made against the idea of a plurality of judges; but he was prepared to show that the case was not parallel, and that the courts bore no resemblance to each other on this particular point. He felt conscious of his own inability, and he should not therefore have intruded any notions of his own, if it had not been his object to call forth the sentiments of others, on the nature and magnitude of the evil he had placed before the House, an evil which no man could venture to extenuate or disguise. He would say to both sides of the House, and particularly to that which took the lead in the administration of the country,

-Si quid novisti rectius istis, Candidus imperti; si non, his utere mecum.

He implored of gentlemen not to dismiss from their most serious consideration, a question of such vital interest as this was to the community at large, because, on the first view of the plan, they might regard it as visionary and novel. He was far from being so confident in himself as not to suspect that there were faults in the arrangement he had submitted to their view, and he should not therefore press them that evening for a decision; but he thought it due to the people who had suffered so long the severe inflictions of delay, that the House should, in an open and manly manner, declare that they would, in the next session of parliament, attempt the redress of wrongs so evident as to their existence, and so appalling in their nature; without this avowal on their part, he did not see how gentlemen could lay their hands on their hearts and say, with any truth, that they had acted in the spirit of that famous statute of their ancestors, which, in the face of the world, spoke these memorable words" Nulli negabimus aut differemus, Rectum aut Justitiam. He would now beg leave to move, "That this House will, early in the next session of parliament, take into its most serious consideration the present state of the High Court of Chancery of England, as well as that of the Appellant Jurisdiction of the House of Lords, with a view to the adoption of such measures as will tend in future to facilitate the general business of those courts."

The Marquis of Londonderry said, that although parliament sometimes pledged itself as to the course it would take in a subsequent session, it should never do so with out great caution; and he thought they

should hesitate to do so in the present case, because the resolution countenanced the opinion that there was something wrong in the Court of Chancery, and that a practical remedy thad been proposed. He was not at that time capable of forming an opinion as to the sweeping remedy which had been proposed. As far as the appeal business of the House of Lords was concerned, he understood that the establishment of the vice-chancellor's court had been eminently successful. As to the original business of the court, he understood that it was never less in arrear than at present. He suggested that it would be advisable to withdraw the motion, especially as much information on the subject, which had been moved for by the hon. member for Wareham, was not yet on the table. If the hon. gentleman persisted in his motion, he should move the previous question.

The Attorney-General wished to say a few words in reply to the reflections which his hon. friend had cast upon the learned lord who presided in the Court of Chancery. His hon. friend had said, that there were the same arrears in cases of bankruptcy and original causes, at present, as there had been before the creation of the Vice-chancellor's court. Now this was by no means the fact, as there were no original causes and no cases of bankruptcy, at this moment, in arrear. There had been an increase of appeals to the lord chancellor, but that was to be attributed to the desire which every man felt to have his case decided by the great talents and learning of that learned lord. No decisions had been, or would hereafter, be more respected than those of the learned judge who now presided in the Court of Chancery,

Mr. Lockhart said, that the delay, if such it might be called, arose out of the mechanism of the court. It was a most severe hardship upon every small legatee, in case of dispute, to be obliged to file bill in chancery, which perhaps cost him more than his legacy; or to abandon his claim altogether. Justice was thus denied, and dishonesty promoted. The mere statement of such a grievance ought to induce the House to pledge itself to inquire.

Mr. Serjeant Onslow contended, that it might be dangerous, at this late period of the session, for the House to pledge itself to inquire. The course of argument adopted by the last speaker, rather

been easily, in past times, deprived of the services of some of the greatest ornaments on both sides of it.

Mr. S. Wortley maintained, that the act of James 1st confined the liability of being taken under a new writ to persons who were taken in execution subsequently to their election. In all the cases previous to that time, the persons declared to be entitled to privilege, had been arrested subsequently to their election. Mr. Burton had the means, if he chose, of paying his debts, for he was a man of considerable property. As to his six years confinement, it was merely nominal, for at the time of his supposed imprisonment, he had himself seen that gentleman at Doncaster races.

Mr. Baring agreed that there was abun dant reason for not granting any compensation to the individuals in question. He confessed, however, that he saw no difficulty in dealing with this privilege, as it was called, in such a way as would preserve what was valuable in it to the House, and at the same time prevent it from becoming a source of fraud between individuals. The present case was not the first of the kind; for some years ago an individual had succeeded in making his way out of the King's-bench through that House, and had afterwards quitted the kingdom. He thought there would be no difficulty in enacting, that if any member should plead privilege in exemption of arrest, within a given time after his election, his seat should become ipso facto

void.

The motion was negatived.

IRISH TREASURY BILLS.] Mr. Maberly rose to bring forward his promised motion with regard to the interest paid upon Irish Treasury-bills, compared to that upon Exchequer bills. The Treasury bills in Ireland were to raise money for the public uses, in the same manner as the Exchequer bills; but they were not sold in open market in Ireland, as the Exchequer bills were in this country; and were issued, he presumed, by special favour as the Bank of Ireland thought proper. In 1815, the unfunded debt of Ireland was about 2,500,000l.; in 1816, 2,500,000/.; in 1817, 5,000,000l.; in 1818, it exceeded 5,600,000l.; and in 1819 it was nearly 5,000,000. Up to 1818, the Bank received 5 per cent interest upon these bills; and in 1819 and 1820, they had 4 per cent. In the early part of 1815, the rate VOL. V.

of interest upon Exchequer bills was 34d. per diem; or 5l. 6s. 3d. per cent per ann. In the latter part of that year it was 31d. or 4l. 18s. 10d. In 1816, it was 3d. In 1817, it was 24d. or 3l. 16s. 2d. per ann.; and afterwards, in the same year, 2d. or 31. Os. 10d. On the sale of these bills, too, it must be observed, that the government expected a premium of 5s. which of course ought to be considered in abatement of the interest. From the course pursued, he calculated that the public had lost in 1816, near 12,500; in 1817, 92,000l.; in 1818, 125,000l.; in 1819, 109,000.; in 1820, 94,000l.; forming a total of upwards of 400,000l. in a few years, and being nearly equal to 500,000l., which the Bank of Ireland lent at 4 per cent upon the renewal of their charter. His present object was prospective, and in the hope of preventing, in future transactions, an expenditure which he thought need not be incurred, he would move, "That it is expedient that the same rate of Interest should be paid on Irish Treasury Bills as on Exchequer Bills."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, it was but fair that Ireland should be placed in as advantageous a situation as this country, with respect to loans, and it certainly was not in a better. Upon the repeal of the war taxes in 1816 government was under the necessity of making a loan from the Bank of Ireland, the capital of which had since been reduced from five to one million, while the interest had been reduced from five to four per cent, and if the remaining one million were now to be paid off, a loss would be incurred upon the exchange of at least two per cent, by which, of course, the public would suffer, although the means of paying it off might be borrowed at 3 per cent. By this proceeding also it would be recollected that one million must be taken from the circulation of England to be transferred to Ireland. The interest upon the unfunded debt had been reduced from five to three per cent, which reduction had produced a saving to the country of no less than 600,000l. a year.

Mr. Maberly said, that if a wise policy were pursued, there would be no necessity for the Banks of Ireland or England holding the Treasury bills in question, at a rate of interest different from that ar which the merchants of London were paid. If there was a man who could say conscientiously that the public ought to pay

3 X

GRAMPOUND DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.] Lord Milton, in rising to move that the House do agree to the Lords' Amendments in this bill, thought it necessary to say a few words, in order to guard himself from being supposed to prefer the present state of the bill to the state in which it was when it left that House. He thought it would have been much better had the franchise been transferred to Leeds; but, considering that the main object of the bill was not so much the substitution of any particular place, as the disfranchisement of Grampound, he should be sorry to propose any proceeding that might lead to the loss of the bill altogether. He hoped, however, that on some future occasion a measure might be adopted better calculated to repair the defects in our representative system, and to preserve the balance which ought to be maintained between the various interests of the country. The present was the fourth bill of a similar character, which increased the weight of the landed interest in that House. Now, with all his natural partiality for the landed interest, he was decidedly of opinion that the House ought not to legislate in a way which might give to any individual interest an undue preponderance.

Mr. Wynn said, he regretted the alterations made in the bill, As the Lords had agreed to the disfranchisement of Grampound, he thought it would have been

better if they had sent down a separate bill mentioning the place to which they wished the franchise to be transferred. He thought the situation of the county of York, unless divided into two counties, would be rendered much worse by having to elect four representatives in place of two. It would afford opportunities of keeping open the poll, when there was no hope or chance of success. It was likely, too, that the West Riding would return all the four members, inasmuch as 14,000 polled there at the last election, and only 8,000 in the North and East riding, He wished, therefore, that the bill might be sent back to the Lords with an amend ment, the object of which would be to provide that the West riding, including the city of York, should send two representatives to parliament, and the East and North riding two more. They might state at the same time that they did not insist on the amendment, and by that means incur no risk of losing the bill.

Mr. Stuart Wortley said, that the House of Lords had placed them in a more cruel situation than they had ever before stood in. The question originally was, whether the elective franchise should be extended to the county of York, or given to the town of Leeds. That House had solemnly decided in favour of the latter proposition. The Lords had, however, entirely changed the bill. They said, "You shall not have two burgesses, but you shall have two knights of the shire." Now, he would ask whether, in a case affecting the rights of the Commons, the Lords ought to have made a change of such magnitude, without the most serious consideration. He would contend that by the alteration made in this bill the peers had added greatly to their influence. He would say that a greater misfortune could not hap pen to the county of York than the having four representatives in parliament, Looking, however, to the bill, he could not give it his sanction, for the mere purpose of securing the principle on which it was founded. It was a measure which satisfied nobody, not even those who were most favourable to reform. Their better course would be to reject this bill, to agree to a second for the disfranchisement of Grampound, and afterwards to consider to what place the elective franchise should be granted.

The Marquis of Londonderry admitted that this was a case of considerable diffi culty. For his own part, he did not think