The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-10-20 00:00:00

£BOO,OOO.

. ,
Brazilian, ; Colombian, 32 ; Portuguese (new,) 881 ;
Ditto 3 per Cents., 581; Russian, 108; Spanish, 444; Ditto
(new.) <Ili; DuiCk 21 per Cents., 55; Dittos per Cents., 104
4-1; Unrecognized Real Del Monte,l7;
United Mexican, 3i ; Brighton Railway, 91 ; Great Western
ditto, 11k; North Midland ditto, 81; Provincial Bank of Ire-
land, zltig.

LORD BROUGHAM, EX-CHANCELLOR.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE LIVERPOOL

SlR,—When I furnished you some weeks ago with a statement
of the coMparative number of cases decided by Lord Eldon and
Lord Brougham in bankruptcy. I intended the following week
to have sent you a similar statement of the number of cases
decided by those noble lords in what I would call proper chan-
cery business, as distinguished from bankruptcy business, but
the absence of some of the books at the binders prevented me;
however, you now have the result of my labours. I have, as
before, taken indiscriminately two volumes of reports of chan-
cery cases decided in Lord Brougham's time, and reported by
Messrs. Mylne and lieette. The first volume contains 78 cases,
of which his lordship decides 37, and the Master of the Rolls 41.
The second volume contains 125 cases, of which 13 may be put
aside, net having come before, either Isis lordship.or the Master
of the Rolls; so that I have to give an accmint of 112 contained
in this volume. Of this number the Master of the Rolls has
decided 74, and his lordship 38. One case in each volume de-
cided by his lordship has been appealed against, and, as I
anticipated in my former letter, are still pending before the
House of Lords. In the second volume of these reports there
is a case " Stocken o. Stocken," an appeal case, where his lord-
ship refers to a prior decision of " Mundy c. Earl Howe," and
then says, " but, before finally giving judgment, I shall take
further time to look into and consider that case." The report-
ors add, " The case was mentioned several times afterwards, but
no final jadyment appears to have been pronounced." The
appeal to his lordship was heard ou the 21st December, 1833,
and the report has been just published (1835.)
. . . .

Let us now see what Lord Eldon has done, first premising
that the selection of the two volumes of cases decided in his
lordship's time has been made quite a' random. The volumes
are the eleventh and nineteenth of Vesey, jun. The eleventh
volume contains 114 cases, of which 09 were decided by Lord
Eldon, and 15 by Sir William Grant, the then Master of the
Rolls; the nineteenth volume contains 112 cases, of which Lord
Eldon has decided 112, and the Master of the Rolls 30. We,
therefore, find that Lord Brougham has only decided a fraction
more than 5-12ths of the cases found in the two volumes of
Mylne and Keene, whereas Lord Eldon has decided 10-12ths of
those reported in the two volumes of Vesey above-mentioned.

Before I sat down upon this subject, I had no doubt of the re-
sult; the investigation, however, was necessary, that the public
might be disabused, and the facts made known. Palmam qui
meruit feral! and Lord Eldon, it must be acknowledged, has
most triumphantly entitled himself to bear it away.
In conclusion permit me to notice, that in the Mercury fol-
lowing my foimer letter there was au attempt to throw dust in
the eyes of the readers of that silly journal, but not the slightest
attempt made to falsify the statement put forth in my letter.
As I then said, so I now repeat, here are the data, and let those
contradict it who can. lam no " Catumniatnr" of Lord
Brougham. I write the truth; but a "Calumniator" neither
writes it nor speaks it. G.