said, he had a petition to present from Mr. Serjeant Rough, late president of the court of justice of the united colony of Demerara and Essequibo, to which he earnestly desired the attention of the House. The petitioner's case was one of peculiar hardship, and if it should meet with no remedy, it was deeply to be deplored. He was a man who, for his learning, integrity, and abilities, had been promoted to the office of president of the Supreme Court of a very important colony. From that office he was suspended by the governor. Such suspension was afterwards pronounced illegal and un- necessary, by his majesty in privy council, three years ago. Notwithstanding which decision, the petitioner and his family were reduced to the brink of ruin by the suspension. No blame whatsoever was attributed to the government, past or present, on account of the distressing situation to which the petitioner was reduced. On the contrary, effectual redress was anticipated from their power and inclination to do him justice. It was not his object now to criminate the governor of Demerara. He had not come there for the purpose of reviving controversies, or kindling animosities. He appeared as a suitor, not as an accuser. In 1816, Mr. Serjeant Rough was appointed to the dignified and difficult office, for which he was well qualified by his judicial attainments. The office was difficult, as it required a thorough knowledge of a very complicated system of jurisprudence. The Roman law was the chief foundation of colonial courts of justice, and an expert civilian only was fit to preside in them. Few lawyers in this country were competent to discharge the functions of such an office, however distinguished in other departments of the profession. From 1819 to 1821 various differences had arisen between the governor and the president, which were ascribed, by the Privy Council, to the ill-defined limits of their respective authorities. These misunderstandings he should pass over, as unnecessary to be discussed on this occasion. In October, 1821, the governor, it appeared, had suspended Mr. Rough from his official functions. If the suspension were just, his character must have irreparably suffered from so extreme a measure. It would have proved him incapable of the discharge of a public trust, and undeserving of public confidence. He naturally returned to this country to vindicate his professional character, which would have been utterly annihilated, if not openly purified. The peculiar hardship of the suspension was, that it occurred after an absence long enough to cut off all his professional connexions at home, and not sufficiently long to have enabled him to indemnify himself for such a pecuniary sacrifice. The affair had been now for three years negotiating in this country; and he was still suffering under all the grievous consequences of the suspension. When he returned, he made application at the office of the Colonial Secretary of State. From his knowledge of the character of the individual to whom he had there applied, no doubt his case had been treated with fairness and liberality. He had recourse to the professional assistance of two of his private friends, who held a high rank in the estimation of the public, and who felt a personal respect and esteem for the petitioner. The persons alluded to were the present lord chancellor, then solicitor-general, and Mr. Denman. By their advice, he was induced to abstain from an action or indictment, against the deputy-governor, as it was deemed indiscreet to press proceedings of so harsh a nature. He then petitioned for a hearing before the king in Privy Council. The reputation and qualities of the distinguished persons who composed that tribunal were enough to ensure an attentive consideration to his case. The result was, that his reputation was cleared from all stain, and his suspension was declared an act of injustice. The right hon. gentleman then contended that Mr. Serjeant Rough had been prevented from pursuing his professional pursuits in endeavouring to obtain redress for the unjustifiable persecution to which he had been subjected. Under these circumstances, he was compelled to invade the moderate provision which had been set apart for his children. Their money was expended in the defence of their father's good name, which they considered the most valuable part of their inheritance. At the end of several years the petitioner was re-established in honour, but left without compensation. The petitioner desired that his case should be again brought under the review of ministers, in the hope that they would advise his majesty to appoint him to some judicial office in the colonies, which would be an act safe towards the public, and liberal and equitable towards the petitioner. It should not be forgotten, that the petitioner had been advised by the Colonial Department to forego his right of legal remedy, by which he might have obtained compensation. That was a circumstance of which Mr. Rough ought to have the benefit. The petitioner's case was deserving of serious consideration, since it was intimately connected with the administration of colonial justice; for if he were left without redress, those persons who were best fitted for exercising judicial functions in the colonies would be deterred from proceeding thither.

said, the Privy Council did not decide that the suspension of the petitioner was illegal; but they said that, under all the circumstances of the case, they thought the lieutenant-governor was not justified in suspending him. The Privy Council added, that they saw cause to regret the indiscreet conduct pursued by Mr. Serjeant Rough. The object of the presentation of the petition was to procure the appointment of Mr. Serjeant Rough to some judicial situation in the colonies. Now, it ought to be known, that lord Bathurst had offered Mr. Rough the chief-justiceship of Dominica, which he refused on account of ill-health. The right hon. gentleman was wrong in supposing that the petitioner had been advised by the Colonial Department not to resort to legal proceedings. Mr. Rough was merely informed, that it would not be desirable to adopt both courses; namely, to bring an action, and to appeal to the Privy Council. Under these circumstances, Mr. Rough adopted the latter proceeding, and he received every assistance from the Colonial Department in bringing forward his case. Upon the whole, he thought the House must be of opinion that this was a case which ought to be left entirely to the discretion of the executive government.

hoped that something would be done to alleviate the sufferings of the petitioner.

said, it was quite evident that an act might be legal, and yet come within the description given of the suspension of Mr. Rough by the Privy Council; namely, that it was not justified by absolute necessity.

presented a petition from certain merchants of London, praying "for the Repeal of the Usury Laws." The hon. member took occasion to say, that if any intention existed of taking the sense of the House I upon his motion, which stood for that evening, for the repeal of the Usury-laws, he would postpone it to a future day.

expressed his determination to divide the House on the question.

said, he also would oppose the motion, though he would have no objection to the bill being read a first time pro forma, if it were made a government measure.

expressed his surprise that the agricultural interest should be adverse to the repeal of the laws which restrained the commerce in money.

thought it would be best to fix a day for the discussion of the question. He was sorry he could not undertake that government would bring forward the measure.

thought it betrayed great partiality in hon. members to declare their intention to oppose a motion before they had heard the grounds on which it was to be supported.

said, the question had already been so often discussed, that every person must be supposed to be acquainted with its merits.

declared himself unwilling to adopt any theoretical opinions upon the subject, unless they were reconcileable with experience, which was, after all, the best guide that practical men could adopt.

thought the clause was particularly objectionable, which curtailed the period of voting from fifteen days to six, because it affected the rights of the electors. Besides, there would be a great difficulty in identifying the voters at the different booths. The provision, which empowered the returning officer to close the poll on any day when two hundred voters had not polled, intrusted too great a power to such persons. He trusted the hon. gentleman would delay his measure till another session.

was persuaded that six days would be sufficient to answer all the purposes of borough elections, and would persist in his motion.

was anxious to facilitate the taking of polls at elections, but thought that the present bill would, in most cases, have the effect of limiting the elections to two days, and was, in its general tendency, injurious.

thought the bill calculated to produce entire confusion in the proceedings at elections. It gave great power to returning officers, a class of persons who ought not to be intrusted with much power; and the plan of dividing counties into different districts would add greatly to the expense, by obliging the candidate to have confidential agents in every district. He objected to the limitation of the poll to six days, which, he contended was not a sufficient time, and thought that, in many contested elections, it would often be impossible to poll two hundred voters in a day.

stated several clauses in the bill which he considered objectionable, and would render it inoperative. He concluded by moving, as an amendment, that the report be taken into further consideration on that day six months.

said, that the bill required pruning with no sparing hand, several of its clauses were too obnoxious to be carried into effect.

considered it desirable that a bill similar in principle to the present should be introduced in Ireland, where it was even more necessary than in this country.

objected to the bill, as it contained such exceptionable minutiæ that he believed it was unwise to attempt to amend it. For these reasons, he was for getting rid of the bill for this session.

said, that whilst others found fault with the bill for doing too much, he was opposed to it because it did too little. Although he approved of the principle of the bill, he thought it inefficient, and should support the amendment.

thought this bill was a very fair exemplification of the difficulty so generally experienced in attempting to make a measure palatable to every one. The bill certainly was good in principle, though ill-shaped and defective in its application. It destroyed also the responsibility of the returning officer, who was too often a partisan at elections. If it passed, its effect would be to render it absolutely necessary to bring down all the metropolitan freeholders and voters in the first instance, even from the most distant parts of the kingdom; which would prove enormously and often very needlessly expensive.

hardly knew whether the hon. mover of this bill had been treated worse by his friends or his foes. He admitted that the bill ought to be simplified. With that view he hoped leave would be given by the House to his gallant friend to recommit it.

approved of the provisions of the bill, so far as they related to em- powering the voting officer to remove the poll to more convenient places, if necessary, and limiting the duration of the polls in small boroughs. He did not feel the weight of the objections which had been urged against the measure.

felt the objection as to limiting the polling days to six, so strong, that he would vote for the amendment, although friendly to the general principle of the bill.

believed the evil intended to be redressed by this bill was inherent in the system, and not to be reached by any thing short of a positive enactment to prevent the rights of the actual resident freeholders and persons having property in the county or city from being invaded and rendered valueless by the out-voters at elections. That corrupt influence was generally more easily discernible in that class of voters, no person, who had experienced the consequences of a contested election, would deny. He would confine the right of voting in boroughs to persons either residing or having property within them, for, without some such enactment, it would be impossible to have any security against corruption.

said, he could not give his consent to a bill which was at once egregious injustice and egregious absurdity. He then entered into a minute investigation of its clauses, for the purpose of showing that it was calculated not only to multiply the expense, but to increase the confusion of elections.

objected to the course taken by the opponents of the bill; which, to say the least of it, was most unusual. After an amendment had been negatived for deferring the consideration of a bill to that day six months, it was not very usual to call upon the House, within ten minutes afterwards, to reconsider its determination. He expressed himself favourable to the principle of the bill.

objected to the bill entirely.

defended the conduct of the Attorney-general. Surely hon. members were not bound to let this bill go into another committee, if the only object of the gallant officer was to alter the bill in such a manner as to make an entirely new bill of it.

entreated the House to let the bill go into a committee. Hon. gentlemen did not so much object to the principle of the bill as to its clauses.