the appeals to the House of Lords; and therefore it might be expected that they would look with disfavour on his suggestion. But there was another objection still more powerful. If there lordships were of opinion that the Scotch appeals should be removed, still, before the House could adopt any such prospective measure, they must get rid of the arrears. It would consequently be a very considerable length of time, before their lordships could adopt any such measure, and the committee had, therefore, looked to other remedies. The greatest advantage resulted from the simplicity of our law and the precision in our pleadings other part of the kingdom. The state of the case was this-whatever might be the occasion of it, the whole of the grievance was the appellate jurisdiction from Scotland. If they came only in proportion to the judicial business from other parts of the empire, the business in that House could easily be kept within proper bounds, and the effect would be very great in the other courts, particularly in the court of Chancery, from which the distinguished individual who presided in that court was withdrawn, to attend to the duties which grew out of these appeals. The first question which naturally presented itself to every mind, was this-would it be possible to remove the appellate jurisdic-ing appeals; and it was believed that if tion of Scotch causes? If that were practicable, and conceived to be advisable, it would at once remove all the difficulties which they now laboured under. And he had no hesitation in stating his opinion (not meaning to say that it was the opinion of the committee), that with respect to removing the appeals from Scotland, he saw no objection to the principle, but very strong and forcible reasons in favour of it. [Hear, hear.] What were the cases in which the House was called upon to decide in the dernier resort? They were called upon to decide on the law, of which as English lawyers they knew nothing; the Scotch law being as different from the law of England as that of any foreign country. He knew that his noble and learned friend on the woolsack, with the accumulated experience of thirty years, had administered that law as much to the satisfaction of the people of Scotland, as he did that branch of the English law to the satisfaction of the people of England. But, with the exception of his noble and learned friend, and another noble and learned lord not now present (lord Redesdale), and two or three individuals at the bar who had made it their peculiar study, the whole of the bar and the bench of judges were entirely unacquainted with the law of Scotland. Looking then, at this, he would say, that the most simple remedy would be, to relieve the House from the Scotch appeals, and appoint a special jurisdiction for the purpose. He was fully aware of the difficulties which would stand in the way of such a measure; and on the score of public opinion (so far as the committee could collect) it appeared, that the opinion of the people of Scotland leaned very strongly to a complete revision could take place in the form of proceedings in Scotland, and instead of being in writing, that they should be by oral discussion and argument, it would simplify those proceedings, and the same advantage would result as was felt in this country. Though much might be done in this way, yet all could not be done; but he could see no objection to a trial being made, and the committee had strongly recommended the appointment of a commission thoroughly to investigate the subject, and from whom a report might soon be expected; at least, no time would be lost by the adoption of the measure, and it could do no harm; for the number of appeals to be disposed of was so great (and nothing prospective could be done till they were got rid of), that the House would be in possession of the report before that period arrived. The first proposition, therefore, which he had to submit to the House was, a bill for the appointment of a commission, with reference to the inquiry to which he had alluded. He came now to the more pressing question of what was to be done with the existing arrear. If the House could do away with the Scotch appeals prospectively, he did not see that they could send the arrears to any other tribunal. As far, therefore, as regarded them, the House must deal with them in some way or the other. The House had already made the effort of sitting three days in the week, certainly to the prejudice of the administration of justice elsewhere. He saw, therefore, no way but increasing the number of days during which the House would sit for hearing appeals; and he was at first for proposing to extend it to six days; but those best acquainted with the extent of the judi- | for getting rid of the arrears. If it had been found impossible to draw the lord Chancellor from the court of Chancery for three days, even, without retarding the business of that court, and the House were to make it necessary for him to attend for five days in the week, he would clearly be unable to attend to any part of the business of the court of Chancery. He (lord L.) knew there had been other modes by which it was thought this object might be attained. It had been supposed, that it might be attained by taking away part of the business which was executed by the lord Chancellor in matters of lunacy and bankruptcy-both very important branches of business; and he should be unwilling to see any part of it withdrawn from the lord Chancellor. The jurisdiction in matters of lunacy was very important, and the decisions in bankruptcy were without appeal; which was a strong reason why their lordships should be averse from withdrawing it from the lord Chancellor. But the more urgent reason was this, that if they did so withdraw them, it would give no sufficient relief; for, supposing that the lord Chancellor was freed from attending to bankruptcies and lunacy cases, the number of additional days on which he might be able to give his attention to the business of appeals in that House, would be comparatively few, and altogether insufficient to discharge the whole of the business which would await their lordships' consi deration. He thought, therefore, that that project would be insufficient to remove the present inconvenience. There was another proposition suggested. It was, that the office of lord Chancellor should be revised, and that it should be separated from that of Speaker of their lordships' House. To this he had extremely strong objections. He was, in the first place, unwilling to see that high and ancient office frittered away by regulations for reducing or dividing its duties; but even if that were done, it would, he maintained, still be insufficient: for, as it was said that the appointment of a viceChancellor increased the business in one respect, by leaving appeals from him to the Chancellor; so he would contend, that the business before their lordships would rather be increased than diminished, by the separation of the office of Speaker of their lordships' House and president of the court of Chancery. Appeals would still be made from the court of 4 L Chancery to their lordships, and very pro- The Earl of Carnarvon said, he could others of their lordships would have to but he, not being a peer, could only give that the decision would not be that of their lordships, but of the individual who had heard the case. This mode of proceeding would, he contended, be most unsatisfactory to the public, and highly derogatory from their lordships' character, as constituting the highest court of appeal. It was said, that the attendance of their lordships to these hearings should be comHe could understand the justice pulsory. of that principle, if the same lords were obliged to hear the whole of one case; but he could not understand it when three lords were to hear one part, and three other lords were to decide upon that which they had not heard. According to this new plan, three of their lordships were to be brought compulsorily from distant parts of the kingdom, from their local duties, to act a part in the most ridiculous farce that ever was thought of. If he had not heard the very solemn manner in which this proposition was introduced by the noble earl at the head of his majesty's government, he should have believed that it was intended to satirize and ridicule their lordships' privileges. As far as the appellants before their lordships were considered, it would, he thought, be doing them more injustice to oblige them to resort to this new tribunal, than if they had left them for their remedy to any other tribunal in the country. For his own part, nothing but compulsion should induce him to be present at any such proceeding. The Earl of Rosslyn said, that as a member of the committee, whose report was before their lordships, and at whose recommendation this plan had been submitted, he could not sit silent after what had fallen from his noble friend. He maintained, that the proposition now before their lordships was in perfect accordance with their practice heretofore. Supposing the lord chancellor, to be absent, was it not the practice to have a deputy Speaker, who generally was not a peer of parliament? Or, suppose the king were to exercise his prerogative, and place a commoner on the woolsack, as lord keeper, would it be said that their lordships privileges were thereby annihilated? Their lordships had seen the law administered, and well administered, by commoners who sat pro tempore, on the woolsack, and who had been called upon by their lordships to give their opinion. There were also cases in which the opinions of learned lords had been set aside by the opinions of peers, whose attention had not been so much given to the study of the law. He would contend that the House would not, by the proposed plan, be in a different situation from that in which they were already placed, with respect to the presidency of a lord keeper, or a deputy Speaker, except that noble lords would have to attend by compulsion, and in rotation; and that, he thought, would be better than leaving it open to noble lords to attend at the solicitation of parties concerned. He contended, that the plan was in perfect accordance with the recognized practice of their lordships; and that, if they declared themselves incompetent to this appellate jurisdiction, there were none of their duties to which they might not make the same objection. The bill was read a first time. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, June 26. PETITION OF GEORGE ROWAN-COMPLAINT AGAINST A MEMBER.] Mr. Brougham presented a petition, which had been sent to him from Ireland by an individual of the name of George Rowan, of whom he had no knowledge, nor of the facts which he stated in his petition. He had a painful duty to perform in presenting this petition, inasmuch as it reflected upon the conduct and character of a member of the House. He should therefore do nothing more than move, that this petition be brought up. The petition was accordingly brought up, and read:-It stated, that the petitioner had been dismissed from a situation which he held in the Excise by means of a conspiracy which had been formed against him by W. M. Twiss and others; that W. M. Twiss had been appointed to the situation which the petitioner had filled, by the interest of colonel Crosbie, his father-in-law; that in consequence of some defalcation in his accounts, W. M. Twiss had been dismissed from it, and that he had recently been reappointed to it, though he was confined at the time for debt in the Marshalsea prison at Dublin, and was seeking the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors' act. It accused colonel Crosbie of having taken a bribe of 1,000l. to secure this appointment to Mr. Twiss, and also charged him with receiving, on several distinct occasions, money for the patronage at his disposal. On the motion, that the petition be laid on the table, Colonel Crosbie addressed the House in a low tone of voice. He said, it was true that Mr. Twiss, who was his son-in-law, had obtained, through his interest, the appointment of collector of the Excise, but that it was false that he had received for it any sum of money whatever. He likewise denied, in the most positive and unqualified manner, that he had ever received a farthing for the situation to which he had got his nephew appointed. He could only say, that the charges which the petitioner had brought against him were false and unfounded, and that he would adopt every means in his power to compel him to make redress for bringing them so publicly forward. Mr. Croker said, that, to a certain degree, he could corroborate the statement of the hon. gentleman who had just sat down. Mr. Twiss, with whom he had become acquainted whilst going the circuit in Ireland, had recently called upon him, and had applied for his good offices in recovering the situation from which he had been removed. He had told Mr. Twiss, that he would make the requisite inquiries in Ireland, and, if the answer was satisfactory, would employ what interest he had in his behalf. He had made those inquiries. The result of them had been satisfactory; and the consequence was, that Mr. Twiss was re-appointed to his situation. Mr. Twiss brought him no recommendation from colonel Crosbie, nor, indeed, from any other person. He thought it right to add, that he had never had the slightest communication with colonel Crosbie on this subject. Mr. Wynn asked, whether it was right that a petition should be laid on the table, which charged a member of the House with an offence for which he was indictable in a court of law. If such a petition were suffered to lie on the table, the House must, for its own credit, as well as for that of the hon. member accused, enter into an investigation of the charges it contained. As the ordinary tribunals of the country were competent to entertain the accusations of the petitioner, he thought that there was no occasion for the House to take them up. He therefore suggested to his hon. and learned friend to withdraw the petition. Mr. Brougham said, that after the distinct, unequivocal, and unreserved manner, in which the charge had been denied by the hon. member opposite, he was bound by every principle of justice and humanity to believe that the allegations in the petition could not be sustained, and he could have no hesitation in withdrawing the petition, as it would be open to the petitioner, if he still persisted in the charge, to renew his petition in the next session. In the mean time, an opportunity would be afforded the petitioner of considering the serious responsibility he incurred, if he brought a false charge against a member of that House, and the punishment which would, in that case, await him for a breach of the privileges of parliament. The petition was then withdrawn. ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW IN IRELAND.] Mr. Brougham, having moved, that the petition which he yesterday presented from the Roman Catholics of Ireland, complaining of the Inequality in the Administration of the Law, be entered as read, said, that he had never risen to address the House under feelings of greater anxiety. When he recollected the vast talent, on both sides of the House, which had been employed at various pe-iods on topics connected with the subject of the petition, and the multitude of persons in Ireland earnestly looking at the result of this discussion-when he considered even the strength of the case committed to his charge; and, more than all, the present state of the sister kingdom, it might well be supposed that he felt somewhat overawed at the task he had undertaken. The petitioners themselves had rendered the duty incalculably more difficult; for, whereas, when the Catholic question was discussed, the affairs of Ireland, and the intolerant and injudicious scheme of policy long pursued there, had been constant matters of debate, and had been handled, by the ablest men, in every different form in which they could be shaped by talent and ingenuity; and whereas the great desideratum now was, to supply an answer to this question, "What is the practical effect of that system?"-to solve this difficulty, “ How do the penal laws operate in Ireland, not merely upon individuals of rank excluded from the higher offices of the state, but upon all classes, from the loftiest to the lowest ;" and whereas the petitioners, in the very title of their representation of grievance, complained of " inequality in the administration of the law,"-yet they, who of all others were able to give the best information, to afford the clearest solution, to stop the mouths of those who maintained that there was no practical evil, by showing that justice was not equally administered by giving facts in detail-the petitioners, intimately acquainted with the merits of their own case, deeply feeling the grievances under which they laboured, and having daily and hourly experience of the consequences of the present system, had nevertheless omitted all statement of particulars, and had confined themselves merely to general declarations. He made this a ground of complaint, certainly not from himself towards the petitioners, but from himself on their behalf, because they thus sent him into court, as it were, briefless, requiring him to answer all objections, without being furnished by them with the means of doing so. He was thus reduced to one of two alternatives—either he must undertake the hopeless task of again going over the ground repeatedly trodden by the greatest men; or he must attempt, what was perhaps yet more hopeless, to supply the defect in the case that had been intrusted to his hands. He took the cause for this oversight to be this--the petitioners did not give the House credit for knowing so little of the present state of Ireland; they assumed that the House knew what it did not know-that it was aware of facts that might be proved at the bar, to show that justice was not equally administered to all classes in Ireland. When parties entered a court of justice in this country (for in this country they happily were courts of justice), rich and poor were treated with the same impartiality. The |