e distress which prevailed in the
country, could have been anticipated, was received by the house with
general satisfaction. Mr. Maberly and Mr. Hume, however, maintained not
only that there had been no reduction of the public debt, but that
there had been an actual increase both in the capital, and in the annual
charge, and that taxation had been raised instead of being diminished.
They alleged that the capital of the debt had been increased by the
enormous sum of L61,646,000 between 1819 and 1826, and that the annual
charge had grown in proportion. This assertion, however, rested on an
obvious fallacy, arising out of a total misapprehension of the nature of
what is called the dead-weight scheme, and of the arrangements which, in
pursuance of it, had been made with the Bank for discharging part of
the half-pay and pension list. Mr. Hume's assertion, that taxation had
increased during the last three years was still more erroneous; for the
chancellor of the exchequer in his statements proved to demonstration,
by actual figures, that from 1816 to 1825 taxes had been reduced to the
large amount of L27,522,000, and that no new taxes had been imposed.
Subsequently the state of the public debt underwent much discussion, the
great questions being not whether it ought or might be reduced, but what
was its actual amount, and whether, in point of fact, any diminution of
it had been effected during late years. The amount of the army, navy,
and civil estimates was also censured by Messrs. Maberly and Hume with
other members, but the necessary supplies of the year were readily
voted.

BILL TO PREVENT BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.

On the 2nd of March Lord John Russell moved for leave to bring in a bill
for the better prevention of bribery at elections. Leave was given; and
on the second reading of it Mr. Wynn stated that he had many objections
to it, which he feared it would not be practicable to remove so as to
render it fit for the adoption of the house. As he understood it, he
said, the principle of the bill was, that upon complaint made to the
house by petition, a select committee should be appointed to try the
issue, and that their decision should be final. There was an obvious
objection to this; namely, that the decision of no committee could be
binding upon that house. The inquisitorial powers of the house might be
delegated, but not the judicial. A body might be appointed to bring in
a true verdict as to fact, but the questio