rose for the purpose of moving for certain returns from the Court of Chancery, the result of which he was sure would give the greatest satisfaction to that House and the country. It was of the greatest importance that the public should be correctly informed of the manner in which the judicial business of the country was disposed of; and even to the judges themselves it was but fair that a statement should be made, in order, if arrears existed, that a stimulus might be furnished; and if no arrears, that an estimate might be formed of the attention and energy which they had displayed. It gave him great pleasure to state, that in the Court of Chancery there were now no arrears subsisting, which he believed could never be so effectually said since the days of Sir Thomas More. Nor did this arise from any falling-off in the business of the court, because, in fact, it had been progressively increasing. Thus, in the three years, 1825, 1826, and 1827, Lord Eldon being Chancellor, 5,982 bills had been filed; in 1828, 1829, and 1830, Lord Lyndhurst being Chancellor, 6,231 were filed; and during the first three years, 1831, 1832, and 1833, that Lord Brougham had been Chancellor, the number of bills filed had increased to 7,180. With regard to appeals from the Master of the Rolls and Vice-Chancellor to the Lord High Chancellor, there had also been a similar increase. In 1825, 1826, and 1827, the appeals amounted to 131; in 1828, 1829, and 1830, to 145; and in 1831, 1832, and 1833, to 164. The House would, therefore, see that a considerable increase had taken place in the business of the Court of Chancery, both with respect to original bills filed, and the number of appeals which had been set down. Notwithstanding this, however, it would appear by the returns for which he was about to move, that although when the present Lord Chancellor came into office in November, 1830, 103 appeals remained undisposed of, constituting an actual arrear of rather more than the average of two years' business, yet at the close of the last sitting Lord Brougham left only thirty-five undisposed of, the earliest of which was set down on the 1st of February, 1834; so that, except two which had been abated in consequence of the death of parties, it might be said there was really no arrear whatever in the Court of Chancery. With respect to the House of Lords, the account would be equally satisfactory, for whatever hon. Members might think of their legislative labours during the present Session, the judicial proceedings of their Lordships merited great commendation. The number of appeals and writs of error had gone on regularly increasing, but there was now no case undisposed of where the appeal had been set down before the present Session of Parliament. In 1825, 1826, and 1827, the appeals to the House of Lords were 221; in 1828, 1829, and 1830, they were 214; while in 1831, 1832, and 1833, they amounted to 240. When the present Lord Chancellor came into office, ninety-four appeals were undecided; and at the present moment, only forty-four were undisposed of, the whole of which had been entered during the present Session, except two, which were adjourned at the request of parties. There was, in fact, then no arrear in the House of Lords. He trusted that this statement would be satisfactory; and he had no doubt the example thus furnished of attention and despatch in the highest tribunal would produce a salutary effect on all the inferior courts throughout the country. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving for a Return of the number of bills filed in the Court of Chancery, and appeals entered in the years 1825 to 1833 inclusive; together with the number of appeals undecided when the present Chancellor came into office, and of those undecided at the date of the last sitting.

said, nothing could be more satisfactory than the statement which had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, as far as expedition was concerned; but there was another element of great importance in relation to legal proceedings—namely, expense, which he hoped would not be overlooked. He was glad to see that a clear and convincing statement had been made as to the despatch of the legal business of the country, in order to meet, in the most decided way, the representations which had been made upon the subject elsewhere; but he should be glad to know in what proportion the expenses of suitors had been reduced by the operation of the late Reform.

said, the new system had only come into operation in November last, and it would be impossible to make out any comparative return of the expenses until the year was completed. At the same time, however, he could assure the House, that the suitors had derived the full benefit intended by the change, and many abuses under which they formerly laboured had now been entirely removed.

rose to call the attention of the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) to the case of an individual convicted at Warwick by Mr. Justice Taunton of setting fire to one or more stacks. He did not expect any remission of the sentence, nor was he aware that the case called for the clemency of his Majesty. Under all the circumstances of the case, he trusted, that though the person to whom he referred had been sentenced to endure the last penalty of the law, his Majesty's Government would see the propriety of not giving full effect to a sentence pronounced under a state of the law which attempts had been so often made to amend. The principle of a mitigation of the law had been fully recognized and sanctioned by that vote of the House in obedience to which the Bill was read a second time. He now much regretted that he had ever consented to withdraw the Bill; but, certainly, when he did so, it was in the full hope, that all cases, arising at the present assizes would have been viewed with leniency by the executive authority. He admitted, that no direct intimation had been given on the subject by the noble Lord opposite, but the silence of Ministers certainly led him to indulge such a hope. Feeling as he did a very painful solicitude on this matter, he begged to entreat to it the attention of the noble Lord.

referred to the admission of the last speaker that Government had given no intimation as to what course they might think it proper to pursue with regard to such prisoners as might be tried and found guilty at the then ensuing assizes; he was clear in the opinion that nothing could be more unjust towards persons accused, or more injurious to society at large, than that the law should be rendered uncertain by any discussions that might take place in that House, and he had expressed himself to that effect in reference to the Bill to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had just been alluding. As to the possible effects of that Bill, the hon. and learned Gentleman might make himself perfectly easy, for, considering the time at which it passed its second reading, it was utterly impossible that it should be carried through both Houses, and receive the Royal assent in the present Session. The hon. Member seemed to take for granted, that if a Bill were read a second time, that proceeding on the part of the House amounted to a sanction of its principle; technically speaking, perhaps, that might be true, but in practice it was well known to hon. members that the House often gave a Bill a second reading, without, by any means, intending to assent to its principle. He could not help observing, that remarks, such as those of the hon. and learned Gentleman placed his Majesty's Government in a painful situation; but, however distressing to his feelings it might be, it was impossible for him to do otherwise than declare, that no consideration would lead him to be accessory to the practice of rendering the law uncertain by means of discussions arising in that House.

said, that the object of all punishment was prevention, and that the most effectual mode of securing that object was, by causing penalties to accord with the feelings of the people, so that there should be no reluctance to prosecute, and by rendering them certain, unfailing, and expeditious. He regretted much that the Bill just mentioned had not passed into a law.

observed, that many petitions in favour of the Bill were presented in the course of the present Session from persons who had been sufferers from the offence the punishment for which it was the object of that Bill to mitigate.

protested against domiciliary visits, and said he should divide the House.

said, he should have been better satisfied if the right of entry had been limited to one hour after the time appointed for shutting up the houses, still he should support the Amendment as it stood.

denounced the measure as tyrannical, as the result of old women's talk, or men like old women, who went up and down through the country circulating idle stories about drunkenness and immorality.