prerogative Coon, and
the Hon. and Learned Member below him. It appeared
from the Petition which he held in his hand, that in
1821 a person armed Evans had died, leaving property
to the amr•um of 1,7001. to 1 8004 It happened, un-
fortunately, that he lett two wills, one in favour of his

niece, and the other in favour of an adopted daughter.
He could not say whether the second will had been
made under the impression that the first had been de.
stroyed, but so it was that in December, 18'21, a per-
son named Evans proved under one will, and received
probate. The present petitioner, however, conceiving
that he, in right of his wife, was the legal heir, insti-
tuted proceedings in Doctors' Commons to obtain pet.-
bate of the will. o.e of the grounds of complaint set
forth by the petitioner was, that he had been four and
a half years a suitor in that Court at an expense almost
incredible, without obtaining any redress. And here
he begged leave to point out the vicious practice of
that Court; he used the term vicion‘, because he felt
that the practice of any Court ought to be so desig-
nated where, in suing to recover a sum of 1,8001. a sum
of 2,5001. was expended. Such a Court he held to be
a nuisance., which ought to be done away with. It was
e'duty of that House, and of his Majesty's Govern-
ment, to make justice accessible to the most humble
individual in the community. Mr. Peddle stared in his
petition, th4t he commenced proceedings in 1821, and
that in 1824 judgment was given against him, and in
favour of his opponent, but without costs, which showed
that there existed some doubt as to the legality of that
opponent's claim. So strongly was this feeling impressed
,upon his proctiirs, Mr. Toiler and Son„ that the elder
Mr. Toler told petitioner that he was dessati,fied with
the judgment proniiunced, which he consideied cor-
rupt, and recommended the petitioner to appeal to the
High Court of Delegates, who would, he had no doubt,
set it aside ; and so strongly was he impressed s.ith this
opinion, that he de:ermined, in the even: of failure, to
charge merely the bare expenses of the proceeding,
which he stated would not amount to more than 2001.-.1.
This course the petitioner adopted, under the impression
that it would require but a short time decide the appeal.
The proceeding commenced in July, 1824, and in 1826
the Cow t of Delegates confirmed the judgment of the
Prerogative Conn, but without costs, which again
created an impression that the decision was bad. In
the following September a Bill was sent in by a Gen..
dense% who had been described by his Honourable and
Learned Friend below him as a petty-fogging attorney,
a person who had been guilty of perjury and attempted
extortion. Now, he would state that he had, from two
or three most respectable quarters, received lot, rma.
tion respecting that Gentleman's character, and he
f 'unJ it to be unblemished. One communication which
he had received mentioned that Mr. Walker, the actor.
trey in question, had received from the City of Bristol
A piece r f plate, for having struck off the Rolls an. ata
torney who was said to be a nuisance there. Since
then lie had received a letter from a Gent!eman in
Doctors Commons, describing Mr. Smith to be a most
.respectable man. Mr. Toiler sent to plaintiff a bill
amounting to p7l. 19s. for the first expenses, and 3841.
as the expense of the appeal—making a total of 10721.
The other parties paid upwards of 16001. expenses ; so
that, if the decision remained unchanged, they would
have only 1501. or 2001. remaining. It appeared by
the proceedings that his Hon. and Learned Friend (Dr..
Lushington) had, in the first instance, been retained by
Mr. Peddle, the petitioner; but it ssu found that he
was subsequently retained by the opposite party; and
he found amongst the charges of expense a most extra-
ordinary item—the adverse attorney having refused to
give up the papers, the matter was referred to Dr. Ar.
mild, and the expenses of that reference were charged
by Mr. Toiler. This, he conceived, was sufficient to

show that his Hon. and Learned Friend (Dr. Lushingron)
was not free from the abuses of that Court, any mate
than the Hon. and Learned Gent. who presided in ita The
proceedings in the Court of Delegates having gone by,
next came the settlement of accounts. Mr. Peddle ap.
plied to I. Toiler for an explanation of some of the
items, which application was refused. He then applied
to the Registrar of the Court, Mr. Dynely, and stated
that be was not present, and did not know what ex-
penses were incurred; he therefore prayed to allow his
attorney to attend the taxing of costs. The Regi tray
returned for answer, that no such attendance could be
allowed. The Petitioner then prayed, by affidavit, that
his solicitor might be allowed to attend, but the appii •
cation was refused. Another. application was made to
the Court, in which were the statemeots of Mr. Toiler,
as to the decision of the Court, but the Coort refused to
.receive the affidavits, and only asked Mr. Toiler if the
allegations were true? Mr. Toiler replied in the nega-
tive, 904 Ore Court rested satisfied with his simple as,
section, in opposition to the oaths of three individuals.
The Petitioner consequently came up to town, attpaded