Sitting of 26 February 1812

CAPTAIN TOMLINSON.
Mr. Crokerobserved, that in the course of the debate last night, the case of captain Tomlinson had been alluded to, and at that time he was not prepared with the necessary information to exculpate this meritorious officer. It was stated, that he had not been honourably acquitted of the charge made against him; but by papers, for which he should take the liberty of now moving, the contrary would evidently appear to be the fact. He submitted the subject to the House in the first instance, thinking that not a moment should be lost, in removing an undeserved stigma from the character of captain Tomlinson. He therefore moved, "That there be laid before the House a Copy of a Letter from the Solicitor of the Navy, reporting the result of the trial of Benjamin Tanner and Nicholas Tomlinson, at the Old Bailey, on the 21st of July 1810."
Mr. Abercrombywished, that his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Brougham) who had made the statement complained of, had been present, that if it were necessary he might explain any thing objectionable in what he had urged, for he was sure there was no man to whom it would give greater pain to do injustice to the character of a gallant officer.
Mr. Crokerwould have waited until he should have seen the hon. and learned gentleman in his place, but the fact was, that the production of this document would rather strengthen than weaken the side of the argument which that hon. and learned gentleman had espoused.
The motion was then agreed to.

COMMITTEE APPOINTED RESPECTING SUITS IN CHANCERY.
Mr. M. A. Taylor, in pursuance of his notice, rose to move for the re-appointment of the committee of last year upon this subject. He explained, that his object was, that the Suitors in Chancery, as well as in the Appellant jurisdiction, should receive justice with as much facility as in any of our other courts. The inquiry would be first directed to ascertain what progress had been made since the last year; and secondly, to discover the causes of the great delay so universally complained of. He concluded by moving "That a Committee be appointed to enquire into the causes that retard the decision of Suits in the high court of Chancery;" which was agreed to by the House. He proposed that it should consist of the following members: Mr. Taylor, the Attorney-General, Mr. Ponsonby, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Lockhart, Mr. Simeon, Sir S. Romilly, Mr. Burton, the Solicitor General, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Ed ward Morris, Mr. Giles, Mr. Horner, Mr. Abercromby, Mr. Brougham, and Sir J. Nichol
When Mr. Simeon's name was read as a member of the proposed Committee,
Sir S. Romillyrose and objected to his being upon it. He said he thought that neither that gentleman nor Mr. Morris ought to be members of the committee. To them personally no objections could possibly be made; but the circumstance of their being Masters in Chancery made it, in his opinion, unfit that they should he appointed to enquire into the causes which retarded the decisions of Suits in that Court. The Master of the Rolls, who had been a member of the committee
964
appointed in the last session, had desired that he might not be again placed in that situation, there being in his opinion, an impropriety in a judge of the court sitting upon a committee to inquire into that which might possibly implicate himself. The objection was a very just one in point of principle, though there was no person at all acquainted with the court, who did not know that whatever causes might be suggested as having produced these delays, any thing personal to the Master of the Rolls, could not possibly be found amongst them. The same, objections applied with equal force to the Masters in Chancery. In his opinion, the Committee would ill discharge their duty, if amongst other objects of their enquiry, they did not endeavour to ascertain the, cause of Suits remaining so many years depending in the Masters' Offices. He believed that the Masters were not at all to blame, and that they gave all the attendance in their offices that was necessary to do the business which was brought before them. He thought it probable that the defect was in the modes of proceeding which were adopted according to the perverse constitution of the court. This, however, was a matter to be ascertained, and, however improbable, it might possibly happen that in the course of the enquiry abuses in the Masters' offices might be stated. If that were the case, it would be extremely unpleasant and invidious for the Masters who were on the committee to be inquiring into abuses represented to be existing in the offices of their colleagues, and if any should, by chance, be said to exist in their own offices, it would be a very strange situation, that solicitors or other witnesses would be placed in, who would be called upon to give evidence before the committee, against the members of the committee, and a still stranger situation in which the Masters would be placed, whose duty it might be to report against themselves.
This suggestion was seconded by Mr. Abercromby, and resisted by the Chancellor of, the Exchequer, Mr. Simeon, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Taylor. The question being put, the two members noticed were allowed to form part of the Committee.