system of Bankrupt-law, which was to put an end to the ruinous expense now complained of, and was to devise some intelligible code of official arrangement, by which all the clamours of the country were to be stilled. A greater insult than such a declaration could not easily be imagined. If the new administration had not been formed, the bill, which the present lord Chancellor had introduced for the improvement of the court of Chancery, would have been carried by acclamation. But now that it was formed, parliament was told that it was a useless measure; that the 188 propositions of the report, which had 188 eulogists, were to be abandoned; and that all that was necessary to simplify the court of Chancery was, that the lord Chancellor should make certain regulations under which all expenses and delays were to cease. If any man had a judgment so weak as to place confidence in such a statement, he ought to be placed forthwith under another branch of the lord Chancellor's jurisdictionthe jurisdiction in lunacy. The system, he repeated, must be reformed. It was full of abuses; and those, who now undertook to defend them, had, not many months ago, poured forth against them torrents of fiery indignation. Had they not changed their principles with their seats, they would have continued to see that much more than the substitution of one man for another was expected and was necessary to a tolerable reform in Chancery.

Dr. Lushington, although he opposed the motion, on the ground that no good object could be served by going into a committee at that late period of the session, merely to read the statute of Elizabeth and

the other bankrupt acts, which, when read, not one man in ten would understand, expressed his conviction, that nothing but legal enactments could remedy the evil, and that it was absurd to expect that the lord Chancellor could devise a cure for evils which nothing but an act of parliament could cure. The bill brought in by lord Lyndhurst himself was now abandoned, and they were told to wait till they should see what his lordship, and his two coadjutors, could do by the force of their own regulations. He placed every confidence in lord Lyndhurst; but he must doubt whether any exertions, which the noble lord might make, notwithstanding his advantages of being younger, as well as more bold and fearless in disposition, than his predecessor, could ever reduce the business of the court of Chancery within those limits of despatch and accuracy which were requisite to do justice between all parties.

Mr. Brougham asked, what inconsistency was there in his learned friend the attorney-general voting against severing bankruptcy from the jurisdiction of the Great Seal, even supposing him to have formerly voted for changes in the court of Chancery? Had he ever said that bankruptcy ought to be severed from the Great Seal? Why, the question had never been mooted before to-night. His learned friends had said before, that the state of the court of Chancery required investigation, and did they object to it now? They had said, that, at the present moment, they saw reasons for not effecting the separation now proposed, but was that a dereliction of their former principles ? A wonderous change, it had been

said, was now visible in various members of parliament: they were all opposed to the alterations in the court of Chancery which they had formerly most strenuously advocated; and they had now, being in office, no objection to all the arrangements of that court, though, when out of office, they had poured forth against them "torrents of fiery indignation." It was assumed, for the purpose of an unfair attack, that he himself, and those who thought with him, had changed their opinions on the subject. Now, on what measure of government, on what chapter of policy, on what officer of state, on what judge of the land, had his conduct, opinions, or principles, changed? It had been said by those who contended that lord Eldon was not to blame for the arrears in the court, that no man could get through the mass of business. If the business had increased, the means of disposing of it had increased too, by the establishment of the Vicechancellor's court. Instead, however, of having an efficient Chan cellor, Vice-chancellor, and Master of the Rolls, there had always been either an unfit Vice-chancellor or an unfit Master of the Rolls, which left the court in the same situation as before the Vicechancellor's bill passed. Now, at present, we had, in the first place, as efficient a Master of the Rolls as could be required. Of sir Anthony Hart, the new Vice-chancellor, he would say that he had been one of the most experienced practitioners in the court of Chancery, and was admirably qualified to get through business, which would compensate for any deficiencies that might exist in other respects. The new lord

Chancellor, again, though not educated in the Equity courts, was a person of very great legal talents, and of a very strong and independent mind. He possessed a remarkable power of simplifying and dealing with the most complicated questions; and it was the opinion of those, whose opinion in such matters was best worth having, that he was qualified for reforming the court, and anxious to save its time; and that he would make up for the defect in his legal education of not having been trained in a court of Equity, which was his misfortune, not his fault. He, therefore, had a confident expectation that the business of the court would now be despatched in proper time. But he did not, therefore, say that bankruptcy should be attached to the Great Seal for ever. He said, wait a year; give time to the court of Chancery, which has now three, instead of two judges, and for the introduction of practical and effectual reforms by the judges themselves. See what the lord Chancellor could effect, with the aid of his two efficient coadjutors. The experiment in the court of Chancery could now be fairly tried; and if, at the end of a year, the case should appear hopeless, then he would admit that the bankruptcy experiment should be adopted, and he would support a proposition which he now deemed mischievous, or at least premature.

On a division, the motion was lost by a majority of 134 to 37.

During the discontents which disturbed the country in the end of 1819 and the beginning of 1820, certain legislative measures had been adopted, known by the name of the Six-acts, for the pur

pose of checking the course of the preachers of sedition. Some of them had already expired by the lapse of time; but one of them, which subjected to a stamp duty those cheap periodical tracts that formed the most powerful instruments of unprincipled agitators, still remained in force. Mr. Hume, who had not joined in the migration of his brethren to the ministerial benches, brought for ward (31st May) a motion for the repeal of this statute, which, with all the others, had received the strenuous support of Mr. Canning, and had been resisted and condemned by the opposition as a tyrannical and unwarrantable attack against the liberty of the press, and as a new attempt to crush the public execration of him and of his compeers. Mr. Hume said, that he had intended to have made the same motion during the preceding session; but he now congratulated himself upon the delay, as the changes, which had in the interim taken place in the government, must have made it a fortu nate delay for the question he now advocated. But Mr. Hume greatly deceived himself. Mr. Tierney, Mr. Abercrombie, sir James Mac intosh, and Mr. Brougham, were absent on the occasion: lord Milton declared it to be a matter of so little moment, that he was not sure whether he would remain in the House to the division; sir James Scarlett and sir Robert Wilson manfully joined Mr. Can ning in resisting the motion, and abusing and ridiculing their as tonished mate, the member for Aberdeen. The attorney-general (sir James Scarlett) said, that the mover of the present motion seemed to expect his concurrence in it, for no other reason than because he

had hitherto expressed certain opinions on the subject; but it was expecting too much to suppose, that he was now to vote for the repeal of this bill merely because he had happened, ten years ago, to complain of part of its enactments. The House must be well aware, that, in legislating for the good of the country, it was necessary to look at a subject in all its bearings, and not rashly revoke a measure, the practical effects of which had been tried and approved. When he looked at this bill, its various bearings, and the objects for which it was designed, he could never consent to its entire repeal. It merely put periodical pamphlets and papers on the same footing with newspapers, in regard to paying a duty, and as such publications might contain all that was most interesting in a newspaper, he saw no reason why it should be otherwise. It compelled the proprietors of them likewise to enter their names at the Stamp-office: this, too, was good; he knew that it had produced great benefit in many cases of libel where the suffering parties, but for this arrangement, would have been left without an attainable remedy. There were one or two clauses of the act which he might wish to see altered or expunged; but he was not, therefore, of opinion that it ought to be repealed altogether. If he had formerly opposed the enactment of this measure upon speculative grounds, and now found that a beneficial practical effect had flowed from it, he felt himself bound to take advantage of the benefit which experience had afforded him, and should deem it a dereliction of duty to adhere to the speculative opinions which

time had proved to be erroneous. As no practical evil arising from the act had been pointed out, he could not consent to the repeal. With all the obligations which he felt to be due to the member for Aberdeen for the good which he had effected for the country in other respects, he was not inclined to take him as a model in matters of general legislation, and would meet the motion with a direct negative, however kindly it might be meant to the new administration.

Mr. Peel said, that the straightforward course which the attorneygeneral had adopted, was infinitely more manly than the insidious line of conduct followed by other honourable and learned gentlemen, who had absented themselves from their places, because they had resisted, in 1819, the enactment of the bill which was now sought to be repealed. He honoured the attorney-general more than ever, for the manliness with which he had declared, that he would not sanction the repeal of this bill, because he had originally resisted its enactment, without inquiry into its practical results. If all the tlemen, who had recently joined his majesty's administration, had pursued a similar line of conduct, and had stated their reasons for not adhering to the opinions which they had formerly expressed, they would have done themselves more honour than they now did by staying away from the debate, and withholding from the public the sentiments they entertained upon it. At the same time he would not say, that the grounds, on which his majesty's attorney-general had resisted the repeal of this act, were altogether such as he approved. It was, however, highly satisfac

gen

tory to him, who in 1819 had supported this measure, and who, in common with those who had introduced it from a sense of duty, had been subjected to a great and undeserved load of obloquy, to hear the correctness of that policy now maintained by the hon. and learned gentleman, who had formerly been among the foremost to arraign it. It was highly satisfactory, he repeated, for him to see a tardy justice at last performed to the memory of a noble friend of his, who had been more foully calumniated than any individual with whom he had ever been acquainted. His majesty's attorneygeneral was wrong, very wrong, in stating that this particular bill met with but slight opposition. Not one of the Six-acts was more pertinaciously resisted than this very act; it was resisted on its third reading, and even at the last stage and indeed in every shape in which the forms of the House would allow any opposition to be made to it. The open and manly course which the attorney-general had that night pursued, in recording his approbation, in 1827, of the measure against which he had divided in 1819, was a full justification of those who had introduced it. He hoped that the House would permit him, in justice to the memory of his noble friend the late marquis of Londonderry, to take advantage of the admission now made. The vindication which his majesty's attorney-general had that night offered for his own conduct, rendered the vindication of his noble friend's political conduct in 1819, complete and unassailable. If it were right now, in times of com parative quiet and tranquillity,

when there was little sedition and blasphemy abroad, and when those who attempted to corrupt the public mind by such publications were comparatively insignificant in number-if it were right now to resist the repeal of this act, was not his noble friend justified in 1819, when assiduous attempts were making in all quarters to poison the mind of the lower classes, in proposing a measure, of which the practical operation was now admitted to be as beneficial as his noble friend had anticipated that it would be?

Sir Robert Wilson manfully declared that he would vote against the motion, because it was an inconvenient motion for the ministry. He said, that he had come to the ministerial side of the House, not by that circuitous path generally followed in moving from one side to the other, but boldly and unblushingly, because he had come with the colours of liberal principles flying, to support a ministry which was formed for the avowed purpose of uniting the prerogative of the king with the liberty of the people. He came to the House prepared to defend the government, either from open assault, or invidious attacks, which were calculated to prejudice its character, and to produce a schism among its supporters, which could not fail to be injurious to the best interests of the country. He accused Mr. Hume of a breach of faith in having brought forward the motion, after a pledge given to him (sir R. Wilson) in private, that he

would let it alone, if the attorneygeneral asked him to do so. Mr. Hume replied, that this was not true; that he had written to the attorney-general, stating, that he would not stir the matter, if the attorney-general himself would undertake to move the repeal in the course of next session. This the attorney-general would not do, and he had therefore nothing left but to bring it forward himself, for he was so unfortunate as not to be able to change his opinions, which, however, sir R. Wilson certainly had a right to do, if he pleased. On a division, the motion was lost by a majority of 120 against 10.

In the mean time, a portion, at least, of the members of the opposition were introduced into subordinate offices, though none of them had as yet been elevated to any station of high and direct influence. The marquis of Lansdowne accepted of a seat in the cabinet, to which were soon added the seals of the home department. The mastership of the mint, which had been vacated by Mr. Wallace, was conferred upon Mr. Tierney; Mr. Abercromby became judgeadvocate, and sir J. M'Donald one of the commissioners for India affairs. Mr. Brougham had no share of the spoil: he declared in the House of Commons, that, "finding that his taking of office would have prevented the junction of the two parties, he had voluntarily resigned all claims of his own that could be held to stand in the way."