Cooper that you were ordered to attend this House, connected with the paper? No. A number of persons call on the editore who are not connected with the paper.iolate in Do you know the name of that gentleman? No! By a Member-Is it part of the reader's duty to examine the proof sheet; and if so did he not read the paragraph in question?—The reading boy reads the manuscript, and the reader examines the proofudio Jew no By Mr. W. Smith.-By whom is the manuscript put into the hands of the reading boy?By the compositor. And by whom is it given to the compositor?-Generally by the editor. Self not given by the editor, by whom is it given?-Generally by myself. If not given either by the editor or by you, by whom is it given?-As I before observed, I cannot say, after I leave the office from whom any communications are received.dow I ask whether, to the best of your knowledge, any one of the four composisitors whose names you have mentioned, or any of the other occasional composifors, would dare to print any paragraph except of the commonest nature, unless he received it either from the editor or from yourself?--I do not think he would. Do you believe that the paragraph complained of was printed by any one of those compositors on his own authority? I should think not... By Lord Nugent Do you mean to say that you never communicated with the editor by letter or note?-All my communications with the editor have been verbalibo sică inž The Witness was directed to withdraw. Mr. Bennet said, that as no evidence had been obtained from this man as to the author of the paragraph, and as that was the object of his inquiry, he must move that other evidence be brought to the bar. He did not think the witness entitled to much lenience from the evidence he had given, but he wished to do no more than detain him until those persons had been called from whom more satisfactory information might be derived. He would therefore move, “That Thomas. Arrówsmith William Shackle, and Henry Cooper do attend this House forthwith." The motion was agreed to. ma INQUIRY INTO THE STATE OF ENGLISH COURTS OF JUSTICE.] Sir J. Newport rose to bring forward his motion upon this subject. He proceeded to explain the circumstances which induced him to bring this question before the House, and pointed out in strong terms the great delay which had taken place since the appointment of the commissioners in 1815. Those commissioners, five in number (two of whom were masters in chancery) had since their appointment received a salary of 1,200l. a year each, making in all a sum of 30,000l. exclusive of allowances to secretaries and other incidental charges. There was also an additional sum due this year of 6,000l. making in all about 40,000/. The commissioners had during that time made but four reports, two on the court of Chancery, and two on the court of King's-bench and Common-pleas. With respect to the reports on the court { of Chancery, the lord chancellor, after approving some of the recommendations, was of opinion (after a lapse of five years from the period of the report being made), that it ought to undergo the most grave and serious inquiry. As to the reports of the courts of King's-bench and Common pleas, the chief justices of those courts had written to the secretary of state for the home department, informing him thatthose reports had never been submitted to their consideration, or officially made known to them. The excuse made by the commis❤ sioners was, that they had experienced great delay and obstruction in the differ ent offices to which their inquiries led them. This, he contended, was no excuse, for the commissioners had, and ought to have exercised the power of obliging the par ties to produce the necessary documents. Under all the circumstances, as the origi nal proposer of the inquiry, he felt a na tural wish to place his sentiments upon the Journals of the House; and with that view he should move the following resolu tions, founded upon what he conceived to be the facts of the case: 1. "That it appears, from returns laid before this House, that the commission to inquire into the state of the English courts of justice, appointed by his majesty on the 9th February 1815, in compliance with their address of the 28th of June 1814, was composed of five commission. ers, two of whom were masters in chang cery; and that they have been compenă sated for their services by an annual paya ment of 1,200 to each commissioner, amounting on the 9th Feb. 1820 to 30,000l., exclusive of the payment of the secretary, and other incidental charges, and of a further sum of 6,000. due to the said commissioners on the 9th of Feb. of the present year. 2. "That the commissioners have de livered in four reports; the first, on the court of Chancery, 9th April 1816; the second, a very small supplementary report on the same court, 20th Dec. 1817; the third, on the King's-bench, 5th Jan. 1818; and the fourth, on the court of Common-pleas, 3rd July 1819. 3. "That it appears, by the statement of the lord chancellor to the secretary of state for the home department, on the 17th March last, that his lordship has adopted some measures, as detailed in that statement, for carrying into effect some of the recommendations contained in the report of the commissioners upon the court of Chancery; and that, in other instances, those recommendations appear to his lordship to require much further consideration, to which consideration (with the advice and assistance of the master of the rolls, and eventually of others of the judges) his lordship now proposes, at the expiration of five years from the period of its delivery, to submit the whole of the report. the court of Chancery, and generally of the whole report thereon, has been de ferred; and above all, and as highly censurable, the manner in which the two re ports on the King's-bench and Commons pleas have been withheld froni the notice of the judges of those courts by those public officers, who were officially bound to submit them to their consideration.". On the first resolution being put The Attorney General rose to defend the conduct of the commissioners, who, he said, had been unremitting in. their exertions, and deserved the applause and gratitude of their country. One reason which the right hon. baronet had for finding fault with them was, that they had only laid four reports upon the table. It was true, that a greater number of reports had been made by the commissioners ap+ pointed to inquire into the state of the courts of justice in Ireland; but though eight reports had been made by them, and only four by the English commission ers, the English commissioners had, inde pendently of the greater research which they had displayed, done more.in point of fact than the Irish, their four reports con taining 586 pages, and the reports of the Irish containing only 400 pages of printed matter. The commissioners had not had power to enforce the making of certain re turns from the offices of the Exchequers but surely no reasonable man would im pute that circumstance as a matter of blame to them. He defended the slord chancellor from the charges which had been made against him, and asked, whe ther it was to be expected that that learned and illustrious person was to postponer all his other engagements to examine into the matters referred to him by this com mission? With regard to certain of the reports not having been sent to the judges of the King's-bench and the Commonpleas, he begged leave to inform the 5. "That this House views with extreme House, that according to the words of regret the slowness in its progress of a the commission itself, the reports were to commission instituted for such important be returned to the petty bag objects, and prosecuted at considerable that it was not therefore the publicexpense; the obstructions which the commissioners to transmit them to the commissioners appear to experience in their judges. The secretary of state was the inquiries, from the reluctance manifested person who ought to have forwarded the by some of the officers of the court of Ex-reports to those learned persons; but he chequer to deliver the returns called for, and to facilitate the execution of the commission, as detailed by the commissioners; the very protracted period of time to which the consideration of some of the measures, recommended for regulation of 4" That the chief justices of the King's-bench and Common-pleas, in their several statements of the 5th and 6th of March last, acquaint the secretary of state, that their lordships attention had not been in any manner called to the recommendations contained in the reports on their courts, nor had those reports been officially made known to them; which reports had been delivered in by the commissioners, on the 5th Jan. 1818 and the 3rd July 1819, to the office under the control of the secretary of state for the home department. had failed to do so, from an idea that they had been sent to them from some other quarter. He could assure the right hon. baronet, that there was no reluctance in any of the courts to correct abuse, where abuse was proved to exist. It was unfair the means of the officers in the courts themselves. He denied that any of the fees were to be considered as freehold rights; and, as to the duration of the inquiry, it might have been accomplished in seven months as well as in seven years, if ordinary diligence had marked the pro Mr. Serjeant Onslow saw no reason for the strictures which had been passed upon the commissioners, nor could be understand how the inquiry could have been conducted, except by the examination of the officers in the respective courts. to assume that the labours of the com- Mr. B. Bathurst defended the lord chancellor from any imputation of neglect. That distinguished personage was not responsible for the delay which had occurred. The right hon. baronet complained of the expense of the commission; but was there any novelty in that? There was good ground, perhaps, for the commission into the Irish courts; but certainly nothing had resulted from the extension of the inquiry to the English courts which justified the expense of the undertaking. Mr. Baring expressed his surprise at the right hon. gentleman's view of the duties of government; for, according to that motion, there was nobody to take cognizance of a report framed by a commissión under the orders of that House. As to the manner in which the inquiries had been conducted, he should only say, that nothing very sanguine could be hoped from an investigation carried on through Mr. Warre denied that it was neces sary to have masters in chancery on the commission. Four gentlemen inquired into the abuses of the court of Chancery of Ireland, none of whom were masters, yet the result of their labours had been most satisfactory and advantageous. Sir J. Newport, in reply, said, that when he had moved the address he bad done all that was necessary on his part. It then became the duty of government to carry the object of the address into effect. The right hon. gentleman had argued that government had no right to interfere. But what said the commissioners? They stated that they had performed the duty allotted to them, and they recommended certain measures to his majesty for adoption. Now, who was to carry those recommendations into effect except his majesty's government? The address which he had moved was a general one, referring to all the courts of justice in the united kingdom. And why was it general? Because he was unwilling to appear invidious by selecting any particular court. He was determined to place his resolutions on the journals, because, in other cases, when resolutions proposed by him had been nega. tived, he had found that their principle was recognized several years afterwards, in consequence of their being placed on the journals. The previous question was then put upon the four first Resolutions, and negatived. Upon the fifth, the House divided: Ayes, 56. Noes, 72. List of the Minority. Abercromby, J. Warre, J. A. Wynn, C. W. Whitbread, W. H. Williams, W. TELLERS. Baring, A. REFORM OF PARLIAMENT-PETITION FROM CARLISLE.] Mr. James presented a Petition from the bankers, merchants, and other inhabitants of Carlisle, praying for Retrenchment and Reform. He expressed his regret that that House had pertinaciously resisted every attempt to introduce a system of economy and retrenchment. Instead of being the friends and supporters of the people, they seemed to be of no other use but to assist the executive government in imposing, restraints and burthens on the country. Whether gentlemen would look to the preservation of their own property, and, while assisting themselves, save the public money, he could not tell; but he felt that until the people obtained a reform in parliament and that they would eventually obtain it he had no doubt the country could not hope for permanent prosperity. While he had a seat in that House, he would endeavour to procure a restoration of those rights which had been bartered away for power and emolument. If retrenchment and reform were not conceded, the government, he was convinced, would be changed by violence. How much wiser would it be to do something for the people, to prove to them that their complaints had not been made in vain. Those who sat on his side of the House, were told that they agreed on no precise plan of reform. That perhaps was true, but it was likewise true that they all agreed that some reform was necessary Every man who did not live on the taxes was assured of that,Any K plan that would make that House a real representative House, and fill it with indi viduals who expressed the sense and feelings of the people, would be satisfactory to the petitioners. Mr. Curwen said, that the inhabitants of the county which he represented, if he excepted those who held places or received pensions, were unanimously of opi nion that reform was necessary, con grow Ordered to lie on the table. alqoq REFORM OF PARLIAMENT.] Lord John Russell rose to make his promised motion. He said that although some circumstances had occurred in that House a short time ago, which were discouraging to any person who meant to bring forward propositions respecting reform, yet he was bold enough to say that he felt a con siderable degree of confidence in pro posing the measure which he would that night submit to the House. At the same time, he was by no means blind to the difficulties and the importance of the task he had undertaken. If it was true, as it undoubtedly was, that all governments depended ultimately upon opinion, it was no less true, that the government of England depended upon an opinion vigi lant and enlightened, to a degree of which history gave no example. Above all, the eyes of the country were directed, in a peculiar manner, to that House. The people looked, as it were, with a microscope at all their acts, and seemed to consider a vote of even a thousand pounds in the course of the public expenditure as a test by which the honesty of their intentions might be tried and appreciated, Instead of viewing them with any of that superstitious reverence which authority formerly created-that sort of reverence which veiled in mystery all the acts of government-a disposition existed which went rather to deny them even those ad vantages which must inevitably be ae quired by habits of business, and to refuse them credit for that superiority, which experience and the custom of deciding on great questions of state tend so manifestly to produce. But of all the subjects which could be brought forward in parliament, the most serious were those which related to the constitution of that House, because they operated in a particular manner, and were considered, in a peculiar degree, as tests of the disposition of the House, to conduct the affairs of the country withe integrity, and with a proper affection towards the people, 'whom it professed to represent. وا those innovations had or had not any influence on the government, In stating the question of reform that The first object to which he wished to night the noble lord said, he would avoid call the attention of the House was the the usual mode of proposing it to the practice of bribery and corruption. With House.The natural and customary prac- respect to that practice, he thought there tice was, to say that that House did not could not be two opinions in the House. represent the people, and to refer to its All must agree that it was at once highly various acts to show that its proceedings criminal and exceedingly pernicious; and were not conformable with the opinion of no doubt could be entertained that such the people at large. This way of stat- practices did prevail to a very great exing the question, although the best cal- tent. When he had the honour, a year culated for exciting the passions of an ago, to move an address on this subject, he audience, was clearly very invidious, as it had stated the fact, that it was a matter brought into immediate contrast the votes of common conversation in the House of the majority and minority of that that bribery and corruption prevailed in House. It became necessary to argue, different parts of the kingdom. The that those who formed the majority of noble marquis opposite, who was consithat House were in a minority in the dered the leader of that side of the country, and to claim for the minority of House, did not venture to deny that brithat House the honour of being followed bery and corruption were known to exist by a majority in the country. Hence a to a great extent. He did not controvert contest necessarily arose upon the merits the proposition; and he would have surof party which, on a great question of prised the House, and even his own this kind, it was most desirable to avoid. friends, if he had ventured so to do. But although he meant to lay out of As one proof of the effect which this corsight this view of the question he was rupt system had produced, he would bringing forward, he neither wished to relate an anecdote told by the late Mr. deny or to conceal that he was in prin- Sheridan. That gentleman, during an ciple a reformer. When he said, that he election, fell into conversation with one of was in principle a reformer, he thereby the voters. "I am," said he, "a friend meant, that his deliberate opinion was, to reform." "I am glad you are for re that this House ought to represent the form," observed the voter; so am I-but people, but that it did not, in fact, do so. some gentlemen behave so ill, they will He could neither agree with the opinion not give their poor voters a single guinea; of those who thought that all the pro- and I think that should be reformed." eeedings of the House were in perfect was well known that in Cornwall this perconformity with the wishes of the people; nicious practice was carried on to the nor with those who held that the House utmost extent. The general system adoptought not to represent the people at large; ed in the boroughs was for the electors to but that it ought to display a sort of engage with some person in the neighbourmixed representation-a representation of hood as patron. He took care of the inthe crown, of the aristocracy, of all the terest of the town, assisted the poor, and upper classes, but not of the great body subscribed to some public work; and, for of the people. Having stated this, he all this, he claimed a seat for himself in would go no further in this beaten road of the House of Commons, or for any per argument, but confine himself to an en- son he might think proper to nominate deavour to prove that there had prevailed while the other seat was generally sold for such practices, that there had arisen such a sum of money, which was divided, acinnovations whether the effects were or cording to the bargain made, between the were not at present seen within those patron and the electors. That this was a walls as could not but lead, at one time practice quite common, he believed no or other, to a dangerous discordance be- one would deny; nor did he suppose it tween the opinions of the country at would be denied that such a practice w large, and the decisions of the House of in every way injurious. The very first Commons. He called on the House to evil it introduced amongst the people was check those practices, and to stop those in- drunkenness, idleness, and profligacy novations. He called on them to go no fur- disregard of the sacred obligations and ther, but to interpose and prevent the duties the constitution imposed on them system from being extended, whether a love of feasting and dissipation--and a It was |