Sitting of 17 July 1828

PREROGATIVE COURT OFCANTERBU BY —CONDUCT OF SIR JOHN NICHOLL.
Mr. Hume,in presenting the petition relative to the proceedings in the Prerogative Court and the conduct of sir John Nicholl, observed, that in order to the better understanding of the complaint, he should state shortly the outlines of the transactions that had given rise to it. In 1821, a person of the name of Evans died possessed of property to the value of 1,700 l. or 1,800 l.; and unfortunately left two wills; one in favour of a niece, and the other in favour of an adopted daughter. Administration was granted to one of the parties named Evans, who claimed under one of the wills, and took out letters of administration, and obtained a probate in December 1821. The present petitioner, Peddle, was induced to institute proceedings in Doctors' Commons on behalf of his wife, as the legal heiress to the testator, and applied for the purpose of obtaining a probate. He now complained, that a most expensive litigation had been continued for four years and a half, the costs of which were entirely disproportionate to the amount of the contested property. The property in question was about 1,700 l. or 1,800 l., and 2,500 l. had been drawn from the pockets of the parties in seeking to have the possession of
1750
that property finally adjudicated. A court which sanctioned expenses so enormous, must be a public nuisance, seeing that it rendered difficult of attainment that justice which ought to be as cheap and as accessible as possible. Mr. Peddle commenced his suit in December, 1821, and in 1824, judgment was pronounced against him, confirming the probate obtained by the adverse party. But it was a singular circumstance, that costs were not giver, to the person who opposed the petitioner. The expense of this proceeding on the part of Mr. Peddle, amounted to between 600 l. and 700 l. The petitioner was induced, by the representations of his Proctor (Mr. Toller) who stated his decided opinion that the decision against him involved an unjust and corrupt judgment, to commence an appeal to the High Court of Delegates. He was confirmed in his determination to adopt this course by the offer of Mr. Toller to charge nothing for his services, but to content himself with the payment of expenses out of pocket (which he stated could not exceed 200 l.) if the judgment appealed against were not reversed. The appeal was commenced in July, 1824, and came on to be heard in May, 1826; and the result was, that the previous decision was confirmed, but without costs against the appellant. In June, 1826, Mr. Toller brought in his bill of costs to the petitioner, to the amount of 640 l. At the same time he sent him a letter stating that his opinion of the merits of the case remained unaltered. The lion, member here alluded to the observations which Dr. Lushington had made on Tuesday night, respecting the petitioner's attorney, Mr. Walker. The learned gentleman had said, that Mr. Walker was a pettifogging attorney, who had been convicted of perjury and attempted extortion. Mr. Walker was not at present in London, but he had no doubt he would arrive to-morrow, in order to answer the charge. Upon this point he had received a letter from a barrister, assuring him, that Mr. Walker was a most respectable man; and that a short time since his professional brethren in Bristol had presented him with a piece of plate worth 100 l., for having succeeded in getting struck off the rolls two attornies who had infested that city. It therefore appeared to him, that the learned member had unnecessarily aspersed the character of Mr. Walker.—Mr. Toller's

1751
bill of costs, for the original suit, was 687 l., and that for the appeal was 384 l. making altogether 1,071 l. The adverse party had to pay costs amounting to 1,600 l., which left her only a surplus of about 200 l. out of the property. On looking Over the petitioner's bill of costs, he found that the learned gentleman below him had been rather singularly circumstanced with respect to this cause. He had been retained for the petitioner, and after going on to the end of 1821, he discovered that he was retained for the opposite party. He therefore considered that, in this question, the lion, and learned gentleman should not be attended to as a man perfectly disinterested. He was not free from the abuses of the court. He must be hostile to the petitioner, because he was engaged for the hostile party in the suit. The petitioner, when he received Mr. Toller's bill of costs for the appeal, applied to that gentleman for particulars of the account. He refused to furnish them; in consequence of which the petitioner applied to have the bill taxed. The officer, whose duty it was to tax the costs, informed the petitioner, that his presence would be necessary. The petitioner said he knew nothing of the subject, and requested that his attorney, Mr. Walker, might be allowed to appear for him. The officer refused this request, on the ground that it was contrary to the practice of Doctors' Commons. The petitioner then gave notice of a motion, praying that Mr. Walker might be allowed to be present at the taxing of the costs, as his friend or attorney. The motion came on for hearing on the first of July last. Sir John Nicholl asked Mr. Toller, whether he had said, that his former decision was corrupt. Mr. Toller replied, that the allegation was untrue. The judge then refused to allow the affidavits of the petitioner and Mr. Walker to be read; on the ground, that they contained a libel on a person connected with the court, thus attaching more weight to the simple statement of Mr. Toller than to the oaths of two other persons. Dr. Lee, the petitioner's counsel, argued that the petitioner had a right to appear at the taxing of the costs, by friend or attorney. The judge, however, decided otherwise. The petitioner asked for a table of fees. He was told, there was none. It was evident that without such a table it was impossible for him to ascertain whether the charges in the bill were correct, The affidavits of the petitioner and
1752
Mr. Walker stated, that the canons of the court required that such a table should be kept. Here the hon. member read several extracts from the rules of the court, to support the assertion of those individuals. Agreeably to the 136th canon, an application was made to the court for suspending the proctor, and it was met by the learned judge by an observation, that he would not suffer himself to be interrupted in the execution of his duty on the judgment seat. In order to be prepared for the results which were apprehended, the petitioner asked the short-hand writer on this occasion, to be very particular in taking down every word of the proceedings on the case. And the short-hand writer appearing before another of the judges of the Consistorial Court, Dr. Adams, in order to be sworn, that learned judge stopped him short by observing, "I can't swear you in this instance, because there is no cause before the court." Here was a manifest injustice done to the petitioner; for the court did not hesitate to receive as authentic the mere statement of Mr. Toller, a proctor in the court, although he would not receive as authentic, or under any circumstances, the deliberately collected evidence of the short-hand writer in the cause. At the opening of the court, Dr. Lee rose and addressed the learned judge, sir John Nicholl; who stopped him by observing, that he would not be interrupted by any allusion to the case of "Peddle and Evans," which was not in fact before the court; and therefore the application now relative to the taxing of costs in this instance was, on the part of the proctor, altogether irregular. Now, with submission to the opinion of that learned judge, he must conceive, that any cause must be considered in the Prerogative court, as well as in any other, to be before the court, as long as it was unfinished. In consequence of this dictum of the judge, Dr.-Lee was not allowed to make a single observation. In allusion to the affidavit which accompanied this application, the learned judge, sir John Nicholl, remarked, "I will not allow this affidavit to be read, as I did before. A proctor is not warranted in making such an application as this, because some dissatisfied suitor chooses irregularly to complain of the proceedings in this court. He owes a duty to the court, as well as to the suitor; and I will not allow any matter now to be exhibited in this irregular way, accusatory, or rather

1753
criminatory, of the conduct of the officers of this court." A second affidavit was exhibited, which was not at all criminatory, but only contained facts; but this affidavit met with the same refusal. In that court, perhaps, it might be the practice, and quite consistent, to use the description of intimidatory language adopted by the learned judge towards the petitioner: and it appeared the judge intimated, that should the proctor in this case not be prudent enough to avail himself of the hint conveyed by this intimidation, he would proceed to the summary practice of suspending him from the performance of his official duties. This was any thing but impartiality between the parties: and there could be no doubt that either were equally entitled to be allowed the inspection of these tables of fees, under the orders of the court, of a date so long preceding this transaction. The learned judge informed the court, moreover, that this application to displace the principal registrar and his deputies was so ex-parte, and irregular, that malice might be inferred towards those officers. Every motion, it was true, might be considered, and in fact was, ex-parte, whilst affidavits were exhibited only on one part. The judge, considering this was a departure from the practice which would authorize him in proceeding to extremities, when Dr. Lee again attempted to address him, exclaimed, "Officers of the court, are you prepared to enforce my authority and that of the court? Proceed," said he, "with the first cause. I desire that Dr. Lee sit down, or walk out, or that such force should be made use of towards him, as would be necessary to remove him from court." On this occasion, too, as if to strengthen the hands of the judge, one of the registrars called out, "pray the court, in the name of its officers, to assert itself and protect its dignity." It appeared that Mr. George Jenner was registrar of the court of Arches, held three other offices in the court, and transacted a large business in the capacity of Proctor, in the house of Jenner, Bush, and Jenner. This gentleman, with Mr. Dynely, and another registrar, in fact, sat in judgment, to decide upon the quantum, and tax his own costs. Was it extraordinary that suspicion should be excited under such circumstances? Dr. Lee had only begged that certain orders which had been issued should be hung up in a conspicuous situation in the
1754
court, and the Proctor's-office, so as to enable their clients to see what was fairly due on account of costs. The application that these should be affixed in the proper offices was wittingly refused by the learned judge—a fact which brought the complaint fully home to sir John Nicholl, whose decision in 1823 against an individual for receiving fees without authority, was on record. Dr. Lee's memorial was presented in February, 1828, before the case of the petitioner was before the court, so that when that case came on, sir J. Nicholl could not plead ignorance upon the subject. After the lapse of four months, sir J. Nicholl stated, that he had consulted several gentlemen of the bar, and had decided that it was not necessary to take any notice of Dr. Lee's memorial. A similar petition was presented to Dr. Lushington, judge of the Bishop of London's Court, on the 9th of July, and on the following day he said, that he declined making any order, and should follow the line of conduct sir J. Nicholl had pursued in the court of Arches. Thus there was great reason to complain of the conduct of both judges in respect of the table of fees, and the time seemed come, when an inquiry ought to be instituted into the proceedings and constitution of the courts in Doctors' Commons.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, he was confident the House would extend its indulgence to him, when it recollected, that to him was committed the justification of a learned judge not present, who had long been a member of that House, had belonged to the profession of which he was an ornament for between forty and fifty years, and after filling the office of king's advocate, had, for nearly twenty years, been judge of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury. In the first place, he wished to be permitted to account for the absence of the distinguished individual, at whose conduct the petition chiefly aimed. To the astonishment of that right hon. judge, he first saw in the notices of Friday last, a notice for the Tuesday following, in which he was denounced by name as a public delinquent. For what reason all fairness and delicacy of feeling had been disregarded in this case, he was at a loss to know. To the liberality of the hon. member for Montrose, the right hon. judge certainly owed nothing; but above all, it was extraordinary that the hon. member I should so denounce a party, hitherto with-

1755
out reproach, before he had even read the documents on which so serious an accusation was founded. Had the conduct of the right hon. judge been liable to imputation, and had he even expected that the charge would be preferred in the way in which it had been brought forward, still it was not the ordinary course for the member who had undertaken the case to come down on the day he had appointed, and then avow that he was not prepared to go into the subject, because he had not had time to consider whether the accusation was or was not well-founded. On that day the House had certainly manifested its sense of the treatment the judge had received, by not requiring that he should attend to rebut the charge. Sure he was, that, although the right hon. judge owed much to the House, he was not indebted to the hon. member for Montrose for the uncourteous and unceremonious manner in which he had entered the notice on the proceedings of the House, and afterwards postponed the statement of the case set out in the petition. If a judge did not perform his duty, there were higher tribunals to which a suitor might appeal; but what he protested against was, that suitors should seek to bring forward their cases for discussion here, whilst there were courts of ulterior jurisdiction provided by the wisdom of the laws. It was not fair or proper that such cases should be adduced, and treated by persons ignorant of the proceedings and forms of law. What would be the consequence if appeals were constantly made to that House from the decisions of the court of King's-bench? He did not say that judges should not be made amenable to the country for misconduct; but he did not think that, where opportunities for appeal were afforded in other courts, appeals should be made to that House. With respect to the complaint of the amount in issue being exceeded by the costs, he could only say, that it was impossible to observe a proportion between the amount in litigation and the amount of costs in seeking to recover it. The hon. and learned gentleman proceeded to eulogise the zeal and industry of the right hon. judge of the Prerogative Court, in whose court, he could speak from experience, there were no arrears, but that all the cases were disposed of at furthest within a month or six weeks of the time which they were set down for hearing. He had spoken, on the
1756
former night, in strong terms of Mr. Walker; nor would he now retract one expression he had used. His statement was, that Mr. Walker had improperly conducted himself, and had sworn to what was not true. In corroboration of these charges, he could produce a letter of Mr. Walker's, dated the 5th of May, 1823, in which he complained, that the burthen of the costs would fall on him, the party not being able to discharge them, and that he had already advanced 150 l. He could also produce an affidavit by the same individual, in which he swore, that he was wholly disinterested, and not at all responsible for the costs. The member for Colchester had just whispered in his ear, that all that was meant in the affidavit was, that Mr. Walker was not legally responsible. He hoped to God no man would be permitted to take advantage of such a subterfuge as that just now suggested by the hon. member for Colchester; and if an attorney or solicitor should make such an attempt, he hoped the party would be visited with the indignation of the court. In the first instance, the petitioner employed Toller and Son as his proctors; he remained silent for seventeen months, and it was not a little remarkable that the next person he applied to was the only one who had been suspended three times, once by lord Stowell and twice by sir John Nicholl, the name of that person was Mr. William Geering Clarkson. The advocate he employed was Dr. Lee, who had been practising in that court for twelve years, conducting himself in such a manner, that the only excuse that could be made for his extraordinary conduct towards the court and the bar was the very great doubts entertained respecting his sanity. For twelve years he had been silent, unless when he thought proper to intrude his eloquence upon the court—and that was the person selected to be the Dux facti upon this occasion. The motion of Dr. Lee, of which the House had heard so much, was for the suspension of the registrar and the three deputy registrars, and he was heard in support of it for nearly three hours by sir John Nicholl, who pronounced it a most unheard of proceeding to introduce a motion which had nothing whatever to do with the suit before the court, and that even if he were entitled at all, the parties must be brought before the court, previous to the hearing of such motion. It was rather

1757
hard that those gentlemen should be so brought forward, for no other reason than their not having exhibited a table of fees. Now in reference to this, he would just remark, that in 1597 a table of fees was drawn up by the archbishop of Canterbury. Subsequently, in 1734, under an inquisition issuing from the Crown, these fees were regulated; and upon the regulations that then took place, no increase, except of 6d. in a single instance, had taken place. When Dr. Lee required the table of fees to be exhibited, he was presented with the report of the commissioners, in which the fees of the officers were given; but with this he was not satisfied. If what he required was a table i of the proctors' fees, at no time had there been such a table. Yet he came forward and swore that he was deprived of the advantage of being permitted to see the table of fees when he taxed the bill. An affidavit of this description deserved the most severe animadversion. The next passage of it charged the registrars with taxing their own bills. Now, before such a charge was preferred, there should have been some evidence in support of it. The practice was, that the registrars never taxed their own bills; but always referred them to the other registrars, who had no interest in them. The registrar had no power to decide any disputed item; it must come before the court, to be there decided; and even then the determination of the court could not enforce payment; for the money was not recoverable at last but by an action at law. It was impossible that stronger checks could be placed upon abuse.—The last complaint was, that proctors were appointed to the office of registrar; but this had been the practice beyond the memory of man; and it was indispensably necessary that they should be persons acquainted with the business of the court.—lie submitted, that the right hon. Judge, in refusing to hear Dr. Lee, had only discharged his bounden duty, and preserved the decorum of the court, he appealed to the House whether, on the statements before them, it was not evident that the right hon. Judge had performed his duty with equal credit, firmness, and impartiality. The learned gentleman then adverted to the statement, that some of the deputy registrars were relatives of the learned judge. The fact, he admitted, was perfectly true; and he was happy that he had it in his power, by
1758
some letters written many years ago, to exhibit the character of the right hon. Judge in its true light. The learned gentleman then read several letters which had passed between the rev. Mr. Moore, in whose gift the office was in 1817, when Mr. Dyneley was appointed, and sir John Nicholl. The letters strongly expressed the anxiety of Mr. Moore to appoint an efficient officer. It was singular, but true, that though the right hon. Judge was thus confidently consulted, Mr. Moore was in utter ignorance of his relationship to Mr. Dyneley, until the fact was avowed by sir John Nicholl himself. There could be no doubt of the fitness of Mr. Dyneley for the office, and it had never before been imputed as matter of blame to any person having patronage, that he had used it to promote the advantage of his relatives, when they were duly qualified. It had never been made a matter of censure to lord Ellenborough that he had appointed his own nephew to be master of the Crown Office. Lord Kenyon and other judges had never hesitated to bestow the offices in their own gift on their relatives when they were fit and proper persons to hold them. He was not aware that it was necessary for him to say a word more upon the facts of this case. It was difficult to follow the hon. member for Aberdeen through the manifold and unconnected details into which he had entered. If he had omitted any charge of importance it was because he could not bear in his mind all that hon. member's loose and rambling allegations. He was not, however, very anxious about that point: what he was most anxious about was, that after a full hearing of his case, the right hon. Judge should be acquitted of all misconduct and malversation in his office.
When he heard the hon. member talk of the extravagant fees of this court, and object to the remuneration of a judge, whose whole emoluments were but 3,000 l. a-year; and who, after discharging the arduous and complicated duties of that office for twenty years, and being now nearly seventy years of age, was not entitled to a single shilling on his retirement, and received no greater reward than the wisdom of this House fixed a century ago, for the salary of the judge of the Prerogative Court, when he had not a tenth part of the duties to perform—he must say, that it did become those who made complaints of this

1759
nature, to be provided with some evidence in support of them. In noticing the observations which had been made on the subject of fees by the hon. member, he must say that he did it with the most ineffable contempt. He could not bring himself to use words sufficiently strong to express his disregard of all that had been said by the hon. mover upon that subject. He lamented that a petition of this nature should have been presented against an individual filling so eminent a judicial situation; especially as the feelings of the learned judge, from his not having been much tossed about amongst contending parties, were more than ordinarily acute on the subject. He had always been politically opposed to the right hon. Judge, but he felt it his duty to bear testimony to the unspotted purity of his judicial conduct.
Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, it was not his intention to touch upon that part of the petition which complained of the conduct of sir John Nicholl; for, in his opinion, there was not the shadow of a foundation for the complaint. He had this reason for saying so—the decision of sir John Nicholl had been appealed from, and the tribunal to which the appeal was made did not consist of a single individual belonging to the court in which the right hon. Judge presided. Three common-law judges were called in to decide the appeal, and the result was a confirmation of the judgment of sir John Nicholl. There was, however, another branch of the case, to which the attention of the House had been very properly called, for the reason assigned incidentally by the learned doctor —namely, that at present there was no redress for the injury of which the petitioner complained. Of what was it that the petitioner complained? That being a litigant in one of the ecclesiastical courts in a suit by which he endeavoured to establish his claim to a property not exceeding 1,700 l., he had received on the conclusion of it a bill from his proctor for 1,100 l.— One item of this bill amounted to 303 l. The petitioner proposed to tax this bill, and his proctor referred it, inconsequence, to the registrar of the court. But, as had been stated by the learned doctor, with a view to create a prejudice against the petitioner, he was an ignorant and illiterate man, who scarcely understood what he had to sign or write, and he therefore asked, as was not unnatural, that the taxation of the bill of costs should be
1760
superintended by his solicitor. And what honest reason could be assigned that it should not? There was a bill of many sheets and many figures, containing many items, some of which were very large.— He dared to say the learned doctor thought a fee of twenty guineas to one, and twenty-five to another learned civilian was very moderate; but still it was not wonderful that, under such circumstances, a poor illiterate exciseman, as he had been sneeringly called, should wish that the transaction should be watched by a vigilant attorney. It was said, that the registrars never taxed their own bills. Was there ever a more lame or impotent defence set up against an accusation than this? True, they do not tax their own bills; but they tax the bills of one another. It now appeared that there was in this country a court exercising spiritual dominion over every parish in England, in which alone wills could be proved and letters of administration granted, and in which all questions arising out of them must be decided; and that, in all cases of litigation tried in that court, no matter what was the magnitude of the charges, or the poverty of the party who had to pay them, there was no redress against their enormity, save the conscience of the knot of registrars, who were all three practising proctors, and cousins of sir John Nicholl to boot. The learned doctor had treated this evil as one of little importance, because it was a matter of long duration. Now, was there any evil of the law which was not of long duration? Was there any abuse in our judicial system which might not plead prescription in its favour? Would any man of common sense contend, that it was right for any individual to audit his own accounts? And yet these registrars, who were the only persons who could tax bills, were themselves practising proctors, and, what was more material, had more practice than all the other proctors in Doctors' Commons put together ! If the learned doctor would move for a commission to examine into the state of the ecclesiastical courts, he would pledge himself to bring proctors before it, as respectable as Messrs. Toller and Son, to prove that it was a crying evil, that the registrars should be permitted to be practising proctors.
The Attorney-generalperfectly agreed with the hon. member for Colchester, that there was not the slightest reason for

1761
throwing the remotest blame on the right hon. Judge. He would further say, that if sir John Nicholl had done what was desired by the hon. mover, he would be liable to impeachment for conduct at once tyrannical and unjust. It would have been most unjust if he had removed the registrars; who were not, as hon. members supposed, appointed by the judge. He defended the conduct of sir John Nicholl, and pronounced a high eulogium upon him as a member of parliament, a judge, and a private gentleman. Sir John Nicholl, like sir Peter Teazle, in Sheridan's comedy, had left his character behind him; but it was in no danger in that House, where gentlemanly feeling prevailed on all sides. If the two branches of the prayer of the petition could be separated, he had no doubt the hon. member for Montrose would be the majority and minority, and whole population on that side of the question. But he had yet hopes that a penitence—a late penitence —not of moral feeling, but of judgment, would convince the heart, and affect the sensitive sensorium of the hon. member, and that he would retract his attack upon sir J. Nicholl. He thought the House should treat the petition with contempt. He could not help hoping that the hon. member would, with the warmth of the season, relax his feelings, and state that he presented this petition as a member of parliament, but that seeing it was a gross and scandalous libel, he was willing to withdraw it.
Dr. Phillimoresaid, that this was not the place to remedy any grievance of which the petitioner might have to complain. The courts of law were open to him if he required redress. After many years' experience he would assert, that there was no court in the country in which justice was executed in a more satisfactory manner, and with less expense, than in the Prerogative Court. He had known the learned judge of that court for thirty years, and could bear testimony to his purity and integrity. The charges brought against him were utterly unfounded.
Mr. H. Davisstrongly condemned the conduct of the hon. member for Aberdeen, in thus bringing forward charges, and keeping them suspended over the heads of individuals; whilst there were other steps, by which an aggrieved party could seek his remedy. He had known the right
1762
hon. judge for thirty years, and could bear testimony to his spotless integrity.
The petition was brought up and read. —On the motion, that it do lie on the table,
Mr. Humedenied that he had ever been in the habit of bringing forward charges against individuals upon slight grounds, or of allowing them to remain over longer than was necessary. He denied that the present petition was any libel against sir John Nicholl, and contended, that the principle of the allegations it contained had not been refuted.
The Attorney-generalsubmitted, whether it was fair that a petition of this kind, containing such strong criminatory charges against a learned judge—charges, too, which were utterly unsupported—should be laid upon the table of the House.
The question, "that the Petition do lie on the Table," was then put, and negatived.

CORPORATION OF LEICESTER.
Mr. Otway Cave,in rising to move that the petition of the inhabitants of Leicester, which he had yesterday presented to the House, regarding the conduct of the Corporation of that borough, should be referred to a Select Committee, begged to state, that the returns, which had been ordered some time since by the House, from that Corporation, in reference to the building of a new gaol and house of correction in Leicester, had, after a great delay, been laid upon the table of the House, but in such an utterly imperfect form that the inhabitants had been unable to take any steps upon them, in order to show that a new gaol was not necessary, and that, therefore, they should not be burdened with an additional impost for its erection and support.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, it was hardly to be expected, that the House should occupy itself with the election disputes of the borough of Leicester. It appeared to him, that the hon. member had been put forward by a party in that place, to bring before the House all their local contests. If he saw any intention to conceal any thing from the House; if he saw on the returns any evasions; if the returns had been false; or if he had seen any of the privileges of the House evaded—he should have been ready to accede to the motion. But he saw no grounds for instituting that formal kind of inquiry proposed by the

1763
hon. member. He must, at the same time, express his surprise at the period which had elapsed since the time when the returns had been made. The petitioners complained of the gaol being "built; but for this the magistrates were not to blame. He had brought in a bill to provide for building certain new gaols; and Leicester was one of the towns included. The magistrates, therefore, could not be ordered to suspend the building of this gaol, unles the act of parliament were repealed. He would recommend the hon. member to procure an amended return; for he did not think this a case to call for the interference of the House.
Mr. H. Gurneysaid, he did not rise to induce the right hon. gentleman to consent to the motion, but to observe, that as the law now stood, and the bill which had been sent up from that House had been lost in the other House, corporations might make any use they pleased of the corporation funds. As the principle was now avowed, he should expect to see corporations employing all their resources, at another election, in bringing up out-voters. He hoped, however, that another bill would be brought into that House more complete than the last; and he would suggest it as a subject well worthy the right hon. gentleman's attention.
Mr. O. Caveexplained. In the course of his explanation, he observed, that he had not brought forward the motion because it originated with the party in the borough of Leicester which had sent him to the House. It had been signed by almost all the inhabitants. His election had no more to do with the petition than had the election for East Retford. If he had come down to the House with solemn plausibility, ingenious candour, and well-balanced cadence, and on that Election bill had declared he knew nothing of the dukery, and that that borough was under the influence of the duke of Newcastle, he should deserve as much to be believed as those were, who falsely imputed personal motives to him for the motion he had submitted. He would accept the proposal of the right hon. gentleman, and propose to-morrow an amended motion.
Mr. Maberlysaid, that as the other House would not concur with them in measures for restraining the power of corporations, it was due to the dignity of that House, that they should pass a resolution, declaring it to be a breach of their privi-
1764
leges to apply the funds of a corporation to influence the election of members of parliament.
Mr. Peelsaid, that an expression used by the hon. member for Leicester called for some remark from him. He was willing to assume, that the hon. member harboured no intention to give him personal offence; but he was quite sure that the hon. member would excuse him, when he said, that the word "falsely" was improperly used: and he now asked the hon. member whether he meant to apply that term to him?
Mr. O. Cavesaid, he understood the right hon. gentleman to state, that his motion originated in party feeling, growing-out of the Leicester election. If that were the case, he could not retract what he had said; because he was actuated by no such feeling. It was unfair, in the first place, to make such a charge; and, in the second, he conceived it to be falsely advanced.
The Speakersaid, he solemnly assured the House, that if he conceived it possible, when the hon. gentleman used the expressions adverted to, that he meant to direct them against any individual, he should certainly have interfered. He never was more astonished than when he heard the explanation which the hon. member had given of his own words.
Mr. O. Cavetrusted he had never shown any disposition to act in a manner personally offensive to any member. He had no intention, in the present instance, to excite unpleasant feelings. Should the right hon. gentleman say, that he did not use those expressions in a personal sense, then he would make such a reply as would, he hoped, be satisfactory to the House.
The Speakersaid, the hon. gentleman ought to express, that the words used by him were not intended as matter of personal offence to the right hon. gentleman.
Mr. O. Cavesaid, he was ready to ask pardon of the House; but he spoke in the belief, that an attack had been made personally on him. He therefore must say, that he made the observations which had been adverted to in the same sense, whatever it might be, as that in which the remarks directed to him were uttered.
The Speaker.The hon. member knows, that the rules of this House are not to be trifled with, and that no language can be allowed here which is personally offensive.

1765
believe, and I think the House must be of the same opinion, that the hon. member has deviated from every principle of order, and has for gotten what is due to the dignity of parliament; and therefore, if he does not make a proper concession, I shall feel it to be my duty to name him.
Mr. O. Cavesaid, that no person could be more unwilling than he was to offend the House; but he would ask, did not the right hon. gentleman make an allusion that was personally offensive to him? It was only because he understood that the right hon. gentleman made such an allusion that he had used the words which gave rise to this discussion. There was no one whom he respected more than he respected the right hon. gentleman; but he owed it to his own honour, not to suffer unworthy motives to be imputed to him without repelling the charge. He bowed with submission to the forms of the House, and he had not the slightest hesitation in apologizing to the House and to the chair.
The Speakersaid, that the hon. member did not appear to understand what the feeling of the House was. It was his duty to tell the hon. member, that the House called upon him for explanation and apology. This was the first time he had seen any gentleman display apprehension lest his honour should be injured by obeying the call of the House. He would tell the hon. member, that after what had passed, he would best consult his own honour by making the reparation which was now demanded of him. The Speaker then called twice upon Mr. O. Cave before the hon. member rose.
Mr. O. Cavecould only repeat, that if he had said or done any thing that was contrary to the usages of the House,—if he had said or done any thing that was disrespectful to the House or to the chair, he was perfectly willing to apologize. The hon. member was then about to leave the House amidst loud cries of "order," but on being called upon by the Speaker he resumed his seat.
The Speakersaid, that the hon. member should not be permitted to add further insult to the House. The hon. member must know that he had made use of personal language, which was not only offensive to the right hon. member against whom it was directed, but also to the House, whose forms and usages tolerated no such expressions. He really could not understand upon what principle it was,
1766
that the hon. member, who must feel that he had used an offensive expression, should wish to draw such a distinction in retracting that expression, as it must be apparent he had endeavoured to draw. He called upon Mr. O. Cave twice.
Mr. O. Cavetrusted, that he had never shown any disrespect to the chair or to the House; but he did not see how it could be fairly imputed to him, that he had drawn any distinction, when he had said that he apologized to the House. As to saying any thing further,—if any hon. member thought himself aggrieved by any thing that had fallen from him, let that hon. member get up and say that he had meant nothing personal to him, and he would say the same to that hon. member. But he did trust that there were no rules of that House which would deprive him of the vindication of his own honour, and of the maintenance of his personal character.
The Speakersaid, it must be clear that the hon. member's apology was only a partial apology. The hon. member had spoken of his personal honour. The hon. member must know that it was the duty of the chair to take care that no gentleman's personal honour should be hurt; and he must repeat, that the surest way in which the hon. member could preserve his honour was, to comply strictly and cheerfully with the demand which had been made upon him. He again called on Mr. O. Cave. After a short pause,
Mr. S. Ricetrusted that his hon. friend would receive the advice of a friend. He was a calmer witness than his hon. friend, and he did not understand any of the expressions of the right hon. gentleman to be personally directed against his hon. friend.
Mr. R. Colbornethought there could be no doubt as to the course which the hon. member should pursue. The mind of that man must be strangely constituted who did not think that the courage of avowing a fault was courage of the most manly character.
Mr. O. Cavesaid, that after what had fallen from his hon. friends, it would seem most impertinent in him to resist their advice. "I beg leave, Sir," continued the hon. member, "to make the apology in the sense in which you wish it to be made."
Mr. Peelsaid, the House must see that he could not have preceded the hon. member in concession. He knew that he had

1767
said nothing which could justify the word "false" being applied to him, and it was therefore impossible for him to have led the way in explanation. "But now, Sir, understanding the hon. member, when he says that he adopts your meaning, to speak unequivocally and without any reservation, I have not the slightest hesitation in assuring the hon. member, that I meant nothing personal to him. All I meant to say was, that local questions would generally be best decided by local jurisdictions. It never entered into my mind to give any personal offence to the hon. member."
Mr. O. Cavethen withdrew his motion.

EDUCATION IN IRELAND—CHARITABLE FOUNDATIONS.
The House having resolved itself into a Committee on the Appropriation Act,
Mr. Spring Ricerose, to claim from the chancellor of the Exchequer the fulfilment of his engagement, by the introduction of a clause permitting the lord lieutenant of Ireland to exercise an entire control over the sums voted for Education in Ireland. The pledge given was, that lord Anglesey should be enabled by parliament to issue the sums voted, either in the whole or in part, subject to such conditions as should appear expedient, or should be allowed to transfer them altogether to other establishments, should he consider such to be more deserving of parliamentary support. Under the authority of such an enactment, the government of Ireland might introduce more liberal and rational principles into existing schools, or, if that were impossible, might in new establishments try the experiment recommended by the report of the Select Committee of which he was chairman. He would avail himself of the present opportunity of making a communication to the House, which would have come from his hon. and learned friend, the member for Winchdsea, who was prevented by indisposition and professional engagements from attending. It related to the subject of Education, and he felt confident that it would be gratifying both to the House and to the public Gentlemen would not have forgotten the laborious and interesting inquiries concerning schools commenced at the suggestion of his hon. and learned friend, several years back. The reports of the committees on Education and the digested returns prepared at that period, had given to the public the first accurate knowledge of the
1768
means of instruction provided for the poorer classes. These returns, however, proved that the means now provided were wholly inadequate, and that in many cases parishes were still to be found in which no school whatever existed. In 1818, his hon. and learned friend had addressed letters to the clergy of the established church, requesting those rev. gentlemen to furnish him with answers to queries illustrative of the state of Education in their respective parishes. Returns were procured by these means, which though incomplete, furnished sufficient data to reason upon pretty generally. In 1828, after a lapse of ten years, similar queries were circulated by his hon. and learned friend; and, by a careful comparison of the returns then procured with those of 1818, it would be seen that the progress of Education in Great Britain had been most rapid. It was to this most satisfactory fact that he was particularly desirous of calling the attention of the House. In four hundred and eighty-seven parishes in different parts of England—fair indications of the state of Education throughout the whole country—the number of unendowed day schools according to the parliamentary returns, appeared to be 1411, containing 50,034 scholars; such was the state of things in 1818. In 1828 in the same parishes, the number of schools was 3,260, and the number of scholars 105,571. To the friends of freedom, knowledge, and virtue, it would be difficult to suggest a more gratifying subject for meditation; and, though he was aware that much of this improvement was to be traced to the zeal and love of knowledge of the present times, yet he felt it a gratification and pride to consider that these motions had been called into action, and if not actually and altogether created, yet greatly increased in power by the efforts of his hon. and learned friend. He could not sit down without stating the obligation which was due to the clergy of the established church, for the kindness and energy with which they had met the views of his hon. and learned friend. They had assisted with zeal in procuring the information required both in 1818 and 1828, more particularly at the latter period.

CORPORATE FUNDS BILL.
Lord Goderich,before he proposed the second reading of this bill, thought it right to explain the objects of the bill, and the grounds on which he conceived it ought to be read a second time. The different Corporations of the country were in possession of Funds, which were applicable to some specific purposes; some of those purposes were charitable, and others related to the police and local administration of the town. But besides the property which was so appropriated, cor
1744
porations possessed another species of property, the application of which was not definite. Any misapplication of the former species of property might be remedied by an application to a court of law; for the corporation was amenable to law if it were misapplied. But, with regard to the latter species of property, having no definite application, he was assured, and he believed correctly, that there was no object to which such funds might not be legally applied. It might be supposed, that those who placed such funds at the disposal of corporations, intended them to benefit the town, or to be applied to some purpose connected with the interests of the corporation; but, if what was stated as to the law was true, they might be applied to any purpose, wholly distinct from purposes connected with the corporation. It was competent, by the law, when any corporation possessed funds not definitely appropriated, for the members to apply it to their own exclusive benefit. They might deal with it so as not to transmit any of it to their successors; they might gamble in the funds with it; or form joint-stock companies; or apply it to any other purpose that had no reference whatever to the purposes for which it might originally have been appropriated. If any body were to tell those who had given such funds to a corporation, that they had been employed to speculate in members of parliament, they would think the corporation ought not to be intrusted with any such power. If they were at liberty to apply the funds to the purposes of a contested election, when no such purposes were contemplated by the individuals who placed those funds at the disposal of the corporation, it was, in his opinion, inconsistent with the freedom and purity of election, and a corrupt mode of returning members to parliament. If there were a power of applying funds in such a manner, it was high time that power should be restrained. He would not deal with that power on the mere possibility that it might be so abused; but the grounds on which he should recommend the bill to their lordships' notice was, that the money of corporations had been so applied, and in a most extraordinary manner. The first case he would mention, was that of the Corporation of Northampton, which had advanced 1000 l. to secure the return of a member of parliament. He did not think that case alone

1745
would constitute a ground for parliamentary interference; but there was another case of much greater importance—that of: the Corporation of Leicester. The funds of that corporation had been applied without disguise. At the last general election the corporation took a great interest in the election of the borough, and to further the views of the candidate they favoured, they incurred an expense which would surprise their lordships. It was not 1,000 l. or 2,000 l., or 5,000 l. or 10,000 l., but; 27,000 l. that had been expended on a contested election. If the corporation was at liberty to expend 27,000 l., he did not know why it might not expend 227,000 l., or employ its whole funds; which would be the most formidable weapon that could be used against purity of election. If it were fit that a corporation should so apply the funds to carry on the election of a town, they might apply them to the election of a county, and expend twenty or thirty thousand pounds in contesting it. The corporations might go a step further; two or three of them might unite, and form a joint-stock purse; and there could be no limit set to their operations, if there were no right to interfere. He did not say it was probable that corporations would employ their funds in this manner; but if one employed 1,000 l., and another 27,000 l., he could not tell to what extent they might carry their assumed rights; for they were assumed, and contrary to the principle of common sense and the practice of the constitution. On this ground he recommended the bill to their lordships.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he had looked at the bill, and felt it his duty to oppose the second reading. He must express his surprise that his noble friend should have moved it, for when a bill of a similar character was brought in last session, which he also thought it his duty to oppose, he thought it had been opposed by his noble friend. He had opposed that bill, as a member of his majesty's government, and had thought it his duty to do so. His noble friend had not, in supporting the bill, fallen into the mistake of those who had supported it in another place, who seemed to suppose that corporations held their property differently from individuals. Corporations were situated precisely the same as individuals: they held some property in trust, as individuals held property in trust and if
1746
they abused the trust, they were amenable to courts of justice for their errors or offences. They also held property not in trust; and over such property the corporation exercised the same right as individuals did over their property. There was no difference known to the law. If any gentleman had voted for the measure under this notion, he had voted for it under a mistaken view of the law. He would repeat, that there was no difference whatever between the law as applied to corporations and to individuals, with regard to the property they possessed and held in trust. His noble friend had supported the bill, on the alleged misconduct of the corporation of Leicester. Last session the imputation was against Northampton; this year it was against Leicester, and he had no doubt that the imputation against the corporation of Leicester, when inquired into would be found, like the case of Northampton, not to be supported. It was necessary, in speaking upon this subject, to distinguish between the corporation and the corporation party. At the last election, the corporation party resolved to support sir Charles Hastings. He was opposed by Mr. Evans, and he believed by Mr. Denman. The corporation party then resolved to support Mr. Otway Cave, on condition that he and sir Charles Hastings should defray the expenses of the election to a certain extent, and not allow them to fall on the corporation. To this the candidates consented, and they had received the support of the corporation. Sir Charles Hastings had paid his share; but in consequence of the default of Mr. Otway Cave—he did not use the word default as giving judgment against Mr. Cave—but in consequence of Mr. Cave not choosing to pay his share of the expenses, a large burthen had been thrown on the corporation party. He did not know that it would be defrayed by the corporation, but the corporation party's I candidates were liable for the amount. The corporation might indemnify them; but if, in doing so, it misapplied the funds, redress might be obtained in a court of law. He knew the corporation of Leicester, and he was sure that if any improper application had taken place, complaints would be made in a court of justice. He did not think it was correct to say, that corporations should not influence elections. They ought to have someweight and influence in elections. Why

1747
should they not have influence over elections, as well as a peer or a wealthy commoner? If the corporation misapplied its influence, it was amenable to the law. At Leicester, the great expense was occasioned by bringing the out-voters down to the election. It had cost Mr. Evans 20,000 l., and the corporation had expended 27,000 l. If their lordships looked at the conduct of the different boroughs of the country, they would find, that those in which the independent interest, as it was called, predominated, and not those in which the corporations predominated, were the most corrupt. If corporations were not allowed to apply their own funds and influence in this way, they would have recourse to some wealthy individual; and it would be his influence which would secure the return, and not that of the corporation. He thought there was no grounds for interference, and that the measure would be injurious. He had opposed the bill of last session on similar grounds, and he was surprised that his noble friend, of all men, should have moved the second reading.
The Earl of Rosslynthought the learned lord bad mistaken the use of the word influence. No one had contended, that the corporation should not exert an influence in the elections, arising from their authority, in the place where they resided: but to employ their funds for the purposes of an election, did not seem to him to be proper. If a corporation might expend 27,000 l., it might charge a debt on its successors. All funds intrusted to a corporation were intended for the benefit of the inhabitants; and any application of the funds, different from that, could not be proper.
Lord Eldonsaid, he did not mean to vote against this bill because he had voted against the bill of last year, but because he thought it was against the principles of the constitution. No man could doubt, at least no lawyer could doubt, what the law was on the subject. The right of corporations to property which they did not hold in trust, was the same as the right of individuals to private property. He knew this was law in Westminster Hall forty years ago, and he believed it was so to this day. Corporations had a right to dispose of the property they held, not in trust, to any purposes that were legal and not corrupt. The present bill, like the bill of last year, did not purpose to put a
1748
stop to any corrupt or illegal practices, but to take a right from all corporations which they had always exercised. If it were carried, every application of corporation funds, such as buying pictures, or giving a Lord Mayor's dinner, would be illegal. He was sure their lordships would hesitate before they passed a bill, which did not correct an individual abuse, but took from corporations those rights which they held, both by the principles of the law and the constitution.
Lord Calthorpesaid, that the learned lords who had just addressed the House had not made a proper distinction between the acts of an individual and those of a corporate body. It was well known, that a corporate body in which there was a divided responsibility, would do many acts, on which no individual among them would venture, if left to act by himself. If the principle laid down, of allowing corporations to dispose of their funds, for a purpose not having immediate reference to their charter were acceded to, it would be difficult to know where to draw the line. Their lordships had abundant evidence to prove the disposition to abuse, and they would not, in his opinion, be justified in rejecting this bill.
The Earl of Carnarvonsaid, that the question was, whether such an application of Corporate funds as was here mentioned was contemplated by the donors of corporate property. If it was, then their lordships were right in rejecting this bill; but if they considered such an application an abuse, they were bound to pass it. The learned lord had said, that an abuse by one corporation was not a justification of such a measure as this bill; but if one corporation did abuse its trust, it would be a good ground for passing a measure which would prevent similar abuses in other corporations. He was therefore in favour of the bill; and for this additional reason,—that if some such measure did not pass, it would, where there happened to be divided interests in the corporation, give to one party, the majority, by a power of diverting to extraneous purposes, funds which were intended for the benefit of all. The mayor of all boroughs was the returning officer at elections. He was bound by his oath to strict impartiality between the candidates; and yet, by that rule, he might give his casting vote for the application of the funds of the corporation, in aid of the interests of the one can.

1749
didate in preference to the other. He was convinced that there could not be a more improper application of Corporate funds; and he should therefore vote for the bill.
Lord Goderichwished to correct a mistake into which the lord Chancellor had fallen with respect to Mr. Otway Cave. That gentleman had made no agreement with the corporation of Leicester, or with any party, to pay part of the expenses. An arrangement was made by others, which was to be kept from the two candidates, and that gentleman had heard nothing of it, nor did he suspect it until that corporation made a demand on him for several thousand pounds, which he very properly resisted.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he had not meant to cast any imputation on Mr. Otway Cave.
Their lordships then divided on the amendment; Content 41; Not Content 10; Majority against the bill 31.