ged 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 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 business.
But if the business of the court had increased, the means of disposing
it had likewise increased by the establishment of the vice-chancellor's
court. But instead of having an efficient chancellor, 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 vice-chancellor's bill passed. But
it was different now: they had as efficient a master of the rolls as
could be required; and of the vice-chancellor he would say, that he had
been one of the most experienced practitioners in the court of chancery.
The new lord chancellor, also, was a person of great legal talents, and
of an independent mind. From all this, he had a confident expectation
that the business of the court would be despatched in proper time. On
a division the motion was lost by a majority of one hundred and
thirty-four against thirty-seven.

MOTIONS REGARDING THE STAMP-DUTY AND CHEAP PUBLICATIONS.

During the troubled state of the country in 1819 and 1820, certain
legislative measures had been adopted, known by the name of the Six
Acts, for the purpose of checking the course of sedition. Some of
these had expired by the lapse of time; but one, which subjected cheap
periodicals issued for the purposes of agitation to a stamp-duty still
remained on the statute-book. On the 31st of May, Mr. Hume brought
forward a motion for the repeal of this statute. He had intended, he
said, to have made this motion during the preceding session, but he
congratulated himself upon the delay, as the changes which had
taken place in the government were favourable to the question he now
advocated. But Mr. Hume soon found himself mistaken. Mr. Canning and
others when in opposition had condemned this statute as a tyrannical
and unwarrantable attack against the liberty of the press; but to a man
they now resisted the motion, and abused and ridiculed the mover. It was
lost by a majority of one hundred and twenty against ten.

THE CORN-LAW QUESTION.

The new corn-law, which had been sent to the house of lords befo