The Sun. — London, England, 1821-05-31 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT, HOUSE OF LORDS, M The Irish Election Expellees Bill and the Lon don Wharfs Bill were brought up from the Corn mons, and each read the first time. The Juror's Attendance Bill was read a third time and passed. MR. OWEN'S PLAN The Marquess of LANsnowN presented a Pc titiou from the county . of - Lanark in favour of Mr. 'o:Veil's "'Jan, and observed, that it was signed by very large proportion of the property of the County, and by a majority of the IVlng-istrates. :Ms Lordship abstained from offering, any opinion en the subject himself, as he had not examined it •with sufficient care to pronounce how far it was practicable.---The - petition was ordered to be laid on the table. • IRISH LAW COURTS REGULATION BILL. The Earl of DONOUGHMORE on rising to move to r• Papers connected with thelrish liaw Courts egnla t on Bill, expressed his s,urprise that a ;•tai..3.are .which went to . alter the adm.:ol3tration pithy law in Ireland, should have been intro • duced into that House without any remark or ex . planation. • It was brought in on the Ist of the .. jitidnth, but it was not until three weeks after that it was taken under the proteCion of the Secretary of State, and avowed as a ministerial measure.. He complained that no documen6 had beep placed in their Lordships' hands, and - that . i'the Bill had remained 21 days in the House be b-re the Reports of the Commissioners Were laid -before them. A Petition was presented against the Bill by the Attornies of Ireland, who de ,precated it as injurious to themselves and to their clients. Petitions were also presented by tiro. other persons of the name of Evans, com plaining of fhe infringement of their patent rights bj . the Bill, and a fourth Petition from a person of the name of Ciancey. All these requested to be heard against it by evidence at the .Bar, • ar.d he hoped the Bill would not be so precipitated as to exclude them from that advantage. The Commissioners, out of whose Report the mea t-are had grown,. were, he• confessed, a most re spectable set of men ; but they were not appointed to alter the law, nor were their recommendations .binding upon Parliament. The House ought to hare before them the opinions of the Judges of the Courts of Law before they proceeded to le- _ . • slate, and he hoped the Noble Secretary of 'state (Lord Sidmouth) would treat their Lord ships m ith so much respect as to produce them before he moved for the second reading. The Eill was intended to take away fees altogether, and to ray the officers of the Courts by salaries . a"one. Bat the same regulation was not to be e.cterd‘ d.to the Courtof Equity. It was difficult to say why, and he was unwilling to suppose that it might be because the Judges of the Law Courts had no representative in that House, while he Judge of the Court of Equity had, in the i e son of the Noble Lord on the Woolsack. But the Chancery Bill, another measure still be fore Parliament, empowered the Lord Chancel . for and the Master of the Rolls to increase or di- Dainish the fees of their officers. lie objected to the doing away of the old practice of lees, tot to -the putting down of extortion,for wherever there extortion, the Court itself had a power to punish it. Even if improper fees had grown up, '- - Asfider the connivance of the Jud , res which was a 7- I*ft—he would scarcely suppose, Parliament . had a power to petition for their removal. He hoped that the great officers would be liberally compen sated, if the Bill should pass, but an estimate einuld be laid before Parliament, and an account of the slate in which each office was at the time that the persons came in, of the increase in its amoluments;Aind of the manner in which that in crease hid taken .place. His Lordship next al- laded to the additional Stamp Act for Ireland, which would impose a great additional charge upon that country, and lamented that Ireland bad not a Mr. Hume in the other House to watch over such proceedings. After some further obser vations, he concluded w ith moving for copies of ouch communications as may have passed between the Right Honourable Charles Grant and the Judges of the Courts of Law, with respect to the abolition of fees. . Lord SIDMOUTU said, he would not be guilty of the irregularity of following the Noble Lord itt his observations upon the two Bills, which were not under the consideration of the House. The Noble Lord bad stated that the Trish Courts Regulation Bill was a violent attack upon the ad ministration of justice in Ireland, but the object °fit was to limit- and describe by salaries 'the -charges which at present, in the shape of fees, were indefinite, exorbitant, enormous, and dis graceful -to Ireland. Even if there had been. go Rfports from the Commissioner'S, there:to - as enough A4*, -Induce their Lordships to recognise the prin ciple of the Bill: The Noble Cord had said th:,- re was•an intention to pass the - Bill without explanation, but he had only postponed the ex planation in consequence of the absence of a N . oble Friend,and reserved himself for the secand re'ading, which lie now gave notice that he would move on Friciiy, The Papers just moved for would, he hoped, be ready by t;int time, but he could not suppose . it possible that their Lordships would think it necessary to wait for them, and defer the progress of a measure of such import ance to suitors in the I rish Courts. The Earl of LisiErttniK, instead of complaining of the indifference shown In that House to the affairs of Ireland, begged leave to return his thiinks to his Majesty's Ministers for the con stant'attention which they had paid to the af fairs and interests of his country, and, pp.rticula'r ly to the present measures, which, he contended, were both proper and necessary. With respect to the petitions to which his Noble Friend had alluded, they bad been sent by those innocent lambs, whose conduct had created a necessity for the present measures, and who held their situa tions under his Majesty's pleasure, instead of enjoying in them a freehold estate. As to the estimate on which the amount of the proposed salaries had been fixed, it had been made on an average of seven' years' receipt, not of extrava giint, but of legal fees, no fee being called legal that had been imposed within the last twenty years. Lord DONOUGHMORE rose to explain.—He said, what he complained of was, that the per sons who petitioned the House had no oppor tunity of having their claims heard before either House of Parliament. lie asked the Noble Se cretary Of State; why he had not, before this time, corrected the gross abuseS which he now so much complained of ? The Marquess of LANSDOIN N felt that there was a very strong necessity for passing this Bill; for it was most desirable, in the instances in ques tion, to substitute salaries for fees. The Reports on the table contained abundant evidence to show the necessity of correcting the gross abuses that prevailed in Ireland, where the population of the country had been exposed to a system of plunder in the Courts of Law disgraceful to the country where they were permitted to exist ; and it would be unpardonable in the Legislature not to extend protection to the suitors in Irish Courts against the abuses that had long and systemati cally been practised there. He felt that it was the duty of that House to do this effectually,and that in the next stage of. the Bill there ought to be a full attendance of their Lordships. Lord DONOUGHAIO RE again explained. He said his complaint was, that the House had not the Report immediately applicable to this Bill. The Marquess of LANS D 0 WN said the Reports already on the table sufficiently satisfied him as to ,the necessity of the measure. The Motion, thus amended, Was agreed to, and the second reading of the Bill fixed for Fri-, day next.—Adjourned to Friday. HOUSE OF COMMONS. The SITE.%KER took the Chair about ten minutes before - four o'clock. Mr. 'WHARTON reported from the Committee appoint ed to inquire into the Petitions concerning the right of voting at Elections for Membert of Parliament for the . Bo rough of Pctersield. . The Committee had decided the right of voting to be in the Burgesses of the said Borough, and in the Freehold - Proprietors of Land, Houses, and Tenements within the same. Sir J. GRAHAM p►esented,a Petition from the Merchants and Ship-owners of M'hitehaven, praying for a Reduction of Duties on Coals.—Ordered to be printed. Lord BINNING. presented a Petition from certain Com missioners of Supply in Scotland, on the subject of Agricul tural Distress.—Ordered to lie on the Table. A Petition from the Chamber of Commerce in Edinburgh against the establishment of an extra Post, was presented, and ordered to he laid on the Table. 'Serjeant OrNSLOW presented a Petition from a- Mr. Chas. Pouche, stating that he had sustained great loss in consequence of a - Lady's :Marriage Settlement having been lost, and praying that Marriage Registers might be established in each County.— Ordered to lie on the Table. - IRISH INLAND NAVIGATION BILL. The House went into a Conimittee on this Bill. The Re-. port to-morrow. Lord STANLEY presented a Petition from the Township of Salford, against the Poor Relief Bill.—Ordered to lie on the Table. On the motion of Mr. C. GRANT, the House went into a Committee on the Irish Insolvency Court Bill.—The Report ordered to be received to-morrow. IRISH STAMP ACT. The Report on this Act was brought up, and" a Bill ordered to he brought in, pursuant to the same. EXTRA POST-OFFICE BILL. Mr. WARRE complained, that this. Bill, which should have been previously printed, as different opinions were entertained upon it, had been brought in at one o'clock on Tuesday morn ing, and ordered to be read a second time on Wednesday. He would therefore move that the second reading be postponed, and he hoped that the Bill in the mean time would be printed. He felt it necessary also to say, that the Correspondence with the General Post-office, which was ordered ten nays ago, was not yet laid upon the Table of the House. Mr. LUSH ING TON said, he had no objection to postpon ing the 2d reading, and it was accordingly postponed to Mon day next. COURT OF CHANCERY. Mr. M. A. Tayeop, in rising to bring forward his promised motion respecting the Court of Chancery, said, that the delay which occurred in administering justice in that Court, as well as in the appellant jurisdiction, was most oppressive to the suitors, and took away from the tribunal itself the value and importance that properly be longed to it. In the prosecution of a scarcely questionable right, one third of the property at issue was often paid away in costs. In 1811, he brought the subject before Parliament, a Com mittee was appointed, that Committee reported that there were 330 appeals before the House of Lords—a number which could not be disposed of in less than ten years. In the Chancellor's list there were one hundred and six causes and thirty five appeals. Another Committee was appointed to inquire into the cause of She delay ; on that Committee sat many Members from the opposite Benches. They refused to examine professional men as to the causes of the delay; the Ilouse ultimately concurred with the Committee, and the liminess was dropt. The Lords appointed . a Committee on the same subject; the proceedings which followed led to the appointment of the. Vice-Chancellor's Court. He (Mr. T.) at the time asserted in his place, that that tribunal would only increase the number of appeal causes, and he suggested, that a" tribunal should be created for Appeals in Bankrupt cases, which would have the effect of taking all that heavy business off the ChancellJr's shoulders. The Vice-Chancellor's Court was, however, created, and instead of 35 Appeal causes, the Chancellor had now 116 Appeal causes on his , list. He would say , a word on the delay of hearing Ap peals. In the case of Smith v. Fitzgerald , the Appeal was set down to be heard in February, Isl-1, and still _remains without being heard ; Browne v. Defastet, set down in 1812, was not yet heard ; many other causes stood in precisely the same situation. In one case, the parties, after anxiously remaining hr the Court for some years, despairing of ever having the cause heard, settled the matter between themselves ; few causes of any consequence were heard in the first instance for ten years after the bill was filed. So great was the delay—so vexatious and oppres sive to .parties (grievances which grew out of the system itself, and were not to be impitted to the Lord Chancellor), that if he (Mr. Taylor) were called upon to answer a bill, on a question where property to the amount of 3 or 40001. was con cerned, however idle the claim, and however strong might be' his defence, he would sooner pay the money than go into Court. The Ilo nourable and Learned Gentleman proceeded to observe, that it was better for any one who had a right to 4 or 50001. to give up his right than to litigate -it in Chancery. The Appeals in the House of Lords which had been heard this Session, were those of 1817, and they had now just arrived at those of 1818. There was one cause, however, there - , Ward v. the Attorney- General, an Appeal from the Exchequer, of as Old standing as 1816: 'The delay and mischiefs in the business of the Court of Chancery he did not attribute to - individuals, but to the system, which made the Lord. Chancellor a political cha racter, liable to,the interruptions, and obnoxious to-the anxieties 'which accompanied the posses sion of a seat iii the Cabinets. The\ast mass of property in litigatio n i n th e C orr t ; Mad e t his a matter of great importance. In 1756 the pro perty in the hands of the Accountant General alone amounted to 2,800,000/. ; in 1818 it amounted to 33,500;000/. Not all of this, bet probably half of it, was contested property. — When the Great Seal was in commission, delay had not occurred. The first commission he re membered was that at the head of which was Lord Lougborough ; and then, to his own know ledge, there was not a single cause in arrear.— The other was that at the head of which was Chief Baron Eyre. The Commissioners being called upon to go up to his late Majesty with the Great. Seal at two o'clock, and being asked by the King in what state the business of the Court was, replied, that if his Majesty had not sent for them till four,.there would have been no business before them, as they had been in the course of hearing the last cause on the paper. He was in clined in favour of plurality of J udges in a Court -of Equity. He knew that when it was proposed to separate the Speakership of the House of Lords. from the office of Lord Chancellor, or to appoint Keepers of the Great Seal, it was said that the great prizes of the law would then be taken away. It was his duty, though he had a great affection to that profession, to look first to the, poblic. It was his wish, however, to 'see the Lord Chancellor in the possession of all his pa tronage, distinction,, and emoluments, though he did not wish to see him paid by fees of office. As to the Masters in Chancery (and than the present ones there could not be a niOre active or ho nourable set of men), he should make the_ same remark. He knew a case in which the fees of the Master's Office, on the sale of a little pro perty of 100 acres in their office, were 2001. The fees were 40 odd pounds on each day's sal e ; and in other cases he knew they had been double. The fees of the RegiSter's Office and the Examiner's were also enormous. If Lord Eldon was at liberty to apply his mind to the. business of the Court, without being distracted with politics, he" would have time to look into and correct the abuses of the several departments under his jurisdiction. The fact now was, that if a man litigated a property of 60001. in Chan cery, he was lucky if he could save six. The Hon. Gentleman then said, that. he should state a plan which had' occurred to him, for obviating the inconveniences of the present system, and yet preserving the dignity and pre-eminence of the Lord Chancellor. He proposed to remodel the Court of Chancery on the plan of the Court of Exchequer; the Lord Chancellor bearing the same relation to the Judges who might sit in the Court, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer does to the Barons. Four Judges would be associated to the Lord Chancellor, to whom all bills should still be addressed, (as in the Exchequer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer) ; with these Judges all the judicial business of the Great Seal should be left, except when their opinions were divided, when they might call for the judgment of the Chancellor. Bankruptcy questions should be . left to the Chancellor, and also the business of Appeals in the House of Lords. Suitors would then have a real appeal, whereas the appeal from the Chancellor to the House of Lords was merely an appeal from Lord Eldon in an undress wig, ; to Lord Eldon in a full bottomed wig. What...! ever might be the fate of the'present motion, he was determined to persevere in pressing this sub ject on the attention of the House, who, as guar- . I dians of the liberty and ,property of the subject, were bound to attend to the causes of the pro crastination and delay of justice, which was the ruin of so many families.--(Bear, hear!)—He moved a Resolution—" That this House will, early in the next Session of Parliament, take into its most serious consideration the State of the High Court of Chancery in England, as well as that of the Appellant Jurisdiction of the House of Lords, with a view to the adoption or'such measures as may tend, in future, to facilitate, the general' business of those Courts." Lord LONDONDERRY said, though Parliament sometimes pledged itselfas to the course it would take in a subsequent Session, it should never do so without great caution ;.and he thought they should hesitate to do so in the present case, be cause the Resolution countenanced the opinion that there was something wrong in the Court of Chancery, and that a practical remedy had been proposed. He was not at that time capable of forming an opinion on the sweeping remedy which nail been proposed, which opened the' view of a large field of judicial reforni. As far as the Ap peal business of the House of L6rds was con cerned, he understood that the establishment of the Vice Chancellor's Court had been very suc cessful. As to_ the original business of all the Courts, he also understood that it was never less in arrear than at present. He su.7gested that it would' be more advisable for the Hon. Gentle man to withdraw his motion, especially as much , information on the subject, which had been moved for by the lion. Member for Wareham (Mr. Calcraft,) was nct yet on the table of the IfoOse. If the lion. Gentlernan persisted in his motion, he (Lord L.) should move the previous question._ Mr. M. A. TAYLOR declined to withdraw his motion.—The previous question was then moved. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, he would not then go into an examination of the novel system of judicature which it appeared to be the object of the Hon. Member's motion to establish, but would content himself with remarking upon some of his statements, which by.implication affected the character of the Learned person who presided in the court to which his observations chiefly applied. He had stated that the erection of the Vice-Chan cellor's Court did not expedite the causes, hut he (the Attorney-General) could assure the House that the _Honourable Member was mistaken or misinformed, both in bankruptcies and ori ginal causes ; the old arrears had been nearly cleared off, but appeals had increased, as had beet foreseen when it was first proposed to erect the Court. Parties, indeed, often came into the COurt to obtain'a decision for the purpose of bringing the case, in the shape of an appeal, under the view of those high talents and that- great legal learning Which presided else where ; but none,- however ; were allowed to be tried as Appeals, unless having the cerlificaikof Counsel that they containekone or more toe*. bons wort y,4 bein,g'ht ! arAiftyN fl other tribufial. From time to tune .cases occurred which were de serving of being accelerated ; , but none were taken out of the ordinary course unless for suffi cient reason. lie then entered into a statement to show that in the cases of Brown and De Tastet, and others alluded to by the Honourable Mover,: there was no unnecessary delay, and cOnclUded by declaring, that to all parts of the motion he would give his decided negative, as be could never agree to any "propositionwhich would .go to demolish the Vice-Chancellor's Court, or to remove from his seat in Chancery that high cha racter, than whom no man ever pronounced de• cisions more entitled.to present and future respect. Mr. LOCKHART observed, that to. say the mo tion of his.:.Hon. Friend went to threw discredit on the Courts, was a weak argument to prevent inquiry. The fact was that the delay stated to occur did happen, but not by will or negligence; it was the result of the mechanism and practice of the Court by Which the time of causes was ne cessarily lengthened. He then stated, .that in the case of legacies the present system inflicted upon suitors the most cruel hardships, as, by . going into Equity, the assets of the estate were frequently unable to . defray the costs. If, then,. by the system at present acted upou, it appeared that delay.occurred, by which justice was'almost denied, and dishonesty of course promoted, the House was bound to pledge itself to inquire if any remedy could be applied. What his Hon. Friend had stated as to delay, all England knew to be true, and the matters.which he had brought forward were highly deserving the attention of the House.. Mr. Serjeant ON3LOW opposed the motion.— He said that the arguments of the Iton. Member for Oxford (Mr. Lockhart) proved to him how dangerous it was at that late period for the House to pledge itself to any inquiry ; such argu ments, if pushed to the extreme, would go to the abolition of the Courts of Equity. He observed, that considering the great increase of wealth, .the number and variety of questions in Equity must have been greatly increased, and he only won dered that the arrears were not greater than they actually were. He concluded by saying that he would vote for the previous question, as he thought it both unwise and unsafe to hold forth to the world, in the interim, that great evils ex isted in our system of Equity. Mr. W. SMITH said his IlOnourable Friend was very unfairly treated. It was notorious to all England, that delays took place in our Equity Courts which were extremely injurious to the suitors, and therefore Parliament could do no less than pledge itself to inquiry. [file (Mr. Smith) had entertained any doubt on the subject, it was resolved by the Honourable and Learned Mem ber who had spoken last; he. told the House that he did not wonder at the quantity of .arrears un der the present system, but considering the ac cumulation of wealth, he only wondered that the arrears were not more .numerous. The reason assigned for their not being so was, simply the abilities and learning of the present Chancellor. It was evident, then, that no time could be more proper for an inquiry than while we had a Chan cellor whose character for abilities, learning, and integrity, could not be affected by the adoption of such inquiry, for it was allowed that his assi duity and talents in some measure counteracted the evils resulting from the system and structure of the Court, which would otherwise ,prevail to a much higher degree with regard to the delays which suitors endured ; he would only say, in the words of the old song— Could a man be secure That his life would endure, As of old, for a thousand long years; lie might bear, with some patience, the delay of a suit in Chancery. Mr. M. A. TAYLOR replied, and defended his former statements.—After which, the If di vided on the previous question— Ayes - Noes - - - 52 Majority - - - -4. LORD REGISTRAR OF SCOTLAND. On re-entering the House, wa, found Lord LONDON DERRY on his legs,. adyerting to a question which had been put to him on a former night, by an Honourable Gentleman whom he did not now see in his place, with reference to the office of Lord Registrar in Scotland; The arrangement entered into. by . Government was, 'that the present holder should retain the office without any emolument or salary, and that the fees belonging to the office should go to defray the expellees of the clerks. He trusted this aerangement would - be considered per fectly satisfactory. TIMBER DUTIES. Mr. J. P. GRANT wished to know from the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, whether it was the intention of Govern ment to bring forward any other measures this Session respect ing the Duties on Timber, in order to complete,what had been already done. It was well that so much had been dune, fo'r " hall a loaf was better than no bread," but still the thing was very imperfect. Mr. F. ROBINSON said that there was no intention on the part of Government. to propose any thing else this Session on the subject. They felt, however, that it had not gone the length they - expected it would, but it' as now too late to intro duce any thing else. Mr. J. P, GRANT then said that he should feel it his duty, early next Session, to call the attention of the House to the subject. EXTENTS IN AID. Mr. W. SMITH asked the Right honourable Gentleman, 7hether Government proposed to introduce any measure in nionication of the present severe mode of levying Extents in Aid. • The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER •answered in the negative, and added, that he had not heard any complaints at,ramst the present system. Mr. W. SMITH said it was in every sense most exeeption able, And as his Majesty's, Government declined interference, he should feel it his duty to make a motion early next Session on the subject. • CREDITORS OF MR. BURTON. • Mr. S. WoRTLEY begged to call the attention of the House to the case of certain Gentlemen, creditors of Mr. Christie Burton, a Member of the House for the town of Beverley. He was in the custody of the Marshal of the King's Bench at the time of his election, charged in execution for It debt of one thousand pounds, due to a Gen tleman at Kingston-upon-Hull. He was released by order of the House: The creditor had then brought an action of escape against the officer to whose custody Mr. Burton had been committed ; but t 4 House interfered, and the creditor dis continued his action, - ih order that he might not be ptinistied for interfering with the privileges of the House: The creditor was now without any remedy ; for as Mr. Barton was in execu tion (as it is_ called) at the time of his release, the debt became extinguished in law. The ex pence which had fallen upon the parties to,the tvit brought against. the Wth'ikn of theiFlA.pc--in. , consequence ci Vie order oiLtrim House, was not less than 3,0001. Ile admitted the propriety or , that proceeding on the•part of the House, as after • issuing the first order for the discharge of the Member, it would not have been -just to-have allowed the onus to fall on the Warden. „In deed he -was sure, from the commencement, that the action would end as it had done, in- the in-, terference - of the House. It was for these-.rea -sons, seeing that the creditors of this Gentleman had not only been foiled in their endeavours to obtain their just rights, but had also great addi tional burthens cast on them by the steps taken by that House, that he should move for a Com- mittee, of the whole House to consider of an Ad dress to his Majesty to grant a sum of money in compensation. If the House should-agree to that motion, he should propose a Resolution to.the effect that no candidate for a seat in that House should be deemed eligible acrainst whom an -execution should be in force at the time of his Offering himself as a candidate. That -•was a -Re solutio❑ whkh he really thought had become ne. Ossary, nor could he in any way view it as an attack upon the privilege; of the _House. The Hon. Member concluded by moving—" That the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of an .Address to his Majesty to grant a sum of money by way of compensation to certain credi tors of Mr. Burton, Merriber for Beverley iu the last Parliament." Mr. W YNNE did not think that this was_a case at all calling for the interference of Parliament. He could not conceive any thing to be more ex plicit than the Act of Charles I. on that subject. That Act tlistinaly stated that the -privilege .of Parliament did not operate beyond the period.of the Session in which it was exercised. .Under these circumstances the •parties had nothing to do but to cause a new writ of execution to be issued, with which the House could not interfere ; nor could the exercise of that privilege on a:former occasion,at all prejudice the case of these credi tors. With respect to the Resolution the lion. Member spoke of, it went to make an alteratku in the law of a very grave nature, and he was 'not prepared to admit such an alteration, without adequate deliberation. The Hon. •Gentleman might bring in his Bill to that effect, and it would be then time to discuss the matter fully. As to the parties 'thernselves in this case, which the Hon. Gentleman had brought under - the consi deration of.the Uouse,he.did not think they:ought to complain of the treatment of the House,-as the House had been extremely lenient towards them, and would have been justified in prosecuting all that were concerned in that suit against the Wa rden of the Fleet. Mr. S. WoaTLEY, in reply, said, that accord ing-to the view he-took of the Act.quoted by.the Hon. Gentleman, it was defective as regarded a. case of this kind. The case of the parties in terested in this matter was aggravated .by. - circumstance that Mr. Burton was a man of ex cellent property, and well able to pay the debts for which he had been taken in execution. His imprisonment was merely a nominal one, as bo had met him .at the Doncaster Races in -the midst of it. The law did not meet this question, and he ,thought it would be an act of injustice ot the part of the House if they did not endeavour to make amends fur the injury their interference with the law had inflicted. Mr. BARING thought that sufficient reason had been urged why compensation ought not to L*B granted in this case. With respect to the state of the law on this subject, he thought the statement of the lion. Member (Mr. S. Wortley) exhibited a state of things which ought not to be permitted to exist. It was not long since that an indivi dual confined in the King's Bench Prison m ade his way -through that House out of the kingdom altogether; and many frauds of a similar descrip tion had been practised under the shield of the privilege of Parliament. He thought they ought to revise their Rules as to the qualification pro perly required for a scat in that House, and en deavour to counteract them, sp as to meet cases of this kind. The question was then put and negatived without a division: EXCHEQUER BILLS. Mr. MAlN:tux-lc rose to bring forward the dis— cussion of which he had . given notice, relative to the partiality shewn by the Government, and the. loss consequently sustained by the Public, making Loans 'from particular quarters, instead of going to - the public money market. Ile had before - alluded to this subject, and part!'" cularly adverted to the rate of interest given to tb e . , Bank of. Ireland in the loans which k.a u been made from that body, and directed the at' tention of the House to an extensive issue of Irish 'Treasury thins, which had taken place in 15 . 1 6, in cousequcnce of a great sum of money borro's ° ed of. the Bank of Ireland at five. per ceut. jute" rest. That sum had not yet, he believed, bee ° all repaid, so - that we were now paying four Ve t* , cent. (the amount having been reduced to tha t ) for money, which we might pay off by oth e r ) money borrowed in this country, at three-V e a cent. In order to show the amount which 11 %, been lost to the public in consequence of. the„, improvident loans from the Bank of Ireland, world show by the returns on the table t"; umnmt.of the unfunded debts ist- Irish Treas ari Bills, from the year 1.g15, up to the present t.ll°' That would be found to be— In 1815 - £2,500,000 In 1319 - - I In 1010 - - 2,4(J7,808 In Pi2o - 7 , 4 00;00 0 In 1317 - - 5,104,992 I 1n.1821 - - In 1818 - - 5,6tA,930 The state of the proportions held by the 1 34111 ': . of England and Ireland during that period , ma r one million for the former, and two ni litions fo S the latter, and during the whole of that reli c % the rate- of 5 per Gent. fer the fi rst year, an d '; per cent. for every year following wa s P"i d tc : the Bank of Ireland. He would contrast tha* with the rate of interest paid .to the merchans. ~l~r