alluding to observations which had fallen from the Attorney-General on a former occasion upon a Motion relative to the business of the Court of Chancery, said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had made comparisons between the amount of business done by the present Lord Chancellor and certain other Judges, which not only cast a reflection on the latter, but also on former Judges who had held the office of Lord Chancellor with the greatest credit to themselves and the administration of the country. Such observations had a very injurious tendency, and were calculated greatly to mislead the public. He must also complain of the incorrectness of certain statements made by his Majesty's Attorney-General, from which it would be inferred, there was no arrear of causes in the Court of Chancery, such was not the fact, there being a very considerable arrear of business that had not been disposed of.

said, the facts he had mentioned to the House were founded upon the documents which had been regularly furnished to him, and of the correctness of which he could not entertain a doubt. He still believed what he had stated to be substantially true, namely, that in reality there was no arrear of causes to be heard in the Court of Chancery. He was still of that opinion, as he had heard nothing to gainsay it. The hon. Member from his experience in the Court of Chancery as a barrister, must be fully aware of the truth of such a statement to a certain extent; but for his own part, he did not believe, that for a century there had been so small an arrear of business in the Lord Chancellor's Court. There were probably some matters that were not finally disposed of, or stood over for some reason or other; but he asserted, that the diminution of arrears he had stated was substantially true.

declared there were upwards of 200 cases undisposed of, and when the Vice-Chancellor's Bill passed the arrear was only 214.

again said, he believed the returns he had quoted to be essentially true. He must also most unequivocally deny that he had cast any reflection on the other Judges of the Court by the observations he had made with reference to the business before the Lord Chancellor. So far from entertaining any feeling of that description, he believed the other Judges had discharged their duties with the greatest assiduity, and that their exertions merited the highest praise he could bestow.

said, he wished to give notice of a Motion to be submitted early next Session, which deeply implicated Lord Ellenborough. It was that he, a Peer of the Realm, in his capacity as Clerk of the Court of King's Bench, had applied to his own use sums of money, and interests of sums of money, which it was his duty to have placed to the credit of the public.

thought the hon. Gentleman was really going a little too far. He might give his notice generally, but he certainly had no right to put it in a shape which conveyed a serious moral imputation upon a man's character. The latter part of the notice imputed that which, if untrue, was a most cruel outrage upon a man's feelings: and which, if true, ought to be met at once. To lay him under such an accusation for six months, without the opportunity of rebutting it, was anything but fair dealing. He hoped the Order-book of the House of Commons would never be turned to any such unjust purpose. What, on the last day of the Session to charge an individual with an indictable offence, and in the same breath tell him he should not have the opportunity of purging himself of such charge for months and months! He appealed to the hon. Gentleman's own feelings, would he like such justice to be meted out to him? On behalf of the House itself he (Mr. Rice) would object to the printing of any such notice; but let it be altered so as to carry a general character with it, and he would at once withdraw his opposition.

said, it was true, that the noble Lord had applied the money; but then, in the evidence upon the Table, he had accounted how he had done so. The notice ought certainly to be given in a general way, or not at all.

would take upon himself to state, as one of the parties in the inquiry, that the noble Lord's conduct had been as upright and as honourable as any man's could be.

said, the allegation was, that the noble Lord had applied to his own use the interest on Exchequer Bills, which belonged solely to the public. He would, however, strike out the objectionable part of his notice.

thought, that it would be gross injustice to the noble Lord, or to any man, to let such a notice stand upon the Books of the House. Surely the hon. Member would not persist in such a course.

said, he was the last man to oppose inquiry into the conduct of any public functionary who might be supposed to have misbehaved himself. But, then, there was a just way of causing that inquiry. If the hon. member for Dublin thought there had been wrong done to the public, he was not only justified in demanding inquiry, but he would desert his own duty if he did not demand it. Let him not, however, implicate a man's character and at the same time say to him, "You shan't for six months have an opportunity of defending it." The notice, in his opinion, ought to be framed so as to carry no implication.