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

1

,
tie Court, and asked for the table of fees Proctors were1
allowed charge. 'He found none, and naturally in•
gutted, il am Ito go before the Registrar withosit
vat
any gelds to the propriety of the charges? He
therefore, itid his solicitor. Mr. Walker, made affidavit
referring to the I 35th and 136th Articles of the Canons,
which, it was contended, required that a table of fees
should be Ming up conspicuously in the Court. It
seemed to him (Mr. Hume) that on the 134th Article
of the Canons depended many of the abuses of the
Court ; and if he showed that the Judge positively re-
fused to have the necessary reforms made, the House
would agree at least that he had bets guilty. of inatten-
tion
td his duty. The 134th and 135th Articles related
to the fees to be taken, which it was declared should
not be greater than had been approved and established i
in the year 1597. The 136th Atticle provided. that a
Ohio of fees should be •I•ung up openly in the Court;
•Pg WI it was declared that any Registrar who should fail
-tobiag up this table of tees should he suspended until '
he executed his duty in this respect; and if a Registrar 1
- allowed it to be removed, for such offence he should be
suspended from his office for six months Mr. Peddle
attended with his Solicitor, and could find no table of
fees as required. He made affidavit i f the fact, in order
• that** Registrars might be suspended, according to
lbehS6th Article of the Canons. The matter seemed
quite plain and simple, and it was surpoising that any
difficulty upon the point had ever existed. Notice was
then given in the Assignation Book in the regular man-
net. pi an intended motion on the subject for the Bth of
JoiTs'when it was stated that the Counsel for the Peti-
tioner would pray the Court to suspend the Regis-
trar until the table of fees was exposed, as was re-
quired, which table if fees was necessary, in order that
the parties might proceed with the taxation of the bills
of costs. The day ani'ved when the Petitioner was pie-
pared by his Counsel to open his case, but the Judge
gripped him at the moment he was about to begin.—
The Hon. Member. from the notes of the short•hand
wi Lei, proceeded to state what occurred on that occa-
sion, when Sir John Nicholl refused to allow Dr. Lee to
-proceed, on the ground that the paperiwete entitled in
•It cause which was not berme the Court. He also ob.
jetted decidedly to the reading of the affidavits.because
they were made the vehicle of charges against the
Officers of the Court. He (Mr. Hume) contended that
this course amounted almost to a denial of justice; he
did not deny that a Judge was bound to maintain the
dignity and discipline of the Court, but he was bound
to do so without favour and affection, and, without mote
knowledge of one-party than the other. pursue only in
'a straightoforward course the ends of justice. Another
-objectoiwtsten by Sir J. Nicholl to the affidavits was,
that they were a-porte, when such was Vie fact with
all affidavits until they were auswered. When Dr. Lee
•rose to address the Judge on the subject, Sir J. Nicholl
.retaseel to hear him, and finally desired the officer of
- Vile Coutt to remove him if -he did not resume his seat.
• fle.4eriner, the nephew of the Judge, called upon the
Vomit to protect its dignity. It was not for him (Mr.
unroll) inlay that this proceeding was not soictly ac-
cording to law, but he wi uld say. that the Canons re-
quired the exposure of a table of fees, and that the con-
• duct. of the Judge towards an individual who sought
•only that the law should be carried into effect was at
•leaat most extraordinary. It amour ted almost to a threat
that any man should be put down who attempted to in-
tefeie with the ariangement of fees. Atter reading
several passages from the Petition relative to this part
of sba case, the Hon. Member adverted to the genetal
ssairOaiiit contained in it relative t • the monopoly at-
tempted to be established and preserved in the Prero-
gative Come. It seared to him (Mr. Hume) doubtful
whether the charge was not coriect. The Canons re.
quires] that no Registrar shohld be Counsel directly or
indirectly in any proceeding connected with the Court;
yet it would scarcely be believed that three of the
Registrars were Proctors, cat tied on business to a great
esteut, and were actually called upon to tax the costs
of each other. The ties of blood and connection mast
°pet ate in some way or other, and when a man had a
came decided against bins he might have reason to
.lement that he did w t employ a Counsel for whom t :e
Court might' feel a partiality. He did not say that such
was the cast, but the Petitioner suspected it; and shire
was some ground to believe, that in taxing costs the
Judge was disposed to favour particular individuals.—
Mr. George Jennie, according to the assertion of the
Petition's, was nephew of Sir John Nicholl, Registrar
of the Arches,•and Deputy Registrar of the Prerogative
Court, besides holding two or duce other offices • and,
' in opposition to the express Canon, carried on the busi.
sae of Proctor, under the firm of Jaw. Cooke, and
Amer. Mr. Cooke was dead, and Mr. George Jenne,
was, in fact, now the only surviving member of she
Isousc. Mr. bynely was also a nephew of the Judge;
sad if no actual aiminality and connivance could be
established, suspicion nasstunavoidably attach to parties
as circumstanced and connected. It appeared from
payees with which he (Mr. Hume)bad been forni•hed„
abut is February last Dr. Lee submitted a humble me-
morial to Sir.J. Nicholl.lpraying, among other things,
that'll)e table of fees mentioned in the Casein: should be
placed in open Court, and the terms used were to plain,
and. the proposition so cell-evident, that it was very es.:
trawrdinary how the Judge could pass it over as he had
dome. It brought home to him, at least, great want of
attention to the duties of his office, which was the
more glaring, because in 1823, he actually suspended
as party for charging fees not sanctioned by the Regis.
tar. Dr. Lee's memorial was presented in F‘bruary,
Mfffff, before the case of the petitioner was before the
Dom, so that when that case came on, Sir J. Nithoil
cosld.not plead ignorance upon the subjeca. Atter
• the lapse if four month., viz. in June, 1828, Sir J.
Inchon stated that he had consulted several Grade-
MS of the Bar, and had decided• that it was hot
moomity to take any notice of Dr, Lee's memorial.
A 'jailer petition was presented to -Di. Lushington,
Jodge of the Bishop of London's Court, on the 9th
of Jelly, and on the following day he said that he had
mad it, but declined snaking any order, and should
*Bow the UMW line of conduct Sir J. Nicholl had pur-
stied in the Court of- Arches. Thus there was great
reason to complain of the conduct•if both 'Judges in
respect of the table of tees, and the time seemed come
when an inquiry ,ought to be instituted into the whole
proceedings and constitution of the Coons in Doctors'
Commons. Before he sat down, he would obsetve that
le had not referred to the Report c f the Committee of
four Learned Gentlemen appointed•to investigate, be-
cease it had no reference to the ground of complaint in
MS case, which regarded the exposure of the table of
fees. The House was bound to call for a Return ofthose
feet, is order that they might be accessible to the
, whole community. He had thought it right to enter
lima at Inge into the contents and Merits of the Pe-
died% Contrary to his.otiginal design, in consequence
of the soar tieatnarat he bad received on a satinet
night. ethos Into was -Walks to bring forward the
facts. He bad rmo listod to 'nd g hilt facts : the reason-
tag upon them might be if Amt. hot he wan prepared
W substantiate all the allegaufie bad made founded,