exposed under it to the same inconveni- | legislature. It was not necessary for him ence as persons of the most abandoned to enter into the subject matter of it, but principles. The noble earl had entirely it prayed the House to take into considermisunderstood him when he supposed him ation the annexed public documents. It to assert that the people of Holland were dis- stated various matters; and among others affected to their government. He believed the conviction of the petitioner that it was the fact to be that they were contented in the contemplation of ministers to estaunder their present government; he had blish a kind of superintendence or censoronly denied that it was the wish of the ship over the press. king of the Netherlands to depart from the ancient form of government. Of this he was sure, however, that a measure like the Alien bill was not likely to ingratiate this country with the people of Holland. The motion was then negatived. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, May 14.. PETITION OF WILLIAM COBBETT.] Lord Cochrane said, he held in his hand a Petition on a subject as interesting as any that had ever been considered within the walls of that House. It proceeded from an individual who had been induced to exile himself from his country in consequence of those notorious and flagrant acts of spies and informers, by which the legislature had been excited to adopt the measures of the last session of parliament. This petition referred to two documentsaffidavits sworn before the mayor of Philadelphia, whose hand-writing was attested by the British consul. One of those affidavits was signed by William Stevens, a person who was implicated in the various transactions that had induced parliament to consent to the suspension of the constitution; the other signed by Charles Pendrill, who was also implicated in the same transactions. These affidavits placed the whole matter in the most clear and explicit point of view, showing that those transactions were attributable to the machinations and efforts of the spies and informers, and chiefly of Oliver. They described indeed such practices on the part of Oliver, that he was persuaded the House would feel it incumbent on them to institute an inquiry into the subject. The propriety and necessity of such an inquiry was obvious, and he trusted that ministers would not oppose it. He would add, that the petition was exceedingly respectful; perhaps, indeed, the most so he had ever had the honour to present. It was from a great political writer, who had thought it necessary to leave the country when the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act was in the contemplation of the The Speaker observed, that the noble lord was, perhaps, not aware that the appendix containing the affidavits could not with propriety be presented. The House might receive the petition, but would not receive any appendix. He thought it important to mention this to the noble lord at present, as, if he had rightly collected the tenor of the noble lord's observations, the noble lord had referred to papers aunexed to the petition. It would be for the noble lord to consider how far the petition itself would be intelligible without the affidavits. Lord Cochrane replied, that he would not say that the word "annexed" occurred in the petition, although it certainly refer red to the affidavits to which he had alluded. The Petition was then brought up, and read by the clerk. It purported to come from William Cobbett, of Botley, Hants, now residing at North Hampstead, in the state of New York, and dated March 7, 1818. He stated his feelings of veneration for the numerous acts of justice and liberality performed by the honourable House, and prayed with all humility to approach the sanctuary of the laws. He prayed for their consideration of the effects resulting from the artifices of spies, informers, and designing men, and prostituted lawyers; and lamented the consequence of the House deferring their conscientious consideration of the important matters about which the documents would give some communication. He had met two of his countrymen in Philadelphia,who had related much of the practices of Oliver, the spy. They had drawn up their statements voluntarily and authenticated them upon oath before the mayor of Philadelphia. These statements they delivered to the petitioner, who now presumed to submit them to the House, and to place them in their undefiled hands for proper examination. The petition made some strong remarks on the conduct and language of Mr. Cross, on the Derby trials, and on the notorious colonel Fletcher, who attended a meeting at Manchester. After the exe cution of Brandreth, he observed that it was stated in two ministerial prints, that there was an intention on the part of government to check or stop the publication and circulation of a certain description of writings. He had thought it his duty to the House and the country to submit this petition with the documents added to it, especially as the latter were drawn up voluntarily. The persons who signed them were not at present in want of subsist ence; what they required they could obtain by their industry, under the protection of a free country. The petitioner concluded with praying, that the House would retrace its steps, and inquire into the origin of the events which led Brandreth and his companions to the block. On the question that the Petition do lie on the table, Mr. Bathurst observed, that he was one of those who were disposed to throw the doors of the House wide open to the petitions of the people. But if he correctly understood the object of this petition, it did not complain of any grievance which the petitioner had personally suffered, but called on the House to take up, generally, the consideration of a subject on which the petitioner had himself formed an opinion; which opinion was founded on certain affidavits annexed to the petition, from persons who, for reasons best known to themselves, had left their country, and who stated circumstances within their knowledge, affecting the general administration of justice. This was a description of petition utterly inadmissible. But if it had not been so; if the petitioner bad made any personal complaint, still he must have objected to the reception of the petition, involving as it did, a libel against a most respectable individual, who had excited general admiration by his talents, firmness, and judgment-he spoke of Mr. Cross. Because Mr. Cross happened to state that his unfortunate clients had, among others, been the victims of inflammatory publications, the petitioner arrogated to himself that he was the individual alluded to as the author of those publications, and took the opportunity of libelling the gentleman in question, and ascribing to him the most improper motives. The petition also contained another libel on colonel Fletcher, a most respectable magistrate in the county of Lancashire. The circumstance, however, that the petition complained of no grievance personal to the petitioner, was, he was persuaded, quite sufficient to induce the House not to receive it. Lord Cochrane said, that he considered the petition as being respectfully worded, and that the matter it contained was of high importance. He had, therefore, thought it his duty to present it, that the circumstances to which it adverted might be again brought under their consideration. He had, however, no objection to withdraw the petition on account of the word " annexed" being used in it as applying to the documents; but which he had not before noticed. He would do so, not from any certainty that another petition would be presented by the present petitioner, but to give the earliest intimation to the two persons who had made the affidavits, that their way of proceeding had been irregular, so that they might adopt a preferable mode. For himself, he thought that if the government valued their own character at home, or in the eyes of all the world, they would embrace any opportunity of investigation for clearing away the the scandal. Mr. W ynn wished to know whether the petition itself would be entered on the Journals. The Speaker replied, that the fact would shortly be stated, that such a petition had been offered, and allowed to be withdrawn, but nothing more. Mr. Wynn was glad to hear that, for he should have objected most strongly to allow charges against individuals, of the nature of those comprehended in the petition, to appear on their Journals, the House not having the power to punish the man by whom those charges were brought forward. The Petition was then withdrawn. COMMISSARY COURTS IN SCOTLAND.] Lord Archibald Hamilton rose to make his promised motion for the Correspondence between the Home Department and the Commissioners of Inquiry into the Courts of Justice in Scotland, respecting the Commissaries and the Commissary Clerks. The noble lord said, that his object was not general, but principally confined to the county which he had the honour to represent. His complaint was, that offices, the abolition of which had been strongly recommended by the commissions appointed to inquire into them, had nevertheless been filled up by government, and that they had been filled up for unconstitutional purposes. In conse missioners, but sir Ilay Campbell, the head of the commission, wrote particularly to the home department on the subject. The home department was also warned against this appointment, in a memorial from that part of the country. On what justifiable principle could his majesty's ministers, in opposition to such powerful recommendations and admonitions, make this new appointment for life, which entitled the receiver of it to compensation on the abolition of the office, when it was already filled by a person who, on its abolition, would have been entitled to no compensation? The noble lord concluded with moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Copy of any Letter, or the Substance of any Communication that may have been made by the Commissioners for inquiring into the duties and emoluments of the officers, clerks, and ministers of justice, of the courts of Scotland, or by any one of them, to the secretary of state for the home department, relative to the inexpediency of filling up any office in the Commissary Courts:" Also, a Copy or the substance of any similar communication that may have been made to the secretary of state for the home department, from any of the commissaries, or commissary clerks, of the said Courts." quence of proceedings in parliament, a commission had been appointed to inquire into the courts of justice in England, Scotland and Ireland, certainly against the inclination of government, as the inquiry affected Scotland at least; and their hostility had not subsided; for although a report from that commission was made four years ago, no single measure had been founded on it with respect to Scotland. That had not been the case with those parts of the report which related to England and Ireland. Why Scotland alone was omitted he was at a loss to conjecture. Although the commission appointed for the purpose had, after the investigation of the inferior commissary courts, recommended their abolition, ministers had nevertheless since thought fit to make appointments in those courts. They had also utterly neglected the recommendation of former commissions on the subject. The commission appointed by royal warrant in 1808 had stated, that in their opinion the proceedings before the inferior commissary courts were unnecessary and inconvenient, and that the business should be transferred to the sheriff's courts. In pursuance of the recommendation of the former commission, the late Lord Advocate introduced a bill into the House expressly for the abolition of the offices of the commissary clerks; but in consequence of some informality in the details, it did not receive the sanction of the House. It appeared, that notwithstanding the recommendation of the commissioners to abolish the office of commissary clerk, and that that office in the county with which he was connected, had been filled nearly two years, by a gentleman appointed by the court of session, and who, on the abolition of the office, would have been entitled to no compensation, his majesty's secretary of state named another person to that office, whose appointment was for life, and who, on the abolition of the office, must receive a suitable compensation. This appointment he believed to have been made merely to serve election purposes. His majesty's ministers had it in their power to convict him of making an erroneous assertion by assenting to his motion. The office had been bestowed for the sake of adding to the number of freeholders in the interest adverse to his (lord A. H.'s), in the county of Lanark. The appointment was not only made in opposition to the representation of the com Mr. Bathurst said, that as far as he could collect the meaning of what had fallen from the noble lord, his first object seemed to be a complaint against his majesty's ministers, for not carrying into effect by some legislative measure-for that was the only way in which they could be carried into effect-the suggestions made by commissioners appointed to inquire into the offices of the courts of justice in Scotland, to abolish certain offices in that country. How far ministers were bound, more than any other members of the legislature, to propose to the legislature any measure for giving effect to any suggestions of this description, was a question into which he did not then mean to enter. But it was obvious, that when a charge of misconduct was brought against any public officer, it was necessary to show that he had been guilty of a violation of some existing law. The next charge was, that an appointment had taken place to an office, which office had been recommended to be abolished by various persons. The next charge was, that such appoint ment had not only been made improperly, but made corruptly, with a view to certain election purposes; and that his noble relation (lord Sidmouth) had been applied to on the subject by a right hon. friend beside him (Mr. W. Dundas), on whose recommendation the appointment was made. With respect to the nature of the office in question, he could not be supposed to be acquainted, and what he was about to state, was communicated to him by a learned lord now absent. He had been told, that the commissary courts in Scotland were of the nature of our inferior ecclesiastical courts, and that without them, among other things, no probate of a will could be obtained. He had been told also, that the business of these courts could not be carried on without a subordinate officer, called a clerk. The usual course on the death or resignation of any of these clerks, was for the court of session to take on themselves the appointment of a clerk, ad interim, to discharge the duties of the office, till government had time to appoint a successor. This appointment of the court of session, which had not the right of patronage, took place for no longer a period than till the pleasure of his majesty's ministers could be known. This office was one, which the person legally appointed to ought to hold quamdiu se bene gesserit. Thus much with regard to the nature of the office, and the necessity there was of some person being appointed to it. The noble lord had stated truly, that a bill was brought in by a late Lord Advocate for the abolition of the office; but that bill did not receive the sanction of parliament, and how this failure could support the noble lord, he was at a loss to know. It was true this abolition had also been recommended by the commissioners; but he was informed that great objections existed as to the transfer recommended by these commissioners. Not only the bill he had alluded to, but another had been brought in for the abolition of commissary courts; but neither of them had received the sanction of the legislature. The vacancy in the present case had been filled up according to the principles of the constitutional law of Scotland. The court of session could only appoint ad interim, and an ad interim appointment could not be construed to extend to all possible time-till parliament in its wisdom should find some other way of disposing of this office,―till some future parliament should decide whether it should be kept up or abolished. Admitting, therefore, that a representation had been made by the whole board, or by any of the commissioners, to the secretary of state for the home department, not to fill up any vacancies in this office, this would not carry the case a bit farther. But he owed it, in justice to his noble relation to say, that no representations whatever had been receiv ed by him from the board, or from any individual of the board on the subject. If he understood the noble lord right, there was no complaint against Mr. Dunlop, or any other individual named by his noble friend, as improper persons for discharging the functions of the office. If the noble lord thought he had any ground for attributing corrupt motives to his noble relation, why not bring forward a charge against him? He had the return of the dates of the different appointments. He understood that at the time the appointment in the county with which the noble lord was connected took place, the person so appointed had no vote whatever in the county. The noble lord had dealt in nothing but loose conjectures. In conclusion, he begged leave to state, that there were no such papers in existence, as those for which the noble lord had moved. That was a sufficient answer to the motion; but he wished chiefly to rest his opposition on principle. Sir John Newport said, with respect to the Scotch commissioners, he had to state his perfect and entire approbation of the proceedings of the gentlemen on the commission. He believed that they had done their duty fairly and honourably; and if ministers did not choose to carry their views into execution, they were not answerable. The right hon. gentleman had been pleased to say, that his majesty's ministers could not be considered more bound than any other members to carry the views of these commissioners into execution. But it would be in the recollection of the House, that when he took the liberty of calling their attention to the indisposition shown by the ministers of the Crown to carry the views of the commissioners into execution, a noble lord opposite said, it was very unfair to prejudge his majesty's ministers, and not to leave them sufficient time to carry into execution the recommendation of the commissioners. He had stated thus much, because, if ministers did not choose to carry into execution the recommenda 669] others), into those offices, and had re- tions of the commissioners; and if, on the other hand, they endeavoured to prevent other members from carrying those recommendations into execution, it was perfectly useless to appoint any such commissioners. He had great pleasure in stating, that, very much to the credit of the government of Ireland, the recommendations of the commissioners appointed to inquire into the courts of that country, had been acted on to the great benefit of the public. With respect to the subject of this motion, he would leave it to gentlemen more conversant with the subject than himself. He would only say, that ministers, in filling up an office of which parliamentary commissioners had recommended the abolition, had been guilty of a high abuse of authority. Mr. W. Dundas, in answer to the complaint of the right hon. baronet of the inattention of ministers, in not bringing for ward sooner some measure for carrying into execution the views of the commissioners, stated, that the report of the commissioners had only been presented in February last. Were ministers to be arraigned because they did not choose to abolish, hand over head, an office of so much importance as that of commissary clerk. To find a substitute for the commissary courts would be attended with considerable difficulty. Ten years ago, the abolition of this office was recommended: two years afterwards a bill was brought in for that purpose, but it did not pass. Was the Crown not to exercise the right of appointing a legal officer, till parliament thought proper to pronounce an opinion whether that office ought or ought not to be abolished? Mr. J. P. Grant said, it was not possible for any person who would look at the circumstances which were admitted to have occurred, without concluding that the office in question had been filled up for the purposes of a job, in some quarter or other, to entitle the person who was thus unnecessarily nominated to an office for life to a compensation to which he would otherwise have had no claim. Four years before the appointment of the commission a bill had been brought in by his majesty's government to abolish those offices, which, on account of some objections to the details, had been rejected. The abolition of those offices had been approved of by the heads of all the courts Commissioners of justice in Scotland. had been appointed to inquire, (among a compensation would be granted. The appointment by the court of session, it was said, was equivocal. It was not equivocal; it had been submitted to from time immemorial, and was perfectly legal. It was said also, that it was an anomaly to appoint a judicial officer pro tempore. But the officer in question was the commissary clerk, not the commissary-a ministerial and not a judicial officer. What object, therefore, was there in continuing an ad interim appointment which had already continued two years, unless the sinister object of giving a person a claim on the public money for political purposes? He cared nothing The about the politics of the county of Lanark as connected with this subject. question was, whether the House of Commons and the country had been properly treated in this profuse waste of the public money? It had been said that no letter such as that which had been moved for had been received by the secretary of state. What objection, then, could there be to a return which would set that question at rest? If the motion was refused, he was constrained to believe there had been such a letter. Mr. H. Clive was of opinion that the appointment was perfectly just. The report was made on the 27th of June, and the individual was appointed by lord Sidmouth on the 12th of March preceding, so that his lordship must have been ignorant of the intentions of the commissioners with respect to those offices. Lord A. Hamilton in reply, observed that his arguments applied, not to one The report office, but to twenty three. recommended the abolition of twentythree commissaries and twenty-three clerks, whom government, acting on the principle they had adopted in this instance, would have the power of continuing. It had been asked, why, the Crown should be debarred from filling up these offices? He answered, because the Crown had appointed commissioners to inquire whether it was proper they should exist. He was as certain as he could be of any thing which he had not actually witnessed, that an intimation had been given to the secretary of state that it was the opinion |