Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1841-01-26

in lieu Of the bill with Instructions the motion Of the
gentleman from Jefferson (Mr. Worih;ngton.) II it
should be found that Inquiry that the Of JUS
tee was imredcd by the IncaPacty want Of ability
trmncss, any other the part of the Judge,
he, for one, prepared to vote to turn him out Tn
der all the circumstances, that enquiry vas mperously
called for.
Mr. BArLY said, before he proceeded to reply to the
remarks Of the gentleman from Alhemare mir. Coles,)
he would refer, with the indulgence of the House. to
nlisreport of him in the debate upon this subject
Yesterday. lie should not trouble the House with this
matter, were he alone concerned; but lie was made
say oftwo Judges what he had not said Of them and
justice 10 them required that he should not let the
port go uncorrected. He made 10 say "that al
though Judges Clopton and Nicholas better paid
than any Of the Judges throughout the ate yet that
they did less work than any of them. And strange
say he made 10 say this in advocating propos ton
relieve Judge Nicholas of portion OF his judicial
duties. Now, he had said no such thing Had he said
So he would in relation Judge Nicholas have been
contradcted by the very facts upon which he
mentIng For, from them it appeared that Judge Nj
cholas sat in Court more than t,cicc many days.
The average number of days which the Judges
gagged IN Co1rt His Court in session l63 days and
the average was 80. What he had said was this He
had SAID that Judge Clopon, who received three hun
dred dollars salary than any Judge of the General
Court in the State, had less duties to perarm
than any other Judge That after the transfer TO
him Of the additional duties contemplated by his amend
ment, he would have less duty to perform than many
Judges in the State who received less salary He adj.
United that at present Judge Nicholas had too much TO
do, and hence he proposed TO relieve him of portion
Of his duties. But he insisted that after the transfer of
business Judge Nicholas sdutes would be light enough
lie repeated that he would not have referred to This
matter, had not justice 10 others than himself required
it, Mr. b. alluded to another recent Of his being
unsupported The other day, the personal pass between
him and the gentleman from Fauquie had been misre
ported in of the papers of this city, way place
his conduct in false light. lie had demanded that
the misrepresentation should be corrected But cor
rection refused to he made.-He had been placed
ridiculous attitude in the notice lie gave in the
House in relation 10 our controversy with New York.
Here n correction had been refused. But he had
not complained Of that lie was well assured that no
would credit any report in that paper of any thing
lie said did. II referred To HIM but msre-
present him. Mr.. B. then went into reply to the
gentleman from Albemarle.
After some little debate the motion Of lr. Coles
laid upon the tabe-Mr. BAYLt having expressed
desire TO look into the matter, and Mr.. MAY thinking
that by Monday he might be enabled To presen, some
scheme himself, which would perhaps obvate the d;-
Guilty.
The Louisa case was taken mp and some little pro-
gress madc-but points of interest discussed
At 3 clock, the House adjourned.