said:—Mr. Speaker;—I hold in my hand a petition from the merchants and others engaged in trade with the British colonies in North America. In this petition they refer to another, which was lately presented to this House by certain merchants of the city of London, who expressed their conviction of the impolicy of the restrictive system as applied to foreign commerce, and prayed for the repeal of all duties merely protective from foreign competition. It was distinctly avowed by the hon. member who presented that petition, that one great object of it was, to produce a change in the practice, by which the intercourse with the British colonies in North America is at present regulated, and to divert a portion of the timber trade from those colonies to foreign countries in the North of Europe. The present petitioners, therefore, feel themselves bound to state, that they are extensively, engaged in trade with those colonies; that many of them have embarked large capitals in erecting mills and buildings of various descriptions, and steam engines, for the purpose of sawing timber, plank, and deals; and that they cannot but feel alarmed at any attempt to obtain, the repeal of those restrictions and protecting duties, upon which not only their own interests and the prosperity of those colonies, but the best interests of the mother country appear to them to depend. They beg leave to remind the House, that the general principle of colonial legislation has always been both protective and restrictive; protective by means of duties on articles the production of foreign countries similar to those produced in our colonies, and restrictive by requiring the colonies in return for this advantage, to receive all their supplies from and ship all their produce to the mother country in British ships. After pointing out the advantages of this system, the petitioners conclude by expressing their hope that the House will not consent to any alteration in the protecting duties upon timber, that may have the effect of giving greater, advantages to foreigners than those which they already possess. These petitioners have great claim to the favourable consideration of the House, for no mode Of investing capital can be more conducive to the prosperity of this country, than the employment of it in the encouragement and extension of her colonial establishments. Every individual who quits his native land and settles in a British colony, becomes more valuable to his own country than he was before. He still contributes to the consumption of her manufactures, and at the same time is employed in raising commodities not the produce of her soil and climate, but which are useful either for her own consumption, or as articles of barter with foreign powers. The greater the distance at which he resides, the more his intercourse with the mother country extends her carrying trade, and makes his industry contribute at once to both the great objects of her policy, the finding marts for her manufactures, and the maintenance of her naval power. Under this system, the prosperity of the colonies is reflected back upon the mother country. She grows with their growth and strengthens with their strength; but no such advantages are derived from an intercourse with foreign powers. They are not bound by the same double monopoly; they navigate in what ships they please, and consume what manufactures they please. Our interest in their prosperity is very indirect, and comparatively remote. Indeed the wealth they acquire, and the Strength they attain, are frequently used, not for, but against us. The transfer of any branch of trade, therefore, from our own colonies to foreign nations, is an act of the highest impolicy, as well as of injustice towards our fellow subjects. So rapid has been the improvement of the British colonies in North America under this trade, which we are now called upon to destroy, that I understand their population has been trebled since that trade was first opened, by our being excluded from the ports of the Baltic. It is stated to me upon good authority, that Upper and Lower Canada actually contain between, five and six hundred thousand inhabitants. The felling of timber is not, as has been said, an injurious employment, that retards; agriculture. On the contrary, it promotes it. Land must be cleared before it can possibly be cultivated. The mode formerly practised, was that of girdling the trees, as it is called; that is, cutting off a slip of the bark all round them, to prevent the sap from rising, and setting fire to them when they were sufficiently dry to burn; but since the timber trade has brought them into value, instead of being burned, they are sold. Thus the great difficulty under which the new settler formerly laboured, of finding means of subsistence till his land became productive, has been done away, and the progress of agriculture accelerated, instead of being retarded, by the timber trade. It may farther be observed, that in the British provinces in North America, the land is covered with frost and snow seven months out of the twelve, and all agricultural occupations are of course entirely suspended. During this period of the year, felling of timber is the sole employment; and resorted to as well by the fishermen of Nova Scotia, as by the settlers in Canada, who can do nothing else while that dreary season lasts. These establishments for the timber trade have greatly enhanced the value of the British colonies in North America, as resources on which our West India colonies may depend for an adequate supply of timber. This consideration is rendered of the more importance, by the present policy of the government of the United States of America, who have excluded from their ports all British vessels bound to or from our West India colonies, with the avowed intention of forcing us into the surrender of that intercourse with them, under the American flag, which they enjoyed during the late war; but which our government, in conformity to our general system of navigation, have refused, and in my opinion, wisely refused to concede, since the peace. This intercourse between our North American and West India colonies, which in 1805 employed only 135 sail of vessels, of 1,620 tons burden, in 1817 employed 394 sail of 56,689 tons burthen; and I doubt not has since progressively increased, though no later returns have yet been received. But if the North American colonies are discouraged, by being deprived of their market, for timber in this country, as is now proposed, all their great establishments for carrying On that trade must be abandoned; and our West India colonies, deprived of their supplies from this quarter, will become dependent upon the United States of America. The consequences of this state of things may easily be foreseen; for history cannot furnish an example, of colonies remaining long subject to one power and being dependant for their most important supplies, and even their means of subsistence, upon another. The wants and interests of mankind naturally bring them together; and the ruin of our colonies in North America, will soon be followed by the loss of those in the West Indies. It is impossible to impress too strongly upon the minds of the members of this House the importance of preserving our carrying trade, as the foundation of that naval power of which it must always be the measure and the standard. This truth was most strikingly exemplified in the history of Buonaparte, who, when the capitulation of Ulm had laid Austria at his feet, sighed, amidst all his victories, for ships, colonies, and commerce. Well he knew that these alone could consolidate his empire. For want of these, however, he extended his conquests; he and all his tributary nations were only prisoners in a larger cage, of which Great Britain kept the door; and all his attempts to establish a naval force proved abortive. Ships, indeed, he could command, and he filled his dock-yards and arsenals with them, from Antwerp to Venice, but seamen he could not raise, because France had lost her colonies and her commerce at the commencement of the war. Her seamen had been dragged into the field with other conscripts, and had perished. Soldiers may be made in a few months, but to make good seamen is the work of years; and for want of them, all his mighty preparations failed, and his ships lay rotting in their harbours. In the mean time, the ships of Great Britain who possessed colonies and commerce, and consequently seamen, rode triumphant on the main, and secured to her the uninterrupted enjoyment of those resources, which enabled her at length to bring the contest to a glorious termination. The policy of our navigation system, which it is the fashion of the day to decry, is supported, not only by its practical effects, in having raised us to a greater height of commercial prosperity and naval power than ever were enjoyed by any other nation, but by the authority of the best writers on political economy. I shall at present quote but one, whom I select because he is a living authority, and one whose name has great weight in this House. In Brougham's Colonial Policy, vol. 1, page 268, it is thus written:—"It has been the policy of most of the nations possessing colonies, to encourage the breed of seamen, and the building of ships, by imposing particular restrictions upon the employment of foreign vessels and crews. No nation has adopted this plan more steadily or successfully than England. Her system of navigation laws, though at first they may have been prejudicial to the interests of her colonies, and to the progress of her own opulence, was very soon known only by its good effects." The importance of this subject, and the strong feelings I have upon it, tempt me to go farther into detail; but having spoken at considerable length on a former occasion, I shall not now farther trespass upon the indulgence of the House, but conclude by moving that this petition be brought up.

gave notice, that it was his intention to-morrow to propose to the House a motion founded upon the papers which had been laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed.

begged the House to remember that to-morrow was a motion day, and therefore that the one of which the hon. gentleman had just given notice would have the precedence. He submitted to the House, in the mean time, whether it would not be expedient, seeing how deeply the hon. gentleman was engaged, in common with every other hon. member, in the result of this motion, that that should take place with respect to it which took place in regard to every motion where the government was itself engaged, as in cases where negotiations had taken place. He would appeal to the noble lord whether or no, in such cases, it was not usual to take the sense of the House previously to bringing forward the motion. The reason upon which he stated thus much was, that he took it for granted that his hon. friend was about to propose, either directly or indirectly, some renewal of the present broken negotiation. At the same time, this presumption was only founded upon the very general wording of his hon. friend's notice: he believed, however, that in such a case, it was to be expected that the hon. gentleman would favour them with the intentions he entertained in giving notice of such a proposition.

said, that in cases of negotiation, it was not necessary, as had been supposed by the hon. and learned gentleman for the government to take the opinion of the House at all. So in the case of the negotiations at Vienna, the House was not called upon to express any opinion previously. He, therefore, had nothing whatever to propose to the House on this subject. And his own sentiments would naturally be expressed when, upon moving the order of the day, some proposition should be brought forward with a view to render it unnecessary. The hon. member appeared to think that that pro- position would be quite open to discussion and explanation, whenever he should suggest it to the House. It really did not appear to him that any difficulty could be experienced in arguing the point at present at issue between the hon. gentleman and other hon. members; or in arguing other questions which might arise out of his motion, on the occasion of bringing it forward. But if they proceeded to argue them now, it might perhaps happen that the motion itself would he afterwards negatived. On these grounds, he could not see what good would result from the discussion on the present occasion, nor why the discussion of the order of the day for to-morrow was the best mode of proceeding in this case.

was sure the House would do him the justice to believe that he fully concurred with the noble lord in thinking any course which should be adverse to the standing orders of the day was not an advisable one; but, as the noble lord seemed to feel that no defence was at all necessary to be set up, as regarded his majesty's government, so he (Mr. B.) felt it necessary, in their vindication to say, that he was perfectly satisfied that the conduct of her majesty's legal advisers, and the conduct of her majesty herself, stood also in need of no defence. He was perfectly willing to leave both to the candour of the House and the justice: of the country, and to abide by the award I of their impartial judgment.

really thought, under the general language of the hon. gentleman's notice, that the best way would have been to have given no notice at all. If his hon. friend would now, however, state more particularly what his intentions were, and what course he intended to pursue, he would relieve himself and his hon. friends: from the degree of uncertainty in which they now stood relative to the member for Bramber's object.

would have been happy to have heard what his right hon. friend had to propose as the distinct alterations to be adopted in his notice. The terms of that notice., not being drawn up on paper, might be very well susceptible of such alterations as would result from trifling varieties of opinion or slight shades of explanation. The motion in question, he thought it would be almost impossible for the House to resist, believing, as he did, that there prevailed in that House, as well as throughout the country, a real desire that all the mischiefs to be anticipated from a discussion of the existing differences between their majesties should be avoided. He could only say that such was the object of his motion.

observed, that the hon. member expressed a wish to hear suggestions from the House, without giving them any opportunity of knowing upon what subject. He once more asked, not for himself but for the information of the House, what the nature of the hon. member's motion was? He could see no difficulty in stating generally what was intended to be done.

said, that his motion in a great measure explained itself; its object undoubtedly was to remove, as far as possible, all obstacles to an amicable arrangement of the differences existing between their majesties.

wished merely to say, that the object of his right hon. friend was to ascertain at least the principle of the proposed motion. It seemed to be certain that that motion was to have the precedence to-morrow; and he did think, after what had occurred.:—after the papers had been printed and put into the hands of members—and after all the preparations they had made to come down to the adjourned debate of to-morrow that it would not have been too much for the hon. gentleman to have stated the substance at least of his motion. He did not ask him to mention the terms, but the object ought surely to be known.

felt, as every man must do, the greatest possible reluctance to go into this subject at all, but, knowing nothing excepting what appeared on the paper, Would the hon. gentleman allow him to ask, whether his motion was of a nature to restore the name of her majesty to the Liturgy? because he took it for granted that such was the proposition he intended to make.

said, he would rather decline for the present giving any further explanation. He did not wish that his motion should have the precedence, although he could not help thanking his noble friend for the readiness which he had shown to concede it to him. His noble friend, by that concession, evinced a desire, in which he was joined by the whole country, to avoid, if possible, all further inquiry into this disastrous subject [Hear, hear!].

seeing the secretary at war in his place, rose to repeat the question he had put yesterday on the important subject of the late disturbance among a portion of the military, which had been produced, as it seemed, by the withholding of certain allowances. In adverting to this subject, he felt sure that he need not vindicate himself from the imputation of endeavouring to apologize for the motives which gave rise to the alarming claim to which he had alluded, though it was one of the many fatal evils arising out of the system of military government. His question was, for what reasons, and out. of what funds, any pay or allowances had been given for special services of the military at home, when no such pay or allowances were given on service abroad?

was happy to afford the noble lord information upon this point. It was a mistake to suppose that the late discontents in one battalion of the guards had any reference to pay or allowances: the men had alleged no such grievance, but the disorganization was produced by a notion, certainly unfounded, that the duty they were called upon to discharge was more severe than other battalions performed. Some years ago (whether at the time of the passing of the Corn bill, or when sir F. Burdett was conveyed to the Tower; he could not state) a practice had grown up in consequence of the employment of the men at night at a distance from their barracks, when they had no opportunity of procuring food, of giving the soldiers on duty certain small rations of bread, cheese, and beer, not in money, but in kind; and even this was never allowed but when the nature of the service particularly required it. It was paid for out of the commissariat department, on an account being verified of the number of loaves, and the quantity of cheese and beer, consumed. If tile noble lord wished for a statement of the amount thus disbursed, it could be furnished.

expressed his pleasure at the satisfactory explanation afforded by the noble secretary at war. He thought that the sum disbursed, however trifling, ought to come under the cognizance of parliament, though, for obvious reasons, he did not now wish to submit a motion upon the subject. He saw no sufficient reason for these rations, when the service at home was at all events lighter than that through which the men passed in the course of a foreign campaign. He ac- cordingly moved for "a return of the sums charged to the public for additional pay or allowance issued to the Foot or Lifeguards, or any other troops, when on duty for the preservation of the Public Peace, since May, 1810."—Ordered.

in moving that the House do resolve itself into a committee on this bill, said, that he was aware some objections were felt to the measure, particularly by members of the bar. No one was more anxious than him self to gratify the wishes and interests of the profession, and if the inconvenience which might be supposed to follow the bill did not fall much below the good that would result from it, he would not have introduced it. At present the chief justice was not allowed to sit at nisi prius for more than fourteen days after Term one of the objects of the present bill was to extend that time. Another object was, that two judges of the Court of King's bench might be allowed to sit at the same time, to hear nisi prius cases. This, he knew, was objected to, as altering the ancient constitution of that court. But when it was considered that for the last four or five years the business of that court had increased to a very great ex tents that alteration must be fairly allowed to be necessary, as the only way of getting rid of that arrear. However, he would only make the measure temporary; as far as this object. He intended there fore to limit it to two years, by which time the great arrear of business might, he hoped, be got rid of. If in the mean time the measure should be found pre judicial, it would of course at the end of the term cease to be law. If, on the other hand, it were found to be beneficial, the House would see the necessity of making it permanent.

said, that in duty to the profession of the law, he felt himself bound to oppose the bill. It was said that business: pressed upon the court, but if the trifling causes were removed from that court which Were of no benefit to the suitors, but, on the contrary, ended in the ruin both of the plaintiff1 and the defendant, it would relieve the court and benefit the public. But when it was said that the business of the court had greatly increased for the last years, he begged leave to deny it, and, in support of his assertion, referred to a statement, by which it appeared that the number of causes entered for trial in 1810 was 942; in 1811, 1008; in 1812, 1077; in 1813, 1033; in 1814, 803; in 1815, 879; in 1816, 899; in 1817, 809; in 1818, 810; and in 1819, 892; so that instead of an increase of business, there were during the years 1810, 11, 12, and 13, upwards of 200 causes more entered for trial than at the present period. He agreed with the attorney-general, that every facility ought to be afforded, in order to dispose of the business of the courts. And he should therefore think that the measure ought to be more general; but the plan of having two judges sitting at the same time to determine nisi prius cases, would only have the effect of increasing the business of the court which was, it appeared, already too great, because the greater part of the term business at present was made up of motions for new trials and arguments on points of law, growing out of nisi, prius trials previously had, therefore the increase of trials would only increase the quantity of term business. But why was the Court of King's bench thus overloaded? why was there so great a disproportion between the business of that court and the Court of Exchequer and Common Pleas? The Court of Exchequer had little business since the bill for authorizing the chief baron of that court to sit alone and determine equity causes. The puisne barons had almost nothing to do—they had as little to do as the barons of Scotland. Why was the business of the exchequer so little, whilst the business of the King's-bench was so great? The principal reason was this—the number of attorneys in the exchequer were very limited, the amount in clerks and assistants was but 16; if they threw open that court to the attorneys they would give the barons something to do. If such a measure would be found to interfere with the private rights of the officers of the exchequer, they would be fairly entitled to compensation. One cause of the arrear was a limitation of the number of days during which, the chief justice might sit at nisi prius in Middlesex—rail enactment which had been adopted on account of the fear which the city of London had that its business might be neglected. He thought there could be no objection to a repeal of this act. The ordinary business of the court in term time might as well be transacted by three as by four judges, when it consisted, as it so often did, of motions of course. In point of fact, a great deal of that business was transacted while one judge only was present. During that time, therefore, one judge might sit at nisi prius. As to the business which was at present accumulated in the Court of King's-bench, it consisted in great part of trifling causes. It was known that at the time when acts were passed to restrain actions below 40 shillings, that sum of 40 shillings was equal to 10l., perhaps to 20l. now. The greatest number of the new causes in the Court of King's-bench were for damages under 20l. The actions, in such cases, were no remedies; for if the plaintiff recovered full damages, he never put a shilling in his pocket. For all such causes, he wished to see a more summary and general remedy provided, and he opposed this measure, chiefly to compel the attorney-general to use the influence of his high station to procure the adoption of a more extensive measure, which might relieve all the courts from a species of business which was of no advantage to the suitors, and which threw discredit on the administration of justice.

was of opinion, considering the state of the business in the King's-bench, that this bill was absolutely necessary. What was the situation of the court at the present moment? There were about 108 causes in arrear at Westminster, and 200 in the city of London, forming an aggregate of 308 remanent causes. Any measure that tended to decrease such an arrear ought to he supported by the House. The object of the bill W3s, to employ two judges in performing the duty, which was now effected by one—a plan from which great and evident advantage would be derived. The learned gentlemen apprehended that much inconvenience would be felt from the adoption of the proposed mode. Now, he did not mean to deny that some bill, more extensive in its nature, might perhaps be hereafter necessary; but that, he conceived, was not a good reason for objecting to the bill now before the House, if, for the time present, it wrought well. If the clause relative to the duration of the bill went to render it permanent, he certainly would oppose it; but, as the learned attorney-general was of opinion that the object would be practically obtained by making the measure temporary, and as ha had given notice that lie would, in the committee, move that its operation should be confined to two years, he conceived the objection, that might otherwise be advanced was almost wholly obviated. He thought, however, that the period of two years, to which the attorney-general meant to limit; the operation of the measure, might be curtailed with advantage. The learned gentleman had pointed out many modes by which the evil complained of might I be removed. But whether his propositions were good or bad was not a question proper to be then discussed, since they wanted some speedy remedy. The learned gentleman advised parliament to open the Court of Exchequer. Whether such a measure would or would not be beneficial was doubtful; but, even if it were admitted to be likely to produce; good effects, it could not be adopted in the present session. It was a subject that would require long and mature consideration before it was submitted to parliament. He was much surprised when: the learned gentleman said he was authorized on the part of one of the judges to object to this measure. He should have thought, if it were not for the positive statement of the learned gentleman, that when a proposition was made for the relief of the judges of the Court of King's-bench, any one of those judges would be the last person to make the sort of objection that had been introduced. If increase of salary were contemplated, was-the present, he would ask, the time to demand it? In his opinion, there appeared to be something invidious in bringing such a proposition before the House. It simply went to this,—"If you throw more labout on us we shall certainly expect an increase of salary." But, as the learned gentleman had declared that he was authorized to make such a statement, it was to be inferred that he had had a communication with some one of the judges, who had decided, that, if he were burthened with additional labour, he must have an additional salary.

—I stated that the learned judge did not approve of the bill.

—If he understood the learned gentleman correctly, his statement was, that, unless the salary of the judge was raked, he would not undertake the duty. Another objection to the bill was, that the client would often be deprived of the benefit of that counsel whom he wished to employ. In some cases this would certainly be very disad- vantageous; but they must balance the inconvenience which attended the existing system with that which was likely to arise from the plan proposed. They must balance the inconvenience which clients might sometimes experience with that which must attend an arrear of 300 causes all ready to be tried, the witnesses examined by solicitors, the briefs drawn up, and much money laid out. But with respect to this alleged inconvenience, did it frequently happen that one counsel possessed such extraordinary acuteness of mind, such transcendant talent, such amazing legal knowledge, that all the attorneys of the kingdom must run after him? That was a situation, in which he believed the bar had never been placed. Although there might be a gentleman of extraordinary talent engaged in the legal profession, still there were always some others whose abilities (at some little distance, perhaps, from his) were yet highly respectable. A client was not, therefore, left without a fair choice. Let the House compare what was now proposed to be done, with what was effected, in 1813, in another court. At that time the lord chancellor was borne down by the number of causes, and the suitors in his court complained that they could not obtain justice. The remedy proposed was, that another court should be formed, and that the lord chancellor should determine what causes should be tried there. The same discretion was given by this bill to the chief justice of the court of King's-bench. He had inquired of some learned gentlemen what inconveniences they felt in the vice chancellor's court. They said that they experienced some difficulties at first, but not much. Like all other alterations, when it was brought fully into action it had worked facilities for itself; and the difficulties connected with the present measure would ultimately cease and vanish, like those which were, in the first instance, felt in the vice-chancellor's court.

said, the learned gentleman who had just sat down had argued that, if the measure proposed were likely to remove, for the present, the inconvenience complained of, it ought to be adopted. He entirely denied the truth of this position. Ha did not consider that all inconveniences and misfortunes were good for nothing. They frequently had their benefits within themselves. For his own part, he could wish the inconveni- ence to grow to a greater height than it had at present arrived at, if it ultimately led them to a suitable remedy. The learned gentleman had observed that this would be but a temporary measure, and that others at a future time might be proposed. He, however, totally objected to these palliatives. If they took a judge, who ought to be sitting in banco, to hear causes at nisi prius, they must lose sight of those ulterior remedies which were necessary in the course of justice. In cases of the kind to which his learned friend (Mr. Scarlett) had referred, where, if 40s. were recovered, the successful party was entitled to but 40s. costs, not less than 28 persons were employed. There was a judge, an associate, a crier, two counsel on each side (one of them sometimes a king's counsel), two attornies, and 12 jurors. Such a case as this tried in the court of King's-bench, was fraught with ruin to both the parties, and might in fact be termed a mockery of the administration of justice. Cases of this kind should be removed to an inferior jurisdiction. Of late years more political causes than were ever before known had come before the court of King's bench. It was not right then, that the chief-justice should be overborne by the weight of business. He should be allowed some degree of leisure, in order that he might preserve that calmness and serenity of mind which it was impossible to do under the extreme pressure of constant business; The learned gentleman might say, that the argument made against his own view of the subject, since the bill was intended to grant relief and afford leisure to the chief justice. But he would answer, that the puisne judges, who were called in to assist the chief-justice with their counsel, should, equally with him, be allowed repose and leisure, in order that they also might discharge their functions in the best manner. But, if the whole court was to be brought into action; if the chief justice and the puisne judges were to be perpetually engaged in trying causes at nisi prius, not one of them would be able to bring his mind to the free, fair, and unembarrassed consideration of the many important subjects which called for decision. The best mode would be to remove from the court of King's-bench those frivolous and absurd causes, which not only pressed most heavily on the judges, but were ruinous to the parties engaged in them. Legal remedies of a more cheap description, and more easy of access, ought to be devised for the subjects of the realm. The chancellor of the exchequer, he observed, was attending to this question, and probably would oppose the introduction of such a remedy as he had adverted to, on the ground that it would diminish the revenue. But it would be much better, instead of raising taxes by means of stamps on legal proceedings, which, in effect, caused a denial of justice to the subject, if the right hon. gentleman would give his consent to the removal of those heavy imposts, and cast about in his mind for some other mode of raising revenue that would not be liable to such insuperable objections.

objected to the bill, first, because it was unwise in its provisions, and, next, because it imposed a greater degree of labour on the puisne judges of the court of King's-bench, without providing for them any additional remuneration. Much of the time of the court was taken up in consequence of ex-officio informations moved by the attorney-general against individuals for breaches of the revenue-laws. Those persons, when found guilty, were brought up for judgment to the court of King's-bench, and much time was taken up in passing sentence on them. He could see no reason why sentence could not be passed at the assizes, instead of dragging individuals, frequently for petty offences, from the most remote parts of the country, to receive sentence here. Two remarkable cases were fresh in his memory; in one of them a poor woman walked up with a child in her arms from the West of England, to receive sentence for some trifling offence against the revenue laws. When the poor woman came into court, the feeling of compassion was universal. Mr. Justice Bailey—than whom a more humane and learned man did not exist—then emphatically addressed the attorney-general, "Mr Attorney-general, do you never proceed in these cases by indictment?" In the last Michaelmas term, also, a man walked up from the borders of Scotland to receive judgment, on account of a petty squabble with an excise officer. He did not mean to cast any reflection on the office of attorney-general, and he was ready to admit that the learned gentleman performed his duties with discretion and moderation; but in his opinion, the powers with which an attorney-general was vested were al- most too extensive to be intrusted to any man, and ought to be watched by parliament with peculiar jealousy. They must all recollect the treatment which sir Walter Raleigh received from an attorney-general. Thank God, those times were past; but still they ought never to lose sight of this extraordinary power. He; hoped the learned gentleman would accede to his proposition—namely, to allow: the judge on the circuit to pass sentence on individuals against whom criminal informations had been filed, instead of causing them to be dragged up to town for that purpose. This would materially lessen the public expense. When he saw in the miscellaneous estimate, a charge of 40,000l. for law expenses, he could not help submitting to the House whether it I was not a subject that demanded their serious consideration.

felt the strongest objections to the measure now proposed. In the first instance it was to have been permanent, but now, he understood, it was to; be temporary. In either point of view: it was objectionable. If it were permanent, it would effect a permanent alteration in the court of King's-bench, and if temporary, it would produce one of the greatest evils that could be found in a; court of justice—a temporary and experimental course of judicature. Why should such a measure pass? Was the King's-bench the only court in Westminster-ball to which causes should be sent? If so, then the twelve judges should belong to; that court. But if there were two other courts, sitting almost in idleness, he thought it would show more good sense to alter their situation, rather than to remodel that court, in which justice was so; perfectly administered, as to create the very arrear that was objected to. That arrear, he contended, was not an evil for which the court was answerable. It was a circumstance caused by the popularity of the court. One court would be pen haps capriciously what might be termed a fashionable court; to it the suitors would resort, and there would be found the arrear. If, however, instead of in a king the two other courts act, they erected a third, perhaps it would be found that they had only added another to the idle courts already existing, while the King's-bench still remained encumbered with a vast mass of business. By this new plan more labour was to be thrown on the puisne judges, and he thought it was fair for them to know whether they were to receive farther remuneration. The loading the judges with more business was of itself a great evil, because (heir; minds, like the minds of other men, should be allowed time for relaxation, and even for observation. It was too much to expect that they could be always drawing on the old stock, without ever attempting to replenish the reservoir. They had voluntarily devoted several weeks in the course of the year to their legal duties, which they had not in former times been accustomed to do. He thought they had acted wrong in so doing, because they thus increased the arrear by inviting that accession of business which now overloaded the court. If, however, a suitor thought fit to go into a court in which there was a great arrear of business, he must submit to the common lot of mankind, and content himself with the feeling that he would be heard in his turn, on the principle of "first come, first served." The two clauses least effective in the bill he had proposed were introduced into this bill, while the really necessary and beneficial changes were rejected. He had proposed that, instead of interrupting the business of the court, while indictments, perhaps for sedition, perhaps for blasphemy, should be read, the parties should be sent to plead and to hear the indictments read in the bail-court. To this he could still see no objection. He had also suggested that sentences should be passed at assizes. This could not be done in all cases, but there were cases in which it was imperatively called for. The present course of proceeding was the grossest system of jobbing in the Crown courts. A party had been convicted at the assizes, and afterwards brought up to the King's-bench, perhaps from Bury, perhaps from Cornwall, perhaps from Lancaster, to receive judgment. What judgment? A judgment fixed often by act of parliament, and beyond the discretion of the court. All this was done for the purpose of increasing the expense; and thus increasing the punishment appointed by the law, which might not perhaps be more than imprisonment for three months. There appeared to be no foundation for the assertion that the number of causes had increased, as appeared by a comparison of the numbers in the corresponding terms of this year and 1810. There was, in fact, a diminution of more than 20 in each tenth It had been said that it was only a choice of evils; but he would rather bear present evils, which were not of our own seeking, than create evils by experimental legislation. The court of exchequer was shut against causes by its peculiar attornies, and the Court of Common Pleas by its peculiar barristers; these barriers might be removed if the increase of causes required it. The analogy with the Vice-Chancery Court did not hold. The effect of that measure, as he understood, was, to withdraw the lord-chancellor from Chancery, and to transfer the business to the vice-chancellor. Besides, in Chancery, where the papers were all read afterwards by the judge, it was immaterial in what order the counsel might speak; but before a jury, a younger counsel, however able, and however destined for future eminence, would not be able to supply his leader's place. As a proof that justice was not much delayed in this country, he mentioned, that a person had been tried at the Old Bailey for an offence committed in August last, and one of the witnesses charged with perjury at that trial, had been tried upon that charge more than a month ago so that this succession of offences were tried at no greater distance from the time of committing the first offence than from August to May. Upon all the considerations, he had stated, he should oppose this bill.

observed, that as the object and tendency of this measure was to facilitate the administration of justice, the generality of the gentlemen of the law would be decided advocates for its adoption, whether it interfered with1 their own individual interests or not. He contended that this was only a temporary relaxation of the duties of the chief justice. He did not consider that by its adoption an alteration would be made in the constitution of the court of exchequer.