was the more accurate on that point, because immediately after leaving the office, he committed the chief points of the conversation to paper. Confiding in that promise, he, on the fourth of June, 1821, addressed a letter to the commissioners, calling to their recollection the conversations which had previously taken place, and the assurance then given that if any claimant received more than three per cent he should receive the same. Now, it was evident from the answer to that letter, that the recollection of the conversations with Mr. Simcox was fresh in the memory of the commissioners. He therefore knew not how they could turn round and say, that they had no remembrance of such a promise. The hon. member then proceeded to point out several cases, similar to that of Mr. Simcox, begining with one which occurred in 1788, where claims on the French government had been paid with an interest of five per cent. Another objection that would be raised against the claim of Mr. Simcox was, that if the commissioners did give such a promise, they were not warranted in doing

But was it to be borne, that gentlemen placed in a situation of great responsibility, wielding the authority of commissioners, and acting under the sanction of an oath was it to be borne that they should be allowed, in the first instance, to give a promise, by confiding in which an individual was greatly prejudiced, and then to turn round and say, "if we gave that promise, we did that which we had no authority to do?" It would be much more correct for them to go to the Treasury, and, having expressed their sorrow at having taken such a course, request that justice might be done to those who had suffered. The great argument urged against the petitioner was, that he had not prosecuted his appeal, as he ought to have done. But why did he not prosecute it? Because the commissioners themselves had, by their promise, induced him not to do so. He trusted that the right hon. gentleman would give his deliberate attention to the case, in order that justice might be done to the petitioner.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he was one of those who considered the presentation of a petition to that House as not affording a fair opportunity for the discussion of nice legal points. It was impossible for gentlemen to come to the consideration of such a question, without

having their opinion more or less influenced by their previous feelings. The point for consideration was simply this, whether the House would consent to retry "a ques tion which had already been decided by commissioners specially appointed under an act of parliament, - -a decision which had not been appealed against in the manner which that act required. The ground assigned for this application was, that an individual commissioner had expressed sentiments which had induced certain parties not to prosecute an appeal, as they might and otherwise would have done. He could not agree, that the course now taken was a proper one, with respect to questions of this nature. With respect to the promise alleged to have been made by the commissioners, he had consulted one of the gentlemen who was said to have made that promise. Mr. Collingwood was out of town; but in the letter written in June, to which allusion had been made, there was a paragraph, in that gentleman's own hand writing, denying having given any such promise; and it was remarkable, that in the petition that paragraph was omitted. He had consulted Mr. Hammond, another of the commissioners; and that gentleman stated, that any promise or advice given to Mr. Simcox, was simply to await the adjudication of Mr. Boyd's case, in order to save the unnecessary expense of an appeal. In his opinion, the commissioners had acted, in this case, with great imprudence. They should not have acted under the influence of kind or favourable feeling; but, when applied to for their advice, they ought to have an¬ swered-"Gentlemen, it is for you to decide whether you will appeal or not.” That they had given no promise was plainly proved by the letter to which he had before referred. Looking to the whole of the case, he could not consent to any interference with the decision which had been come to, because it would establish a precedent of a very dangerous nature.net

Mr. K. Douglas was of opinion, as the right hon. gentleman had not contradicted the fact, that the case of Mr. Boyd and that of Mr. Simcox were nearly alike; and as it was admitted, that the balance had been paid over to the Treasury by the commissioners, that the question ought to be reviewed by the Treasury, in order that justice should be done to the petitioner.

Mr. Bernal said, that circumstances had prevented the petitioner from appeal

of this understanding Was it just, then, to deny them a re-hearing?

ing in the time required by law, but this did not affect the justice of the claim; and as the Treasury had the money, they ought to pay the claim. The fear of establishing a precedent ought not to prevent an act of justice.),

Mr. P. Thomson said, that the petitioner having no other court to apply to, naturally looked to the House of Commons for relief. It was clear, that he had not appealed, in consequence of some misunderstanding between him and the commissioners, and he thought that, under such circumstances, if the House refused to grant a committee, it would be guilty of an act of harsh injustice.

Mr. R. Grant hoped the chancellor of the Exchequer would reconsider this case, since the interest of so many persons were involved in it. His right hon. friend grounded his opposition upon these points: →that the House ought not to take a case under their consideration, after it had been finally adjudicated; that the petitioner had the full opportunity of appeal, and that he neglected that opportunity; and lastly, that the House ought not to be guided by private conversations of the commissioners, but by their adjudication as it appeared in their award. Now, it should be recollected, that a sense of justice had already induced the House to interfere in cases like the present. In 1819, lord Castlereagh had said, that if any surplus remained, the cases of those who had not prosecuted their claims within the legal period should be attended to; but all those cases must be considered as out of court, if this case was to be so considered on the ground of his right hon. friend. As to the argument, that they were not to be bound by private conversations of the commissioners, he begged to remind his right hon. friend, that in legal proceedings an open understanding in court was perfectly binding, and that conversations were frequently necessary for the arrangement of business. The petitioner and others swear to a certain understanding; and two only of the commissioners declare that they have no recollection of such understanding. It might be that the commissioners, who had so many cases before them, did not recollect it; but it was very unlikely that the parties, who were so deeply interested in the matter, should forget it. This however was not the question. The fact they were to consider was this,-that the petitioners had been led into a firm belief

Mr. Baring was always averse to claims. of this description coming before the House. It was very immaterial how committees of inquiry upon such subjects were appointed; for he had seen so much injustice done in such committees, and particularly with respect to the public, that it confirmed him in his opinion, that they were the worst tribunals for cases of that sort. He must, however, say, that the present case was one of very great hardship. Supposing the chancellor of the Exchequer right in his position, it was quite clear that the party himself considered the pledge to have been given by the commissioner. For it was quite impossible to suppose that any person, with the ordinary regard to his interests, would not have taken the benefit of an appeal, if he had not secured himself by the assurance which he understood the commissioners had given him. Even taking the views of the right hon. gentleman to be correct, the case was one of extreme hardship.

1

Mr. Littleton said, he had no wish to press for a committee, though he could not reconcile it to his sense of justice to let the case rest here. Would the chancellor of the Exchequer himself nominate a committee, or consent to a short bill to allow the petitioner to go before the privy council? There remained a surplus of 250,000l., and the whole amount of the claims of this class was not one-fifth of that sum.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer felt the greatest objection to nominate a committee for the purpose of trying a claim that had been already investigated. It was impossible for him to support the claims of any class of claimants, unless he was convinced that they had greater claims on the consideration of the Treasury than those already rejected. The present was not a single case, nor one of a single class of cases; for which reason he must oppose the motion for a committee.

Mr. K. Douglas said, that the right hon. gentleman might bring in a bill to re-consider these cases. Something ought to be done; for the cases involved great hardship and injustice..

Mr. R. Grant thought, that the.commission might be renewed for three or four months to re-consider the claims. There could be no difficulty in doing justice, where the disposition existed.

Ordered to be printed.

› INTERFERENCE OF THE BENGAL GoVERNMENT WITH THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE.] Mr. Peel moved the second reading of the Justice of Peace Bill.

Mr. Brougham said, he would take the present opportunity of putting a question to the right hon. secretary. He had seen, with concern and surprise, an account of certain proceedings with respect to the judicial operation of the Court of Justice in Bombay. He alluded to the interference of the government with the proceedings of that Court; and it certainly appeared to him impossible that parliament should let pass the earliest opportunity of obtaining an explanation of that most extraordinary proceeding. The interference of the political and military government of the country with the solemn decision of a court of judicature, was of itself a sufficient reason for calling for explanation. He should abstain from entering into the merits of this question. He would indeed assume that the court of justice might have come to a wrong decision. The court supposed that its jurisdiction over native subjects extended beyond the territory in which it was situated, and acted upon that supposition. Thereupon the court received a communication from the government, in terms directly interfering with the jurisdiction of the court of justice. The communication notified to the court, that steps had been taken by the government to prevent their decision being put into effect, and warning the court how they proceeded further in such a course. The communication stated, that the government had transmitted their view of the case to the authorities in England, and suggested to the court that they might do

the same.

He by no means meant to cast blame on any body without inquiry; all he maintained was, that it was impossible for parliament to let slip the earliest opportunity of calling for an explanation of the affair. He should be most happy to hear that the matter was in a course of inquiry elsewhere, or that government had come to the resolution of submitting to parliament a measure declaratory of the law, for the purpose of removing all doubts on the subject

Mr. Brougham was ready to admit the extreme delicacy of the subject, and was unwilling to press it further.

Sir J. Macintosh said, that the answer given to his learned friend relieved him from the necessity of saying a few words on a subject, which he should otherwise have felt bound to notice, both from principle and from recollections of friendship.

LAW COMMISSION.] Mr. Brougham said, he wished to ascertain how it was the intention of government to act on an important subject. There was before the House a report of the commissioners appointed to inquire into the courts of law. He thought they had limited the field over which they had a right to go; but still, as far as the report went, he could not conceive any thing much more complete. It united great firmness and moderation. It showed a determination not to shrink from reform, from the apprehension that they might be thought by some to go too far; and on the other hand, it manifested every disposition to consult even the most groundless scruples, and the most ill-founded prejudices, of those who were opposed to any change. He never saw any thing more admirable than the manner in which the commissioners had applied their minds to the consideration of those objections, to every one of which they had given most ample and satisfactory answers. He thought that great importance ought to be attached to the report as far as it went, and he wished that no time might be lost in acting upon its suggestions. The commissioners of inquiry had reported on two branches 1st, as to the administration of justice, particularly with respect to the enlarge ment necessary in Westminster-hall; and 2ndly, as to the propriety of uniting the Welsh with the English courts of judicature?'

.

during the recess, it would be a great advantage; at the same time it was necessary that such a bill should be well matured before it was introduced, in order that no undue prejudice should be raised against it on account of defective enactments. He was happy to find that the hon. colonel concurred in the recommendation of the commissioners, respecting the Welsh judicature. It was no reflection on the commissioners that there were local objections to their plan.

Mr. Brougham wished an inquiry into the law of arrest to be made by the existing commission; because it might be done by them more cheaply for the country than by a separate commission. He thought that a bill might be immediately introduced for fixing the terms.

Mr. Hume observed, that his motion last session upon the law of arrest had been given up, on the understanding that that subject should be referred to the commissioners. He hoped the right hon. gentleman would grant extended powers to the commissioners to report on this subject, that the House might be enabled to legislate upon it next year.

Mr. Peel said, he had not the slightest objection to extend their powers, and had only expressed his doubt as to the propriety of interrupting their present labours.

SOMERSET HOUSE-NEW COLLEGE.] Mr. Hume wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it was the intention of government to dispose of the ground of the eastern wing of Somerset House, for the purpose of erecting a College? If that report was true it went to shew that they had an idea of giving up the completion of that building, with the view of concentrating all the public departments. He trusted that this was not the case: especially after all that had been said as to the propriety of consolidating all the Public Offices.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he had no objection to state that it was the intention of government to dispose of that part of the ground for the purpose of a College being erected there, on condition that it should be made uniform with the rest of the building.

the committee of supply was to be called to the Militia Estimates, he would say a few words on the subject. He had long doubted the propriety of calling out the militia at all. He was aware that many per sons considered it a constitutional force, and that its destruction would be attended with danger. Those individuals, however, could not have considered the origin and object of the establishment of the militia. At the time the militia were established, this country had no standing army whatever. It was the only force for the protection of the country. Now that there was a standing army, which would continue so long as we had colonies, why should the militia be maintained? It was better to have a soldier regularly trained, than a man who was half soldier, half weaver, or half any thing else. In 1818 he proposed to get rid of the militia, but he had found the feeling of the House decidedly against him. Since that period the militia had cost the country 4,016,000l. Had they performed any services equivalent to that expense! He objected not only to the expense, but to the manner in which the militia was raised. He could not see why members of parliament should be exempted from the ballot any more than the working classes, Then it was most unfair to compel a poor man to pay the same fine which was im posed on the rich. He contended, that the mode of draughting was unequal, and being unequal, was unjust, and therefore ought to be discontinued. The regular army was the only force which should be used, unless something was given to those who were called into service by conscrip tion as an equivalent such as the right of voting for members of parliament, or some thing to that effect. But he would prefer having the system abolished altogether. Another objection to it was, that it gave an influence to lords-lieutenants of counties, which he thought ought to be done away with.

Colonel Sibthorp said, that the hon. member for Montrose had gone into details on this subject which proved that be was no soldier at all. It was admitted by those who were best acquainted with the service, that the militia was the very best nursery for the regular force. He thought the militia bill which had been introduced most oppressive and unjust in its operation on men who had long-served their country faithfully, tad mm

Colonel Wood was surprised, that the