Star.
London, England, 1819-03-31 00:00:00

'thought, generally speaking, that the House acted
unwisely in admitting complaints in cases wherein
the remedy was already provided for by law. On the
same plea of poverty, they might be called upon, in
any other instance, to enter upon their Journals com-
plaints of individuals against Magistrates who might
have no opportunity of replying to them. If they
once allowed this sort of practice, they would have
complaints of every injury which any individual
might choose to commit against another, and the
same plea advanced of inability to defray the ex-
penses of a law-suit. Complaints, indeed, against any
public person, or any Government officer high in
place, were cases in which such complaints might
properly be admitted. With respect, to what had fal-
len from his Honourable and Learned Friend (Mr.
Brougham), he must bow, of course, to his superior
legal judgment ; but he should have thought where
such expressly illegal conditions were attempted to
be coupled with the renewal of the petitioner's license,
an action would have lain, and been good against the
Magistrate who proposed them.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no
division took place, and the further debate was ad-
journed until this day.
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT wished to have the
evidence he had alluded to printed. It had not been
yet before the House, and might be soon produced.
Sir ROBERT WILSON concurred in the propriety
of the production of those minutes of evidence. He
believed the result of them was highly creditable to
the principal Brewers of the Metropolis ; and he an-
ticipated, therefore, no objection on their part to the
propoition.
Mr. WYNN inquired whether the evidence taken
before the Committee had been reported?
Sir M. W. RIDLEY observed, that he had been a
Member of the Committee, and it was late in the
Session when their decision was made. They were,
however, extremely anxious that the evidence should
be printed.
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT then gave notice of his
: intention to move for a new Committee, and that the
' minutes of the last should be referred to it.

MR. CROUCH.
Mr. F. PALMER presented a Petition from Lieu,
tenant John Crouch, who had served without pay, in
the ship Glory, in 1793. He was in the actions of
Lord Howe, in May and June, 1794. In 1795, he
had conveyed important dispatches to the Cape
of Good Hope, when no ship could approach ; he
had saved a man from the jaws of a shark ; he had
in some instances prevented mutiny, in others suc-
cessfully quelled it ; and had latterly suffered much
persecution through his having refused to sign false
vouchers, by which conduct he had prevented the
public money from being embezzled, and he had
also suffewd through his efforts to procure the com-
mon men in the service their proper allowances, un-
diminished, for the comfort of the Officers. These
circumstances he begged to submit to the House,
leaving them to decide on the merits of the case.
The SPEAKER remarked there were some words
written in red ink in the margin of the Petition,
which seemed to be interlineations, but it was not
marked where they were to come in. Petitions were
not ordinarily presented in this way.
DELAY IN COURTS OF EQUITY.
Mr. M. A. TAYLOR rose to move for Accounts
of the Amount of the Effects of Suitors in the Court of
Chancery, since the year 1756, and in every tenth
year from that time, in order to chew the real bt.i-
ness done in that Court, and in the appellant juri,:-
diction. In 1811 assistance was given to the appel-
lant jurisdiction, by a new Court being created; but
ihe contended it had afforded no effectual relief to
suitors. Ile read comparative statements to chew
that the causes before the Chancery Courts had nearly
doubled since the erection of the Vice-Chancellor's
Court. For all the three Judges in Chancery he had
the highest respect, but, nevertheless, he was deter-
mined to try and remove the difficulties from suitors
in Chancery. His object was, to remove the busi-
ness of Bankruptcy from the Great Seal, and he now
gave notice that in the course of the present S,:s.,ion,
he would more to that effect. It was well known
that from every Court in the kingdom there w&; a
substantial appeal, but there was none from the
Court of Chancery ; for it could not be a substantial
appeal, when the saute Judge sat in the House of
Lords as in Chancery. It was therefore a mere ne•
minal appeal. To attain this object, he would move
for an account of the property of the suitors, to chew
that it was highly improper that cue-fifth of the pro-
perty of the country should pass under the judgment
of one man. Ile then moved for an account of the
total amount of the effects of suitors in Chancery in
1756, and in every tenth year since.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, he was of
opinion that the Honourable IVlember would find him-
self mistaken, if he thought the amount of arrears in
Chancery suits had increased. As to Bankrupt Peti-
tions, he believed they would be found to have con-
siderably decreased. In consequence of the unfor-
tunate illness of the Chancellor, he had been incapa-
ble of giving judgment in several appeals before the
House of Lords. The present Lord Chancellor had
decided more appeals than any other in the same
period.—The motion was then agreed to.
LORD JUSTICE GENERAL OF SCOTLAND.
Mr. DAVIES GILBERT said, in moving for leave
to bring in a Bill to regulate the office of Lord Jus-
tice General of Scotland, he should occupy the atten-
tion of the House but a few moments. The duties
of the office were usually performed by deputy. The
reason why this office had not hitherto been abo-
lished, was, he believed, that by different Acts of Par-
liament certain acts were appointed to be done, and
certain writs were to be signed by this officer. A Bill
had been submitted to the House last Session for the
abolition of this office, which went thiough several
stages, but the subject was finally put off. By
this Bill the duties of the office were transferred
to the ,Lord President of the Court of Session, and
a certain salary was provided to the Lord Presi-
dent for such additional duties. One Honourable
Gentleman opposed the Bill on the ground that
the salary was more than ought to be given, and
another on the ground that no salary at all ought to
be given. He had thought it his day, as Chairman
of the Finaice Committee, to bring in the same Bill,
only, omitting that part .which gave any reirtunera-
tion to the Lord President. Ile did not profess to be
competent to judge of the remuneration winch ought
to be given to the Judge for the office. If it appeared
to any Member acquainted with the affairs of Scot-