GENERAL HISTORY. 



[7 



had stated some facts in proof of 

 the misrepresentations and unfair 

 proceedings of the Americans re- 

 lative tothe impressing of seamen; 

 and a few words had been added 

 by other members ; the question 

 was put and carried without op- 

 position. 



A similar address being moved 

 in the House of Lords by earl 

 Bathurst, on Feb. 18th, the day 

 for taking into consideration the 

 papers relative to the war with 

 America, adebateensuedjin which 

 the arguments employed were so 

 perfectly similar to those above 

 reported, that it is unnecessary to 

 particularize them. The address 

 was carried without a division. 



The great inconveniences aris- 

 ing from the accumulation of bu- 

 siness in the court of Chancery, 

 which rendered it impossible for 

 the same person to preside in that 

 court, and also to perform all his 

 functions in the House of Lords; 

 and as a high political character, 

 had for a considerable time past 

 engaged the attention of both 

 Houses of Parliament, and a bill 

 for the appointment of a new law- 

 officer, under thetitleofvice-chan- 

 cellor, had in the last session been 

 laid before the House of Lords, in 

 which no alteration had been pro- 

 posed, but it had miscarried in the 

 Commons; almost immediately 

 after the assembling of the new 

 parliament, on Dec. 1, 1812, lord 

 Redesdale presented tothe House 

 of Lords a bill for the better ad- 

 ministration of justice, which he 

 stated to be the same with that 

 introduced in the preceding ses- 

 sion, and after he had made a short 

 observation on the necessity of 

 some assistance to tiic lord-chan- 

 cellor in the discharge of his mul- 



tifarious duties, the bill was read 

 the first time, and ordered to be 

 printed. 



On Dec. 7, the order of the 

 day standing for going into a com- 

 mittee on the bill, lord Holland 

 rose to submit a motion for further 

 informationrespectingthebill.and 

 particularly for the production of 

 the report of the committee of the 

 House of Commons appointed to 

 inquire into the causes of delay in 

 the decision of suits in the court 

 ofChancery. LordRedesdalemade 

 no opposition to this motion, but 

 at the same time assured the House 

 that no information could be de- 

 rived from that report capable of 

 altering the opinion of their lord- 

 ships on the proposed measure. 

 The order of the day being then 

 read, lord Holland again rose to 

 state tothe House some objections 

 to the bill, which were replied to 

 by lord Redesdale, and the bill 

 passed through a committee, and 

 was ordered to be reported. 



The further proceedings on this 

 bill, in which many of the ablest 

 members in both Houses, especi- 

 ally those of the legal profession, 

 took different sides, produced a 

 mass of argumentation of which it 

 would be impossible togivean ade- 

 quate view in such a summary as 

 we are confined to by our limits, 

 especially as the topics discussed 

 were of so technical a nature. We 

 shall therefore only note the par- 

 liamentary circumstances attend- 

 ing the passing of this bill, and in- 

 sert in its proper place an abridged 

 account of its provisions. 



On Feb. 11, the second reading 

 of the Vice-chancellor's bill was 

 moved in the House of Commons 

 by lord Castlereagh, in a speech, 

 in which he stated at large the 



