Star.
London, England, 1826-12-05 00:00:00

COMMITTat OF APPKAL.

Mr. LITTLETON rose for the purpose of moving
the Resolution which he h id postponed o pots a former
occasion, in deference to the objections of several Hon.
and Learned Gentlemen. He had only made a slight
vari.nion in its terms. This Resolution was not without
precedent in the practice of the House. The regulation
which enabled Parliamentary agents to receive a deposit
as a semi,/ for the costs feed by the House, was, he
thought, nearly the same in principle. His object was
to afford what he deemed a necessary protection co the
House against vexatious, or ft ivolous appeals. Re ad-
mitted that a recognizance for the payment of expenses
would have been a preferable expedient, but it was
one which could only be enforced by an Act of the
whole Legislature. The Hon. Member concluded by
moving, " That any party or parties complaining of the decision o;
a Committee, or his or their agent or agents, shall deposit withtbe
Clerk of the Fees the sum of SOU previous to the ballot for the
Committee of Appeal; and that he or they shall also sign a note,
agreeing that the Whole or part of that sum shall be paid, as the said
Committee shall direct."

Mr. BANKES, jun. objected to the Resolution, on
the ground that it would place the poor Petitioners in
a situation of comparative disadvantage. He diJ not
mean to say that the House would listen with less fa..
your to their complaints, but they were necessarily
subject to greater difficulties than the rich in procuring
agents, and the proposed regulation would add to those
difficulties in a greater degree even than demanding a
recognizance. He knew. that the Hon. Gentleman had
bestowed great attention upon the subject, and has
obtained the advice of those who might be supposed
the best qualified to assist him, and these considera.
Lions had deterred him from stating his objections on, a
former occasion so strongly as he felt them. But the pre-
cedent which the Hon. Gentleman had produced had
increased his doubts. There was a great difference
between the fees to their own officers which wee pre-
scriptive, moderate, and founded upon the trouble
actually imposed upon them, and costs which it was
now proposed they should receive of one party, and
undertake to pay over to the other. This regulation
was not directed only against parties who came there
voluntarily, but might equally operate against persons
who had been brought there against their will, and who
being dissatisfied with the decision of the origival Com-
mittee, became Plaintiffs bef. re the Committee of Ap-
peal. He thought it would be an improvement to the
Resolution if the words " unless the House shall other-
wise determine' were added. He knew that without
this, the House would always have the power to sus-
,pond the Resolution, but certainly applications for that purpose
Would be better received, and have a better chance of success if
those words were inserted in the Resofution. He thought the ea-
' crifice of time it might occadon could not fairly be urged 'as an
objection to his amendment, for the Resolutions themselves nem.-
, sadly involved a great sacrifice of time. His object wss to protect
the interest of such pour parties, as be bad seen subjected to great
injury. He should therefore move as an amendment, that these
words be added to the Resolution, " unless the House shall otbet-
wise determine."—(Hear, bear.)

Sir Thomas ACLAND thought this resolution a ne-
cessary shock upon the great increase of priiate business,
which was to be apprehended from the new system. He
did not concur in the censure which had been showered
upon the Committees of that House. He thought that
they bad been upon the whole productive of substantial
justice, and was apprehensive thet the Committee of
Appeals would be a means of giving increased power to
great and wealthy individuals. Great scandal had
arisen from the mode in which the business in Private
Committees had been conducted, and he approved of
the Committee of Appeal, so far as it promiied to check
these irregularities, but be would rather make the application to its
authority difficult than too easy. It was a new remedy afforded,
and the House bad a right to impose terms upon the applicants;
and it was desirable also that this remedy aboald only be resorted
to in VOSS eases.

Mr. Secretary PEEL saw some difficulties in what.
ever determination they might adopt, but thought that
less disadvantage would arise from some definite regu-
lations, than from the indefinite state of things which
the amendment of his Honourable and Learned Friend
was calculated to produce. It was to be recollected--
in the first place, that the original Committees were
to be purified by the effect of the other resolutions,
and that frequent occasions of appeal would proba-
bly not atise; and in the• second place, he hoped the
House would not by any regulations it might adopt.
put the power out of its owe hands. His Honourable
and Learned Friend had urged his amendment npor-
the principle of affording protection to the p00r.....
But he wished to know how they were to punned
to give effect to this intention ? Wete they to ex-
amine evidence? There was nothing more easy than
to say, that the House ought to investigate this abuse,
lor remedy that hardship, and do lull justice in all
,cases. And so indeed they ought, if it were not that
their duty was limited by their poster, and that they
could not enter upon minute investigations in every
individual case that wculd be brcught heioie them.
without the abandonment of their mole inftiortant du-
ties. He thought it seldom happened that one solitary
individual was in the situation of having t r complain of
a Committee of that House. There was generally many persons
Interested In the same decision, and they might confederate and
contribute to the common cause. He did not deny the assertion of
his Hon. and Learned Friend, that the poor generally laboured un-
der some disadvantage as compared with the rich ; but he thought
that the House, by reserving its power, might in extreme cases so
modify the regulation as to prevent injustice, and if the difficulties
were found to be very great, they must at last have recourse to
legislation. On these grounds he preferred the original Resolution
to the Amendment.. .