Commons Sitting of 5 April 1827

EMIGRATION COMMITTEE.
Mr. Baringpresented the report of the committee appointed to inquire into the subject of emigration. This duty, he observed, had devolved upon him, in consequence of the indisposition of the chairman of the committee. He strongly recommended the report to the attention of the chancellor of the Exchequer, and trusted that the right hon. gentleman would dispose of this important subject as soon as possible. The present was not a final but a special report, and the measure which was proposed in it, he thought it right to state, was recommended unanimously by the committee. It was proper that the question should be quickly decided, either one way or other; as there were, at this moment, a number of poor individuals kept in suspense in consequence of their uncertainty as to the intentions of government.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he was not unaware of the tenor of this report. The hon. gentleman had yesterday communicated to him, that it would be presented in the course of the present evening, and that certain propositions had been founded on the evidence taken before the committee. He could assure the hon. gentleman, that he had lost no time in endeavouring to make himself master of the facts detailed in the evidence. That evidence he had received last night, and he had read himself almost blind, without being able to get through it. Whatever might be the opinion which he had formed upon the subject, he thought the hon. gentleman could not expect him to state that opinion, until the House should be put in possession of the same opportunity which had been afforded to him, of becoming acquainted with the nature of the evidence.
Ordered to be printed.

MODE OF TAKING THE POLL AT ELECTIONS.
Colonel Davies roseto make his promised motion, for a select committee, "to inquire into the Mode of taking the Poll at Elections for Cities and Boroughs." His object, he stated, was to do away, as far as possible, the system of bribery and corruption, of outrage and lawless violence, which frequently prevailed at such elections. Understanding
242
that no opposition was to be made to his motion, he did not think it necessary to enter at any length upon the subject at present; but he might observe, that the measure which he had in view would rest very much upon the same foundation as that of the resolutions or bill proposed by a right hon. gentleman, but with some difference. One objection to the law, as it stood, was, that the voters were confined to one place of polling, except where different booths were established by compact among the candidates. It was well known to those who had been candidates at elections, that there was often a great rush to the place of polling where there was only one, in order to place a favourite candidate high upon the poll as soon as possible, and that such struggles were often made at the risk of life; and he himself would mention an instance during the last election for Coventry, where six hundred and fifty had polled for one candidate, while only thirty had polled for another—the difference arising solely from acts of outrage perpetrated by the supporters of one side. His object was to afford greater facility to the polling, and to put a stop to bribery and treating. For this purpose, some alteration ought to be made in the mode of polling, by appointing a separate booth for every distinct parish, or more than one booth for a parish where it happened to be very populous. It might be proper to consider, whether the polling for cities and boroughs might not be closed in six days, and whether it should not be closed unless a certain number to be specified polled in a day. He felt it unnecessary to make any further suggestions at that time, and concluded by putting his motion as above.
Mr. G. Robinsonseconded the motion. He thought that if the House could lessen the expense attending these elections, it would be conferring a great benefit on the country. For the purpose of effecting that object, he wished the electors who resided at a distance from the city or borough contested, to give their votes at the places where they lived. He saw no other mode except this, by which the immense expense attending those elections could be avoided. As to shortening the time for keeping open the poll, he did not approve of it. If the poll were to close, because, on any given day, a certain number of electors did not vote, it might prevent many individuals from expressing

243
their opinion as to the member, who, according to their view, was most worthy to represent them.
The motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed.

IRISH MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES—MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
Sir J. Newport,in rising to propose, that the Irish Estimates be referred to a Select Committee, observed, that if his motion were at all likely to interfere with the bounty of parliament, he would be the last man to bring forward the proposition which he was about to submit to the House. Ireland had, from time to time, received many benefits from the grants that were made in parliament; but while he admitted this, he was sensible that the manner in which those grants were given, and the little opportunity allowed for entering into the details, deserved notice and correction. Care ought to be taken, that what the legislature bestowed should be directly appropriated to the object for which it was intended. Those grants ought, in his opinion, to undergo that examination in a committee above stairs, which it was quite impossible, from the way in which they were introduced, they could receive in that House. The first article he found entered on the estimates was the charter schools. Some years since the report of the commissioners appointed to examine into the state and condition of these institutions, developed abuses of such a nature, as to call down the reprobation of the House; and he then supposed, that it was the determination of parliament to bring those institutions as speedily as possible within a certain prescribed limit. It was then proposed, that the children in those institutions should be apprenticed, and got rid of. This had not been done; though, he believed, they were infinitely beyond the age at which they ought to have remained in these schools. This was an important object for inquiry. And how, in that House, could a proper inquiry take place? It was quite impossible; for, if he got up and stated any particular circumstance relative to any given school, it was met on the other side, by a positive denial, and no opportunity was given for ascertaining the real truth of the matter. This could alone be arrived at in a committee. The sum which was proposed for the Linen Board was 10,000 l. less than was voted
244
last year; but nevertheless the House was bound to inquire upon what principle the reduction had been made. In the estimate of the Kildare Society for education, a reduction of 5,000 l. had been effected last year. The estimate thus reduced, namely 25,000 l., was again proposed this year. It was stated, in a report which had been issued by that society, that finding they could not maintain their establishment on its former footing with the reduced estimate, they represented their case to the Irish government, who, after some investigation, gave them 5,000 l. out of the treasury. He thought that the government in this proceeding had exceeded its powers; for he doubted much whether that transaction came within the purview of parliament. The right hon. baronet, after complaining that the commissioners for inquiring into the state of education were too tardy in reporting the result of their labours, moved "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Estimates presented to the House, for the Miscellaneous Services of Ireland, in so far as relates to the sums intended to be voted for the purposes of Charity and Education; and to report their observations and opinion thereon to the House, as well as respecting the nature and utility of the establishments for which the same are recommended to be granted."
Mr. Curteisseconded the motion. He considered it hard that the people of this country should be taxed to support establishments in Ireland, unless they were clearly shown to be useful. He saw that in the Cork establishment for education there were professors of botany and mineralogy. Now, what on earth, had the poor people of Cork to do with botany and mineralogy.
The Chancellor of the Exchequeradmitted that it was of importance to bring all these votes within the narrowest possible compass. He and his right hon. friend, the Secretary for Ireland, had acted upon that principle, and the result was a reduction in the estimates for this year, as compared with those for the last, of upwards of 50,000 l. This at least looked as if there existed a bonâ fide intention on the part of government of enforcing economy. The House would, perhaps, bear with him whilst he very shortly adverted to some of the points which had been touched upon by the right

245
hon. baronet. With respect to the charter schools, he could take upon himself to say it had been resolved to let them expire of themselves. No new scholars would in future be admitted, and those already in the schools would be apprenticed to different trades as soon as possible. By these means the number of those schools would soon be gradually reduced, and only so many would be allowed to continue in existence as could be maintained by their own exclusive funds; which amounted to about 7,000 l. per annum. The various other societies which had been alluded to were already under a course of examination by commissioners appointed for the purpose; and he thought it would be inexpedient and unnecessary to subject them to a second inquiry, until the report of those commissioners was before the House. As to the Linen Board, he could assure the House that it was the last time of its appearing on that stage. The abolition of that establishment was resolved on. Ministers had the strongest disposition to curtail unnecessary expenses with respect to these estimates, and nobody could long more than he did for the adoption of some general plan regarding them; but, at the same time, he was of opinion that the right hon. baronet had made out no case for the appointment of a committee.
Mr. Spring Ricewas not disposed to give ministers credit for the economy which was professed on the present occasion. He suspected that the estimates were wholly fraudulent. The system was one of gross abuse. The charter schools of Ireland had already cost 1,600,000 l., of which one million had come out of the pockets of the people of England. The expense, too, of the commissioners of inquiry was enormous. Up to the present moment, it amounted to between 700,000 l. and 800,000 l. He wished to know if there would be any objection to referring the report of the commissioners to a committee of the House, under a pledge that the members forming that committee would confine themselves strictly to the objects contained in the report. The House were not prepared, probably, to hear of two very orthodox commissioners having advised, in a separate report, that there should be no further grants of money made to the Belfast Institution for the present, because there were some mathematical professors employed in teaching
246
there who were professed Arians. Nay, more—these grave theological commissioners had undertaken to settle a disputed point in divinity by an entirely new decision. They objected to the Arian professors, because Arianism was hostile to, and wholly subversive of, the principles of Christianity, seeing that they denied the divinity of Christ. From whence did they derive this hitherto unknown definition of Arianism? Surely they ought to have known that some of the greatest lights of philosophy, some of the greatest ornaments of the Christian world, professed Arianism. These were, indeed, questions unfit for the deliberation of the House. He did not introduce them. That merit was due to the two zealous and hon. members who had taken the pains to report separately upon this subject, and who seemed to be not altogether unwilling to conduct the House back to the spirit of those times, when the lower Greek empire was distracted about the right construction of a diphthong.
Mr. Goulburndenied that he had ever called for any vote in support of the Linen Board, as a permanent measure. The grants for the present year were 100,000 l. less than they were in the year 1817, and many hundred pounds less than in any year, with a single exception, since the year 1807.
Mr. LeslieFoster was surprised that the hon. member for Limerick should have taken this opportunity of making an attack upon the last report of the commissioners, instead of reserving his observations until the period at which the whole reports would be brought under the consideration of the House. He objected to the motion of the right hon. baronet, because, under the character of a financial inquiry, it would have the effect of prematurely bringing the subject of Irish education before a committee above stairs, when the commissioners had not yet concluded their labours. He objected to introducing theological subjects in that House; but the allusions which had been made to the part he had taken, as one of the commissioners, rendered it necessary for him to make one or two observations. The Belfast Institution was not, at present, upon the list of those institutions which received any thing from the public; but he could assure the hon. member opposite, that there was not one of the commissioners more anxious than himself to see

247
parliamentary assistance extended to it. This institution was devoted to the education of the children of persons belonging to the Presbyterian church in Ireland. Now, it so happened, that out of five professors at this institution, three professed opinions considered objectionable by the orthodox members of the church to which they belonged; for he believed that Presbyterians generally—and he was sure that the Presbyterian church of Scotland, in particular—shrunk with abhorrence from the doctrine which denied the divinity of Christ. Under these circumstances, he and another of the commissioners, had felt it their duty to recommend the government not to grant any portion of the public money to this institution, unless security should be given, that in the future appointment of the professors of this institution, no persons holding these objectionable opinions should be introduced into the establishment.
Mr. J. Grattanmaintained the expediency of submitting the grants to a committee above stairs. The Presbyterian system displayed so many advantages in Scotland, that he was happy to see it extended to any other country, and more than any other to Ireland, where he hoped to see it flourish and receive the countenance and assistance of that House. There were many items in the accounts, which deserved quite as much censure as any which the right hon. baronet had mentioned, and he trusted he would see the propriety of making no distinctions among them, but at once determine to move, that the whole be submitted to the consideration of a committee.
Mr. Humesaid, he was anxious to see the Irish estimates reduced as far as was practicable, and would co-operate in any measure with that view, which could be usefully and successfully adopted. He would call the attention of the House to a few of the items of these estimates, and ask if it was prepared to vote large sums of money to be appropriated in the manner proposed. The first item to which he would call the attention of the House, was a charge for the maintenance of one thousand nine hundred and eighty-three children. It was but four years ago, that the Secretary for the Home Department, admitted that the grant ought to be reduced as speedily as possible. Now, let the House observe what were the ages of these "children," as they were called. Of the
248
list of one thousand nine hundred and eighty three, there were no fewer than six hundred and nine above the age of thirteen years; two hundred and twenty nine were from thirteen to fifteen; one hundred and seventeen were from seventeen to nineteen, and a great proportion between nineteen and twenty-one. So that, in fact, there were six hundred and nine persons of an age fit to be apprenticed, and a large grant was to be appropriated, not for the education of children, but of grown persons. There was another grant to which he would call the attention of the House. This was the Foundling Hospital for which 34,000 l. was proposed. But four or five years ago, the Secretary for the Home Department declared that this grant was against principle, and the Secretary for Ireland said, that no more children should be received; yet since those declarations and promises, three hundred and fifty infants under one year of age, and one thousand five hundred from one to five years of age, had been admitted, contrary, as had been avowed, to principle. Then there was the expense of proclamations. For this object, a sum of 5,800 l. was demanded, while it could be shown, that two-thirds of the sums thus expended went for the support of certain newspapers in Ireland, instead of for any purpose of the state. In printing, also, great expense was incurred by the system of monopoly which was allowed. One individual, sir A. B. King, enjoying all the emoluments arising from this employment, instead of the work being done by tenders, in which way it could be executed for half the amount, 34,000 l. was the charge for printing the Statutes in Ireland, which sum, or a great portion of it, might be saved by sending over copies from this country, instead of having new and distinct editions printed there, at an enormous and useless expense. If such items of expenditure as he had read were once sent to a committee above stairs, he was certain that the estimate might be reduced many thousand pounds. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. baronet would not withdraw his motion, or make any exceptions with regard to any particular items.
Mr. Frankland Lewisobjected to any vote that would pledge the House to inquiries which it could not satisfactorily make, until it was in possession of those documents upon which the estimate was

249
founded, and upon which the members, composing the commission, had felt themselves bound to recommend the continuance of some of the grants. He conceived that the inquiry proposed was calculated to distress the feelings of those individuals who composed the commission, and who were, he thought, entitled to so much courtesy and kindness, as to be allowed time to lay before the House the reasons and the facts, upon which they grounded their recommendation to support the institutions for the diffusion of education in Ireland. If they waited but three months, in which time he was convinced the report would be ready to be laid on the table of the House, they would see the reasons which had influenced the commission in the course they recommended; and he really did not see how the House could come to any just conclusion upon the estimates, or act fairly towards the commissioners, unless they waited to learn the grounds and the evidence upon which they formed their opinion. It was impossible for the House to understand such a vote as that for the Foundling Hospital, for instance, without being in possession of the documents connected with, and, at the same time, taking into consideration the state of society in Ireland. There were two things to be regarded in the administration of aid to Ireland—the necessity of the case, and the economy to be observed in the applications to that necessity; and he could assure them, that the commission, of which he formed a part, had considered economy to be indispensable in the recommendations of the expenditure. To judge of the propriety of their recommendations, he repeated, was impossible, unless the House had before it the evidence on which the recommendations were founded. It was, indeed, impossible to decide upon the propriety of some of the items, unless by an inquiry in Ireland itself. The great point to be maintained was, to give aid to education in Ireland in the most effective manner, and with the least possible expense; and he was happy to say, that the commissioners had already signed three reports, unanimously. Two of the commissioners differed from the others upon another report; and he would say again, that it was impossible for the House to understand the subject before them, on the grounds of the difference between the commissioners, until they were in possession of the facts upon which they formed their
250
opinions. He was happy to say, however, that they had put themselves in possession of the means of adopting practical remedies for many of the evils which had been most justly made the subject of complaint; they had overcome many, if not all, of the difficulties which impeded inquiries such as theirs, in any country, but more particularly in Ireland; and he implored the House not to take the work out of their hands, when it was nearly completed, or to pronounce upon what they had done already, a hasty and ill-founded decision. It bad been said, that the same thing proposed for charter schools was too much. Who was to be the judge of that at present? Who could tell whether the course they proposed was right or wrong, until they saw from the report what was the state of those schools? It was not at that moment in his power to state the reasons which influenced the commission in their recommendations. He, as well as the other members, could not divulge the evidence until it was embodied in the report, which must be laid at once before the Throne; and he contended, that no time could be so little fitted for any inquiry, as that time which immediately preceded the period when the report was to be laid before the Throne, and communicated to the House.—The hon. member then referred to the difference between himself and the two commissioners, upon the subject of the Belfast Academical Institution, declaring, that however the matter might terminate, or however it might be decided, no result could compensate him for the pain he had endured from that difference of opinion. Three of the commissioners had declared themselves in favour of the grant to that institution. Two had declared against it; and how, he would ask again, could the House determine who was right or who was wrong, without a reference to the appendix of the report, where they would see, by the comments on the facts, the reasons which influenced the decision in one way and the other? When the House saw the report and the appendix to which he alluded, containing the opinions of those persons in Belfast who were best acquainted with the subject, they would see on what grounds the commissioners formed their opinions, and be able to decide what to do with the Belfast Institution. He would not now go into any defence of the course he had adopted on that occasion. That was not the time

251
to justify his conduct; but whenever the matter came regularly before the House, he would be prepared to defend and to explain the vote he had thought it his duty to give, with respect to the institution in question. The hon. member concluded, by imploring the House to wait until it was in possession of the means of information, before it determined to inquire.
Mr. Brownlowsaid, he wished to make one or two observations respecting the institution in the north of Ireland, of which so much had been said, in order to enable the House to judge how far the hon. member for Louth (Mr. L. Foster) was or was not right in the decision he had pronounced. There were in the Belfast Institution several professors, and he would take the liberty to read a list of them. There was a professor of natural philosophy; a professor of moral philosophy, and professors of mathematics; of logic and belle lettres; of anatomy and physiology; of Greek and Latin; of Hebrew; and two professors of divinity. Mr. Cooke and Mr. Haller both declared, that they never knew the professorships of the institution more ably filled than at present, nor its members so little tainted with evangelical principles. The latter gentleman said, that of twenty-eight young men in one class, there was only one who professed the doctrines of Arian. The hon. member, after some allusions to the separation of the Presbytery of Antrim from the general Synod of Ulster, declared it to be his conviction, and he spoke from intimate knowledge, that there never was any institution better suited to the wants and wishes of the people than that school to which he alluded. The people of the north of Ireland were divided into a great many religious sects, and no place of education was better fitted to gratify all their desires; for it ought to be recollected, that the great object to be attained in the choice of professors for such an establishment, was not in accordance with religious opinion, but pure and strictly moral rectitude of conduct. He felt himself bound to support the motion, not only because it went to inquire into the lavish expenditure of the public money, but because it proposed to inquire into the improper expenditure of that money in Ireland—the land of every kind of abuse, corruption, extravagance, and malversation. He hoped the right hon. baronet would not be induced to refrain from pressing for an inquiry.
Sir J. Newportbriefly replied, and adverted to the different topics urged in opposition to the motion. It had been contended, that the children were to be maintained in the Charter Schools, because no opportunity occurred of placing them out to trade. But, did the House know why they remained in that manner upon the foundation of the school? Why, because they were so badly educated that no one would take them for apprentices. So that, although the House paid enormous sums for their education, they never received any which could enable them to advance themselves in the world. Was not this a fit subject for inquiry? It was said, that these persons might still be taken as apprentices; but he did not think it very likely that any one would take those young men, at twenty-one years old, whom they had refused at sixteen. The Charter Schools, it ought to be recollected, were already inquired into. The right hon. baronet then alluded to the item for the support of the Society to Discountenance Vice, and observed, that one of the sums of 1,000 l. for raising institutions and model schools, was for the purpose of educating a number of young men, to fill the situations of parish clerks and schoolmasters. With regard to the Belfast Institution, he considered it one of the best establishments in the country; and when gentlemen told him, that the professors, who were imbued with Arianism, wished to tamper with the faith of those placed under their care, he would say, so far was this from being the case, that he knew an instance of one of those gentlemen, a most respectable man, one of whose sons was a clergyman of the church of Ireland, and the other was attached to the Presbyterian Synod of Ulster. This did not argue such a disposition on the part of those professors as had been alleged.
The House divided: Ayes 69. Noes 135. Majority against the motion 66.

List of the Minority.

Althorp, visct.

Clements, Visct.

Archdeckne, A.

Clive, E. B.

Barclay, C.

Colborne, N. R.

Baring, A.

Curteis, E. G.

Baring, F

Dawson, A.

Baring, W. B.

Davies, T.

Birch, J.

Davenport, E. D.

Brownlow, C.

Ebrington, viset.

Calcraft, J.

Easthope, J.

Calvert, N.

Euston, earl of

253

Fazakerly, J. N.

Parnell, sir H.

Ferguson, R. C.

Ponsonby, hon. W. S.

Grattan, J.

Ponsonby, hon. G.

Grattan, H.

Portman, E. B.

Grosvenor, gen.

Pryse, P.

Gordon, R.

Price, Robert

Guise, sir B. W.

Rickford, W.

Guest, J.

Robinson, sir G.

Harvey, D. W.

Robinson, George

Heathcote, G. J.

Russell, lord J.

Howick, visct.

Russell, lord W.

Hume, J.

Rumbold, C. E.

Ingleby, sir W.

Smith, J.

Jephson, C.

Smith, W.

Kennedy, I. F.

Stuart, H. Villiers

King, hon. R.

Stanley, hon. E. G.

Lamb, hon. G.

Sebright, sir J.

Lennard, T. B.

Thompson, C. P.

Langston, J. H.

Tierney, rt. hon. G.

Lombe, E.

Tomes, John

Maberly, J.

Wall, C. B.

Maberly, W. L.

Warburton, H.

Marshall, W.

Webbe, Ed.

Maule, hon. W.

Wood, ald.

Monck, J. B.

$nbsp;

Morpeth, visct.

TELLERS.

Newport, sir J.

Duncannon, visct.

O'Brien, L.

Rice, T. S.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, that it was only within the last five minutes he had been apprised of the intention of the law officers of the Crown to oppose the motions of which he had given notice; and he was at a loss to conjecture on what grounds this opposition could be given. The House would recollect that the bill for regulating the practice of the court of Chancery, had been deferred to the 4th of May, when doubtless a long and important discussion would take place; but he would venture to assert, that no satisfactory result could flow from that debate, in the absence of the information sought for by his motions. It was not to be denied that the proposed bill contained many useful reformations in the practice, and some commendable curtailments in the expenses, of the court; but these were altogether subordinate to the crying evils arising from the delay in disposing of the causes when matured for hearing. It was little consolation to a patient to be brought to the physician's door in a sedan, if he waited for hours before he could obtain a prescription: and how was it possible for the House to provide a remedy, unless it was in possession of the nature and extent of the evil? This information would be supplied by the motions he now intended to make;
254
and he should reserve himself in reply to such arguments as ingenuity or perversion might suggest. The hon. member then moved as follows:—"That there be laid before this House returns of the number of causes set down before the lord Chancellor, from the year 1820 to the present time, specifying when they were set down, how disposed of, how many were referred to the master, and their final result. Similar returns from the master of the Rolls, the vice-chancellor, and the chief baron in Equity. The number of appeals to the chancellor from the judgments of the master of the Rolls—also, from those of the lord Chancellor to the House of Lords. The number of petitions in bankruptcy, and in lunacy, now standing in the paper of the court—and finally, a statement of the number of original causes, further directions, exceptions, pleas, demurrers, re-hearings, appeals, and causes on the equity reserved, standing to be heard on the last day of Hilary Term, 1827, before the lord Chancellor, the master of the Rolls, and the vice-chancellor, respectively; specifying the period when each petition was set down."
Mr. Attorney Generalsaid, it was apparent that under the cover of this motion, the real object was to make an attack on the lord Chancellor. The return for which the hon. gentleman moved was not at all calculated to further this object; for even if it should be shown that the lord Chancellor had not disposed of many causes, it did not follow that his time had not been otherwise fully, and to the public, satisfactorily exercised. This subject had already been sufficiently handled by the report of the parliamentary committee, who had stated in the appendix to their report, the business done by the lord Chancellor, de die in diem. A motion similar to that now before the House had been made some time ago, by the hon. member for Westminster, who afterwards, on the matter being explained to him, gave it up; because he was convinced that no returns of the number of causes in the court of Chancery could inform him of the quantum of business done there by the judge. It was, then, because the information when obtained could not be satisfactory; because the commissioners had not thought it necessary to give it in their report, and because nobody but the hon. gentleman had thought it necessary

255
to enable the House to form an ultimate opinion on the bill brought in by the master of the Rolls, that he opposed it.
Mr. M. A. Taylorsaid, that at that late hour of the evening it was not his intention to go at any length into the subject of the court of Equity, or into any of the momentous matters which that subject involved. Until he, saw the notice of this motion, which was inserted in the order-book of the House, he had received no intimation of it; therefore, as to any attack which was to be made, by means of it, upon the lord Chancellor, he was perfectly guiltless. He begged, however, the attention of his hon. and learned friend the attorney-general, while he said, that if he (Mr. Taylor) was the friend of the lord Chancellor—as he was sure he was not his enemy—the last thing he could have done would have been to rise in his place and resist the motion which had just been made. He thought that if, upon any occasion, a judge was attacked, it was the duty of his friends to bring before the House all the facts relating to his conduct, so that a decision might be formed, whether the attack had been made fairly or unfairly. The motion before the House, without being at all an attack upon the lord Chancellor, was calculated to give the House the knowledge necessary to be possessed by them, before they came to a decision on some questions of great importance, which were about to be brought before them, connected with the court of Chancery. The returns would particularly furnish the House with the means of judging whether the lord Chancellor had or had not more business to do than it was possible for him to perform; and whether the suitors of the court of Chancery had that prompt and satisfactory administration of justice to which they were entitled. The House would then be enabled to say—the subject being fairly placed before them,—whether the lord Chancellor's duties were such as ought to be imposed upon him. There could be no blame imputed to the Chancellor, if it were shown that the delays in his court arose from his having—as he would on some future occasion, show he had—more to do than it was in the power of any human being to dispose of. In this House, he and every other member had a right to know what was the nature of the Chancellor's duties, and the manner in which they were performed. Was there
256
any libel in inquiring into these facts? He denied that there was any libel. Was the truth to be called a libel here, as it was held to be in a court of common-law? In the House of Commons every member had a right to say that which he believed to be the truth; and to demand such information as might lead him to ascertain the truth. If it were not so it would be better to shut the doors, and quit the House. He wished to say nothing unkind of lord Eldon. If any unkindness had been displayed towards him, it had proceeded from himself and his friends, who wished to secure to him the emoluments for duties which he did not perform. He had known lord Eldon for more than forty years, during a part of which period he had lived in habits of intimacy with him; and in no part of which period had any unkindness on either side disturbed the good understanding between them. Looking at this matter, however, in a public point of view, he would ask the House, if any friend of the lord Chancellor ought to resist this motion? If he were in the place of the learned lord, he would wish for no such defenders as sought to conceal his conduct. If his hon. and learned friend, the attorney-general, should sit, as his talents entitled him, and as he had no doubt he would one day sit, in as exalted a station as the noble lord now filled, would he choose to have such defenders? On the contrary, would he not wish to have all his actions thoroughly investigated? His hon. and learned friend had said, it was unfair to judge of what the lord Chancellor had performed, by moving for returns respecting a particular branch of his duty. It was fairer, said his hon. and learned friend, to form a judgment, from the whole of what he performed. Why! This was the very ground of the present motion. It was to get the whole of his conduct investigated—to get all that was done, and omitted to be done, in the court of Chancery, that the returns, which were now required, were moved for. Then the House would be able to form a judgment what part of the business might be separated from the court of Chancery. If he could not exercise his jurisdiction in bankruptcy cases, consistently with his other functions, why might not that be separated from his court? He did not speak now of the emoluments of the office

257
of the lord Chancellor; but either that portion of his business, or some other, should be transferred to another tribunal if he could not get through the whole. It was said that the office of lord Chancellor, was the first prize in the profession; but, if all the business could not be done by him who had won the first great prize, why, for the benefit of the public, should there not be two great prizes, and part of the present duty apportioned to him who attained it? For his own part, from his advanced time of life, as well as from political circumstances, he had long since abandoned any hope of professional advancement; and, indeed, if he had held any official appointment on the opposite side of the House, in the state in which that side of the House now was, he would pray to God that he might get rid of it as soon as possible. There were two great parties upon the present question. The one were anxious for concealment, the other were advocates for investigation. For his part, he would always vote for letting in light upon all subjects; and more particularly upon that now before the House. It was impossible for the government much longer to screen the court of Chancery; it was not only too deeply steeped in abuses, but its sins were too well known to the people. He begged those who wished to cleanse the court of its impurities, to persevere in their efforts. The public voice was with them. Whatever the phalanx on the opposite side might arrange against him, he would not cease to show the court up in the way in which it ought to be shown. Hundreds and hundreds had been ruined by the court; and the right hon. gentleman opposite knew the fact but too well. He did not see why the property and happiness of many hundred persons should be sacrificed, merely that lord Eldon might be continued at the head of a party. The safety of the suitors in that court, the benefit of the whole country, required the removal of the learned lord; and, as far as his time and abilities could tend to effect that object, he would most willingly give them. It might be said, that he was libelling the learned lord. In this sense, every newspaper in the country was guilty of the same offence; for not one was published that did not contain cases in that court, the facts of which militated against the learned lord, as strongly as any thing
258
he had uttered. It was only about three weeks ago that his lordship had given a certain judgment. It appeared by the newspapers, that the counsel all stared with astonishment. They had forgotten the case; but of course they bowed, and. said, "My lord, no doubt the judgment is right." But lord Eldon afterwards declared that his judgment had been wrong; on which the counsel again stared, and bowed, saying, "My lord, no doubt your judgment was wrong" [a laugh]. He had read the Report of the Chancery Commission, and he could hardly believe it possible that so many men could have lent their talents for two years to form such a report. The report was useless, a mere nonentity, with the exception of one single thing relating to the masters, and which the Chancellor himself ought to have effected twenty years ago. He would have opposed the establishment of the commission, could he have foreseen of what materials their Report would have been composed. The right hon. the Secretary of State, thought that the report would do good; but he little knew the nature of the commission, and as little did he know the nature of the man. His lordship might be a very pleasant man, but mark his words, the learned lord would get the better of the right hon. gentleman. He hoped his lordship had no unkind feeling towards him (Mr. Taylor); for he had none towards his lordship. He had often taken the liberty of talking and walking with his lordship; and his lordship had as often explained to him two or three things in the practice of the court of Chancery with which he did not concur. Perhaps this might make his lordship think him a very foolish fellow. He might be foolish; but he had sense enough to know right from wrong, and in his appreciation of his lordship and of the court, the country went with him. The motion of the hon. member for Colchester could possibly do no mischief; for it was essential that the House and the country should see what the court of Chancery had done, and how the lord Chancellor had been torn away from his duties. If the Secretary of State knew the miseries which had arisen out of the delays and errors of that court, he would not consent to purchase lord Eldon as a cabinet minister at such a price.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he must confess himself a little surprised at the course which the hon. member had taken, and at the

259
warmth of the observations which had fallen from him. The hon. member, in the course of his speech, had stated that his object was to separate all political functions and feelings from the duties of a lord Chancellor. This might be a very legitimate and proper object; but it was stange to see, after such a declaration, how the hon. gentleman could make such a motion a source of reflections upon the lord Chancellor. Whether an active partisan and political functionary ought to hold the great seals, was a constitutional question, which certainly ought not to be discussed upon the present occasion. It was evident, when the hon. gentleman had given notice of his motion relating to the Chancery, and which he had fixed for the 25th March, that he did not think it necessary to possess the information which was now called for by the hon. member for Colchester. The conclusive fact was, that the House was already furnished with the information required by the motion, in the report of the commissioners. If the House were prepared to say, that that commission was entirely futile, let them supersede its labours. He would maintain that that was the legitimate and fair view of the subject. Yes; he would say, supersede the commission, and call for further inquiry. The subject would be discussed immediately after the holidays; and therefore it was only fair to the lord Chancellor to postpone the present motion, until after the debate upon the bill brought in by the master of the Rolls. He held in his hand the return of the business heard and disposed of by the lord Chancellor in the court of Chancery, from Trinity vacation, 1822, to Michaelmas vacation, 1825. This return had been moved for by the learned member for Ilchester, who had considered it to contain all the information necessary to the subject. If hon. members would refer to page 1,121 of the report of the Chancery commission, they would find a detailed statement of the occupation of the lord Chancellor for three years. He did not mean to say that the object of the hon. member was a personal attack on the lord Chancellor; but he did say, that the motion was a reflection upon the report of the commission, and that such a proceeding was placing the judges of the land in a very embarrassing situation. [No, no.] He did think so; and he had a right to state his opinion. It was a hard thing for the lord Chancellor to have his conduct
260
thus inquired into, after he had furnished a statement of his daily business for three years; it was humiliating to that noble judge to be called upon daily to answer motions made in that House, before it had been decided whether the report of the commission was satisfactory or not. Without imputing to the hon. gentleman what he did not intend, he would oppose the motion; because it placed the lord Chancellor in a situation in which he ought not to be placed, after what had passed.
Mr. Fergusondenied that the present motion was a personal attack upon the lord Chancellor. He had read the report, with the appendix. If the information now required was not to be found in that report, it ought to be produced ["It is not there," from all parts of the House]. The present motion concluded with a return of the number of cases referred by the lord Chancellor to the Vice-chancellor. This was not contained in the report; and it was most material information for the House to possess. In 1814, the Vice-chancellor's court was established. It was a new jurisdiction, but dependent on the lord Chancellor. The Vice-chancellor was now about to have an original jurisdiction; and was it not most important for the House to have full information upon the business transacted in that court? It was useful to see how the lord Chancellor was drawn away from his business by the vice-chancery court. The report of the commission comprised a body of valuable information; but was it not material to have the means of deciding what part of the judgments of the Chancellor might be transferred to other tribunals? If it should turn out, that nearly all the causes in the chancellor's paper were transferred to the Vice-chancellor, it would be much better that the system should be changed. The number of appeals in the House of Lords was another important subject, which it was necessary to consider before the bill came before the House. He had a high opinion of the lord Chancellor; but he thought the information should not be refused.
Mr. A. Dawsonsaid, that the motion was not confined to the court of Chancery, but related to five other courts: the sensitiveness of the Attorney General, and his alarm at an attack upon the lord Chancellor, were therefore misplaced. If, as the Secretary of State had said, the information required in the present motion was

261
before the House, the object of the motion could not be to heap additional disgrace on the lord Chancellor. Two years ago the evils of the Chancery court were acknowledged, in the appointment of the commission. One remedy was, to diminish the amount of business before the Chancellor. If his income was so agreeable to his lordship, let him preserve it; give him what emoluments they pleased, but only take the business from him. Let them wipe away the tears from the widows' and orphans' eyes, and heal the wounds of those who were compelled to resort to the court of Chancery. It was most ungracious in the law officers of the Crown to oppose the inquiry. It was as much as to say, that the House should be satisfied with the smallest evidence which the general outcry of the country could wring from them.
Mr. Hobhousewas surprised that so important a motion should be left to the opposition of only two law officers on the ministerial benches, and who differed from each other. The proposed bill was called for by the whole country, to put an end to the great abuses in the court of Chancery; and, considering its contents, he thought that the country had not been dealt fairly with by ministers. It was strange that the Master of the Rolls, who had introduced the bill, and who was responsible for it, should not be present at this discussion. The Attorney-general, instead of meeting the question with argument, had endeavoured to construe it into an invidious attack upon the Chancellor. It was too much for the Secretary of State to tell the House, that it was humiliatory for the lord Chancellor to have his conduct and his purposes questioned. He would tell the right hon. gentleman, that it would indeed be most humiliatory to the nation, if the House forbore to put the questions involved in the present motion. Because members of that House moved for papers calculated to elucidate the abuses of the Chancery court, were they to be told that party motives prompted them against the lord Chancellor? He knew the lord Chancellor only in his connexion with the political history of the country; and he would recognize him as no such man as his friends represented him. He viewed him as intimately connected with all the great political measures, the object of which was to put down the improving spirit of the age. He believed his lordship to be the principal antagonist
262
of all who saw that it was essential for the happiness of the country to form an administration which should meet the wishes of the people, and unite the greatest possible share of talents. He was told, if he spoke against the Chancery court, he was speaking against the lord Chancellor. He was willing to proceed on this ground, and to identify him with the measures to be pursued upon the subject. The proposed bill effected nothing. It was a mere stop-gap, and altogether a delusion. He would ask the Secretary of State, who had applied his mind and his energies to other reforms, how he could resist all efficient reforms in the court of Chancery? He might feel an attachment to the lord Chancellor, who acted with him in politics; but he did not see that this ought to lead him to defend the abuses of his court. The right hon. gentleman might, perhaps, suppose that he owed the noble and learned lord something for the share he possessed of political power; but he was sure, if that right hon. gentleman followed up his views as to reforming our laws, he would be supported by the nation, and need not require the protection of any individual. Were he to carry into the Chancery the same spirit of reform which he had carried into the other courts—were he to enter into this reform with the same judgment and discrimination that he had set about reforming the Criminal law, and the law for regulating Juries, he would find that the nation would stand by him, and he would not want the aid of the Chancellor. It was painful to see, for so long a time, a great political judge exercising vast political power, so that it was impossible to set about any reform without its turning out vain and chimerical. It was the duty of the House and the country, therefore, to look at this question, and to take their stand on it. He should like to hear some of the commercial gentlemen in that House state what they suffered from the court of Chancery. He should like to hear some of the members of the great and paramount interest in that House—he meant the landed interest—tell them what they suffered. He should like to hear from them how they were mulcted at every transfer of their property. The motion only went to get necessary information; but the Attorney-general had told them, they were not to inquire into what the lord Chancellor had not done—they

263
were to be contented with the information contained in the reports, and to be satisfied with knowing what the Chancellor had done. The right hon. gentleman said, that the information asked for was not necessary to the passing of the bill. He contended that it was; and, unless they had that information, how could they decide as to the merits of the one hundred and eighty-eight propositions which had been submitted to them relative to the court of Chancery? He had been induced to speak, because no gentleman on the other side would speak; but the principal purpose for which he rose was, to inquire of the right hon. gentleman opposite, why the measure had been dropped by the master of the Rolls? Why was the master of the Rolls not there to propose the second reading of the bill? This was what he wanted to know from the right hon. gentleman opposite. He had gone, he understood, to Bristol, to attend a cause. He thought the House was not treated fairly. He considered that the information asked for ought to be given, and should support the motion.
Mr. Secretary Canningsaid, he did not know why the hon. gentleman had fixed on him to account for the absence of the master of the Rolls. He could only say, which was as far as he knew, that the learned gentleman was not there. He had, probably, been more agreeably employed, as it was evident the hon. gentleman had, than in attending to the debates of that House [a laugh]. If the hon. gentleman asked him, why the master of the Rolls was not there to propose the second reading of his bill, he must reply, that the second reading had been put off at the express desire of the gentlemen opposite; and, therefore, to ask him why the master of the Rolls was not present to move the second reading, was, of all unreasonable interrogatories, the most unreasonable. The master of the Rolls had objected to putting off the second reading, but he had done it at the request of members opposite. He would not say that that request was a final bargain; but he would say, that it did imply, that, during the interval asked for by the gentlemen opposite, and granted by the master of the Rolls, no motion should be brought forward so very like the second reading of that bill, that it could not be distinguished by the optics of the hon. gentleman. He had not, however, then brought forward
264
the second reading; and he (Mr. Canning) thought, from the tone of the hon. member's remarks, that, if it had been brought forward, the hon. member could not have voted on it, except from a hostile feeling to the noble and learned lord. He did not agree exactly with his right hon. friend, the Attorney-general, who had, he thought, been carried too far. He opposed the motion on the ground that it ought not to have been brought forward during the time the other motion had been postponed; and that it was not right to get up an incidental debate, involving all the points to which the bill referred. He was not prepared, however, to say, that he should at all times oppose the motion; if ground enough were laid for assenting to it; nor was he prepared to say, that the information required was not necessary. He must observe, however, that the motions of the hon. mover went far beyond his notices. He was not himself lawyer sufficient to know whether the information was desirable or not; but, if he had looked at the notice of the hon. mover's motion, he should not have found it so defined, that he could have known before-hand whether or not it was right to concede it. He must say, from the temper of the debate, and from all that had passed, it would carry to the public an air which implied condemnation, were the House to give its sanction to the present motion. Since the motion had been brought forward, it had been swelled into nothing less than a direct attack on the noble and learned lord in his judicial, political, and personal capacity. On these grounds he should oppose it.
Mr. D. W. Harvey,in reply, observed, that while he would not imitate the vitiated taste of the Attorney-general, in ascribing motives to hon. members, he would remind the learned gentleman, that he was the last man who ought to resort to this hazardous course, for he could not be unmindful that he had been open to very severe misconstruction. At the time when the learned gentleman disrobed himself of his equity apparel, and entered the court of King's-bench as the hired defender of treason, it was remarked, that he had volunteered to be the eulogist of Watson and Thistlewood, to mortify the lord Chancellor for overlooking those high endowments which had since been substantially recognized [hear, hear]. It had been said, that this motion was an attack

265
On the lord Chancellor. The same thing might be said of the Vice-chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, and the Chief baron; for it embraced them all, and equally affected all; that was, it touched neither of them personally, but over-reached the court of each. The motion was indeed friendly to the lord Chancellor, as it would show that though the Vice-chancellor got through more business, he only got rid of it, but did not dispose of it. It was his practice to refer every thing to the masters, whose offices were choked with references: and in a few years the tide would roll back, and the delusion with it. The hon. member disclaimed all personal feeling towards the lord Chancellor. He neither had received, nor did he seek, any favour at his hands.
The House divided: Ayes 66; Noes 132: Majority against the motion 66.

List of the Minority.

Althorp, viscount

Lester, B. L.

Archdeckne, A.

Lombe, E.

Baillie, J.

Lumley, J. G.

Baring, F.

Maberley, J.

Baring, W. B.

Maberley, W. L.

Birch, J.

Macdonald, sir J.

Calcraft, J.

Maitland, visc.

Calvert, N.

Maitland, hon. A.

Clements, vise.

Marjoribanks, S.

Clive, E. B.

Marshall, W.

Davies, T.

Maule, hon. W. R.

Davenport, E. D.

Monck, J. B.

Dawson, A.

Morpeth, visc.

Dick, Quintin

Pallmer, C. N.

Dickinson, W.

Ponsonby, hon. G.

Du Cane, P.

Ponsonby, hon. W. S.

Duncannon, visc.

Rice, T. S.

Dundas, hon. sir R.

Rickford, W.

Easthope, John

Robinson, sir G.

Ebrington, visc.

Robinson, G. R.

Euston, earl of

Sebright, sir J.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Smith, W.

Fergusson, sir R.

Stuart, H. Villiers

Gordon, R.

Taylor, M. A.

Graham, sir J.

Thompson, C. P.

Grattan, H.

Tierney, right hon. G.

Greene, T.

Warburton, H.

Guest, J.

Western, C. C.

Guise, sir W.

Wilson, sir R.

Heathcote, G. J.

Wood, alderman

Howard, H.

Wood, C.

Howick, visc.

$#nbsp;

Hume, J.

TELLERS.

Kennedy, T. F.

Ferguson, R. C.

Langston, J. H.

Harvey, D. W.