Star.
London, England, 1819-05-21 00:00:00

CXt-ffriut-CE;um-1.

LORD DONOUGIIDIORNI MOTION.
LIST OP PEERS WMO VOTED AGAINST THE MOTION.
PRESENT—NOT-CONTENTS.
Literpooi Kenyon
Romney Se!sty
Powis Dunstanville
Mowery
Orford
Whitworth
Roden
Coartown
Cho/Levine
Carrick
Farnham
Gosford

MMS.
l'ork
Beaufort
Rutland
Newcastle
Northumberland
Wellington
Athol
hfAanumsEs.
Winchester
Bath
Cornwallis

Rolle
Baring
St. Helen's
Arden
Bill
Bolton
Harris
Colville
De Clifford

Er risk Wen
A boyne
Olisgow
Galloway
Verniam
Brownies,
Kinnoel
Viseourra.
Falnfoeth

EARLIL
Pembroke
Bridgewater
Denbigh
Westmorland
Huntingdon
Wittebilsea
Cardigan
Shaftesbury
Abingdon
I larborough
Macclesfield
Pbrnfret Labe
Harcourt Arbuthnot
Plymouth Kul!Muth
Bathurst BAildos.
Aylesbury R&M
Beauchamp Stawell
Lansdale bistan
Scarborough Dynevor
Abergavermer Willingham
Mount Edgecumba Swot
Dopy&dolt
PROXIES

SVodetteme
Gambier
Gage

Canterbury
York
Manors.
London
Exeter
St. Asapb-
Peterboraith
Worcester
Lineal
Carlisle.
Dronsors

Oxford
Ely
Bal'Er .
St. avad t.
Dudley and Ward
Cotchetter
Rum
Napier
Broderick
Northwiek
RihMesdale
Middleton
Gray
Montagu
Damon.
Winchester
Hereford
Durham
Bristol
Cheater
Gloucester
Chichester.

Dunn. TiArtwotid
Luiborough Portin'tetuth
Montrose Kellie '
Maatinzsans. Coventry
Winchester Stardidpe
Exeter §beffseld
Huntley Nelson
Thornond Fetters
Cholioondeley Pmdett
Lothian Chichester
Hertford Viscoonts.
Fly Curzon
Northampton Carleton
Salisbury Hood
EMILIA. Maynard
Home BA ROM.
Longford - Le Despenser
Idalmsbury licresford
dorton 4krvirick
Present, 97—Proxies, 50-147.
LIST OF THE PEERS WHO VOTED TOR THE MOTION.
rRESENT-CONTENT.
Darlington Vssceenti.
Delaware Torrington
Spencer Melville
Grosvenor Granville
Fortrieue Clifden
Carnarvon Bulkeley
Roadyn Say and Sae
Grey Howard
IlLarraerby Clinton
Id ulgrave King
Mint° . Duel°
Sr. Germain's Paley
Bradford Amherst
Darnley Belhaven
Cork Grantley
Belborough Somers
Canals Br aybrooke
Breadalbane Grenville .
lAuderdele Auckland
Roseberry f !alt horpo
Cbarlentont Lilford ,
Kingston Crewe
Donoughmore Lyndoch
Aberdeen. Bishop of Norwich.
Mount Cashel'
P ROX IFS.
Fitt willinn Sondes
Waldegrave Glastonbury
Eglititown Dondas
Carysfort Yarborough
Ormond Cawder
Viseurirs. Carrington .
llereford Alvanley
Bolingbroke ' Ellenborovigh
. . Duncan Fsskine
Anson I lutchinson
Kt itit • Stewart
. Montfort Illskop of Rochester.
Thula Grantham . .
ATuenlarle Molt.utd
Content—n.o,4 ;0--Proxies, 36-106.

DORM
Kent
Sows
Somerset
Grafton
Portland

Argyle
Ithiatittsm

Decirkigliant
Lansdown •
(Landes
Date
Atiksea •
Tweedale

Darby
Am:
'wary
Otford
Dartmouth

Covrperi
I lefrington

iYarrfiCk
liardwicke

Bedflrd
Rortturgh
Leinster
Maativsss=s.
Stafford
Dowitshtte
Wellesley

Beadfort

PARLIAMENTARY PIOC__ArDINGS. '
•
HOUSE Of COMMONS, HAY 2*.
SPIAKEII actittaintesi the Rouse, that Samuel Leve-
ring* Fat. who had gessented a Petitiosto the House wan-
piestai et an undue action for the Borough of Came'ford,.
had not entered into the necessary recognizances ; and there
, -
fore that the order for taking the Petition into consideration
was discharged. - I
Mr. CUR WEN presented a Petition from John Desfreme
against the Bill for amending the Bankrupt Laws, prayftsg to be
heard at the Bar against the measure.
Sir J MMES GRAHAM thought the Petition irregular, and
that it ought not to be received.
Mr. CURWEN was satisfied that the House ought to listen
to the complaints of all individuals; and there was no objection
that he was aware of to hear him at the Bar, but that Mr. Du-
fresne was a prisoner in the King's Bench for a contempt, under
the Bankrupt Laws. Ile did not know why the Petitioner had
not been heard before the Committee.
Mr. BRAND was in favour of receiving the Petition, but not
' of hearing the Petitioner.
Mr. CUftWEN had intended to move that the Petitioner be
heard at tke Bar, but he would refrain if the House thought it

unnecessary.
General 0 ASCOYNE said, that the Committee on the IBM
had sat *for five weeks, and if the Petitioner wished to have been
heard, it ought to have been there.
After a few words front Sir JOHN NEWPORT, the Peti-
tion was laid upon the table.
Mr. M. A. TAYLOR gave notice, that to-morrow he would
move that the debate upon the Cainelford Election Petition
should be adjourned until this day fortnight.
Mr. S. WORTLEY withdrew his motion for to-morrow re-
garding the Stamping of Woollen Cloths.
Mr. BANKES gave ndice, that to-morrow, on the second
reading of the Marquis Camden's 'PeUership of the Exchequer
Bill, he would submit a motion expressive of the feelings of the
House upon the subject.
Lord MILTON moved* the Order of the Day for resuming
the adjourned debate for the attendance of Mr. C. Pitt, pursuant
to the prayer of his Petition.
Mr. W. WYNN said, that he had found PO reason to alter
the opinion he had at first expressed, fhat it was not within the
jurisdiction se power of the House to grant relief ; or if it were,
that this was not s case where it ought to be granted, as the
come Petitioner might have earlier.—Question negatived.
COURT OT CHANCERY.
Mr. M. A. TAYLOR rose, pursuant so his notice,
to submit to the House a motion, on a subject which
he must confess was not very entertaining, namely,
the Delays experienced by Suitors in the Court of
Chancery. The mischief's occasioned by these delays
had come to such a height, that the interference of
Parliament was became necessary to prevent their
extending to such a degree as would be absolutely
intolerable. The Honourable Gentleman then re-
peated the statements which he has at various times
made during the course of this and previous Sessions,
relative to the accumulation of arrears in the Court
of Chancery, contending that the appointment of a
Vice-Chancellor, instead of facilitating the dispatch
of business, the arrears of causes, and the number of
appeals, had gradually increased. He did not blame
Lord Eldon ; no man had ever held the office of
Chancellor with endowments more eminently fitted
for it r no man questioned his ability—nor his in-
dustry—nor his uprightness ; but the truth was, the
duties of the office, including not only the immense
weight of general equity cases, but also those matters
of exclusive jurisdiction matters of lunacy—infants
—bankrupts—were more than one man could august
to. He repeated his opinion, that it was absolutely
necessary that the jurisdiction in bankruptcy should'
be removed from the-Lord Chancellor. The Crow*,
ought to appoint by patent a new Judge for cases of
bankruptcy. The information on which he founded
this opinion was derived from the hest sources—
from then of the highest rank at the &Ir. But it
might be asked, why some of the Gentlemen in the
Profession, who from their ability as well.-as infor-
mation and experience were best fitted for that task,
did not bring forward this subject ? • The truth was,
that these Gentlemen found it an ungrateful and dis-
agreeable task to appear in the Hauge to agitate
questions relative to the Conduct of the Court in
which they were daily exercising their profession.—
This it was that left so important a questibn in the
hands of so humble an individual as himself. But
he was thoroughly convinced of the necessity of some
measure being adopted to remedy the great evil.
which he now brought under the consideration of the
House ; that if he could not on this occasion persuade
them to agree to a motion for appointing a Commit-
tee, he was resolved to bring it forward again and
again, in every shape which he could devise. The
great point on which he insisted was the necessity of I
separating the -Bankruptcy business from the Great
Seal. Many men of competent learning and ability
could be found to preside in a Court wholly cievoeudl
to Bankruptcy business. If this was not done the
present arrears must continue, and they would pro-
bably go on increasing. An instance of the effects
produced by the delay in this Court had lately come
to his knowledge. Two old Ladies had an interest
in some leasehold property, about which a question
larose which required the decision of the Court of
Chancery. A suit was commenced. The remainder
of the lease was twelve years. It was thirteen years
and a half before the cause came on to be heard, and
by that One the lease of the property had expired,
and both the Ladies, the parties interested, were dead.
Was this the administration of justice? Was it not
rather an absolute denial of it? Another point to
which he found it his duty to call the attention of
the House was, that in point of fact there was no ap-
peal from the Court of Chancery. There was a no-
minal appeal to the House of Lords, but it was well
known that all appeal 'was even-there decided by the
Lord Chancellor. The remedy which he proposed
was in the first instance* very plain L-namely, to ap-
point a ComMittee to inquire into the facts, and re-
port their opinion. The inquiry should be instantly
commenced, for it could produce no possible injury.
With the view of giving full time for considering, be
only intended to move on the present occasion, that
a Committee be appointed, to consider so much of
the Statute, 13 Elia. chap. 7, as relates to giving the
ll,ord Chancellor jurisdiction in matters of Bank-
ruptcy. He accordingly concluded by a Motion to
that erect.

Mr. SINCLAIR seconded the Motion, not only
from its general public importance, but especially
because he thought it would tend to expedite and
facilitate the decision of Scotch Appeals.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL remarked, that the
great object of the Honourable Gentleman seemed to
.be, not to do away with the office of Vice-Chancellor
against which he so much complained, but to su-
peradd to the Court of Chancery a new Court, to,
have exclusive jurisdiction in matters of liankruptcy..,
His first objectival to the motion slow before the
House was, that It was founded od statements which
did not agree with the true state (Inlets. The hear-
ing of Appeal cases had been very much expedited