The Sun. — London, England, 1827-02-28 00:00:00

thanks of the House and the country were due to the Noble Lo, 1 ' for bringing this important subject under their Lordship*' cow; - deration. Lord CLIFDEN also returned thanks to ti; Noble Lord for bringing forward the subject, but regretted th the Noble Lord bad not introduced a- clause for getting rid spring-gnns--those murderous instruments, the mischievous effect of which felt much more frequently on the innocent than o poachers. He trusted that some Noble Lord would take up th important point. The Marquis of LANSDOWN did not mean 1.) enter at large into the subject at that moment, although l; thought it proper to make a few observations. In the first place, he most cordially joined in the general expression of respect and gratitude to the Noble Lord, for the pains he had taken upon this subject; and for his bringing it before the House in a manner which might enable their Lordships to give the whole of it their most anxious consideration. Greatly as the offences against the Game Laws had directly increased, a very imperfect estimate would be formed of the consequences of these offences, unless their indirect effects were taken into consideration, as being the first step towards other crimes of all descriptions, and of a more heM ous nature. These offences against the Game Laws, undoubtedly led, especially in the agricultural districts, to a great variety of other and more desperate crimes; and it would be taking a very narrow view of the subject to suppose that the consequences were confined solely to the increase of the - single crime of poaching. He, therefore, intended to have on their Lordships' Table, by the time these Bills should be read a second time, a Return of Commit ments for Crimes in General, which might have the effect of throwing much light on this subject. He perfectly agreed that the increase of crime had been owing to other causes besides the Game Laws ; and the main cause was, the unfortunate habit of paying wages out of the poor rates, thus destroying in the labourer's mind every feeling of independence, honour, and honesty. The Bills were then read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time this day fortnight. The "Marquis of LANSDOWN then moved for a Return of the Commitments for Crime during the years 1810, 11, 12, and a similar return of Commitments during the years 1824, 5, 6. The same for Scotland, and the same for Ireland. Also, that a Message be sent to the Commons, requesting that they would communicate their Report on the Wages of Labour.— All Ordered. Mr. Joyce, from the Board of Trade, presented Returns rela tire: to the importation of Foreign Corn.—Laid on the Table. The House then adjourned till Thursday. HOUSE OF COMMONS. CORN LAWS. Mr. C. CALVERT presented a petition, signed by 1500 of his Constituents of the Borough of Southwark, praying for an Alteration of the Corn Laws, and a reduction of the Public Expenditure. Sir R. WILSON supported the prayer of the pe titioners. Petitions were presented by Sir W. Burrell, from Sussex ; Sir Knatchbilll, from Kent ; Colonel Sibthorpe, from Lincoln ; Sir Cottetei, from Hereford, and Sir W. Ingleby, from Lincoln 'shin against any alteration in the Corn Laws. Lord MILTON presented a petition from Throg morton, in Lancashire, praying for an alteration of the Corn Laws. Mr. N. CALVERT presented petitions from two Parishes in Hertfordshire against any alteration of the Corn Laws. Mr. H. DAVIS presented a petition from the Millers of Bristol against the Importation of Foreign Flour. Lord 3, HAY presented petitions from Abingdon And Lothian against any alteration of the Corn Laws. Mr. C. DUNDAS presented petitions from New bury and Hungerford, in Berkshire, praying for protection to the Landed Interest. Admiral SOTHERON• presented petitions from Worksop, in Nottinghamshire. Similar Petitions were presented by Mr. Whitmore, from Bridgenorth, in Somersetshire, and from Shiffnell, in Shropshire ; by Mr. Si - ?Owen, from Ripon, in Yorkshire ; by Mr. Curteis, froin Dover, and some parishes in Sussex ; and by Mr. R. Palmer, from Maidenhead, in Berkshire. Sir JOHN NEWPORT presented a petition from 240 of the principal Corn Millers in Ireland, against the admis sion of Foreign Flour. Mr. LESLIE FOSTER said he was instructed by his Constituents to support this petition. Mr TIERNEY presented a petition from Knares borough, in Yorkshire, praying for an entire revision of the Corn Laws. Mr. C. WESTERN presented a petition from the Eastern Division of the County of Essex, praying the House to abstain from meddling with the Corn Laws. Petitions with the same prayer were presented by the same Hon. Member from a parish in the East Riding of York ; from the Agriculturists of Holderness ; and from St. Andrew's, Kin loch, Daffies, and other places in Scotland. Mr. WESTERN then moved for an account of all the monies received from 1515 to 1826, upon the Duties pay able on Corn, Flour, or Grain, taken out of warehouses for home consumption in Great Britain and Ireland, distinguishing the sums received in each year.--Ordered. Sir E. HARVEY presented a petition from Saf fron Walden against any alteration of the Corn Laws. Mr. MARSHALL (of Yorkshire) presented a Petition from Halifax against the Corn Laws. Col. SIBTHORPE presented a petition from Lincoln against any alteration of the Corn Laws. Mr. SLANEY presented a petition from Shrewsbury, against any alteration of the Corn Laws. These petitions were laid upon the Table, and ordered to be printed- Mr. R. PALMER presented a petition from Wallingford, against the Importation of Foreign Wool, and praying that the state of the Wool Trade might be taken into consideration. - Mr. LEGH KECK presented a petition from the Innkeepers of Market Harborough, praying for an increased Allowance for th e Ca va lry quartered upon them, in consequence of the high price of provender. Mr- D. GILBERT brought in a Bill to extend the provisions of the 55th of his late Majesty, to facilitate the Transmission of Copyhold Property by Will. Read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Monday next. Mr. M. DAW SON presented a petition from Clonmel against the Duty on Coals carried to Ireland. Mr. MOORE presented a similar petition from the Chamber of Commerce of the city of Dublin. Mr. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the Shipowners of the port of Whitby, in Yorkshire, complaining of the alteration of the Navigation Laws. Mr. DYSON brought up the reduced List of the Members elected to sit on the Committee to try the merits of the Penryn Election Petition. The following were the names of the Members : —Sir W. P. Pringle, R. Hancock, Esq. J. H. Legh heck, Esq. J. Fane, Esq. Sir G. Featherstone, P. Vanhomrigh, Esq. Sir W. Heathcote, C. N. Pannier, Esq. L. W. Buck, Esq. C. H. Cooke, Esq. C. Buller, Esq. E. R. Purdoe, Esq. J. Bas tard,. Esq. Lord Althorp, Lord Granville Somerset. Mr. HARE presented a petition from the Catholics of som e Barony in the county of Kerry, fur the removal of their civil disabilities ; and Lord DUNCANNON another, to the same pur- pose, from Kilkenny. Lord CASTLEREAGH, on presenting a similar petition from the county of Down, assured the House of his deep devotion to the cause of the petitioners. Mr. C. PALMER presented a Petition from Chetham, in Surrey, against Negro Slavery. The same Hon. MEMBER presented a Petition from the same place, praying that the Catholic Claims may not be conceded by the Legislature. Mr. HENRY GR ATTAN, in presenting a Pe tition from a parish in Ireland, in favour of the Roman Catholics observed, that he knew from his own knowledge, several parishes in Ireland which paid tithes, in which there was no resident Pro testant, except the Rector, the Curate, and the Clerk,—The petition was then ordered to be printed. Mr. LIDDELL moved for a Return of all the Stamps issued to Country Bankers from 1819 to 1826, both in clusive ; distinguishing those for a sum above five pounds from those under that amount ; and stating, at the same time, the ag gregate amount. Also a similar Return for Ireland.—Ordered. Alderman WAITHMAN gave notice of his in. t e ntiou to move, on Thursday, fo r an A ccoun t o f th e Receipts and Expenditure of the Society for providing Refuge to the Destitute. THE COURT OF CHANCERY. • --- Mr. M. A. TAYLOR being called upon by the Speaker to mak e his motion on the subject of separating the ju risdiction in matters of Bankruptcy from the High Court of Chancery, said, that as his Right Hon. and Learned Friend, the Master of the Rolls, intended on that night to submit to the House his Bill for the future Regulation of the Court of Chan. eery, he thought it due as well to his Right Horniurable Friend, as to the convenience of the House, to withdraw his motion, until they were in possession of the propositions which were intended to be carried into effect by that Bill. He hoped, however, that in thus withdrawing his motion, he would not ulti►nately lose any thing, as he reserved to himself the power to bring the subject under their consideration at a future opportunity, as well as to make any observation in the course of that night, upon a discus sion which he might think necessary to a proper elucidation of the subject. No exertion, he begged to assure them, had been want ing on his part, to have those evils and alniSes of the Court of Chance', under which the suitors of the Court, as well as the public, had so long Writh , .:cl, fully and fairly examined---(Hear, hear.), -- -ana tie trusted the time was now arrived when they would be effectively redressed. The MASTER of the ROLLS (in his full of ficial robes) then rose to address the House. I have in the first place to return thanks to my Hon. Friend (Mr. M. A. Taylor), for his courtesy in giving way on this occasion. I certainly did anticipate the indulgence which he has afforded me, but at the same time I am bound to express my acknowledgments for the readiness with which it was conceded. I rise now, therefore, in pursuance of the notice I gave some time back, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the practice of the High Ckatrt of Chancery. The House is aware, that in the course of the last Session of Parliament" I gave a notice of nearly the same description, and that in pursuance of that notice I obtained leave to bring in a Bill for the same purpose as that which lam now about to propose. It will be necessary, there fore, in the first place, to explain, in a few words, why I did not avail myself of the permission I then obtained, and why , I did not follow up the measure I then proposed in the subse quent stages. It must be obvious to every one acquainted with the subject, that a measure which pm posed to alter the course of proceeding in the highest Court of the Kingdom, must in volve great complexity of arrangement, and call for extraor dinary minuteness of detail. In the measure which I submit ted to the House last Session, there were provisions which would have rendered it necessary to make an application to Parliament for a very considerable pecuniary grant, in order to give them a full and efficient operation. After having given that and other circumstances a due consideration, it appeared to me, and to others, by whose advice I was influenced, that it would be almost impossible, during the remainder of that Session, to succeed in earring- that Bill, and the other measures by which it must have been accompanied, through the House of Parlia ment in such a manner as to give them the effect of law. These considerations, therefore, in conjunction with others, indaced me to abstain from pressing the Bill upon the attention of this House during that Session, for I thought it would be an idle waste of time to enter into a discussion of the matters contained in it, without any prospect of coming to any satisfactory issue, and involving the House in discussions which could only lead to unprofitable debates.—(Hear.) —l thought it, therefore, better at once to abandon the Bill which I then introduced, reserving to myself the right to repeat the motion when I considered it to he more expedient, and follow it up by a Bill, embodying those pro visions which I thought adequate to effect the reformations which were proposed. This is the short history of the measure which I then introduced ; and I am happy to be able to say that I have reason to believe that I acted correctly upon that occasion, and that the course I pursued has obtained the approbation of those whose soundness of judgment entitles them to respect. I rejoice, indeed, that I did so postpone the consideration of the question, because that postponement has afforded me additional opportuni ties to consider subjects, as I have already observed, of very great difficulty, and to mature, from further deliberation, the plans which lam about to submit to the House. I am satisfied, too, from that more mature consideration, that it will not be necessary in the Bill I am now about to propose,to make any provisions which would call for pecuniary assistance; but that, on the contrary, we will be able to carry all its objects into effect, without requiring any grant of money from the House. It will not be expected that I should now go into an explanation of all the particulars of the evils or the remedies, as applicable to the practices of the Court of Chancery, with the same minuteness of detail, as when I had last the honour to address the House on this subject. lam convinced that such a course would be as irksome to the House, as it would be painful to myself. I shall endeavour, therefore, to treat the subject generally, and to ren der my references as clear and us intelligible as possible, not only to those who are acquainted with the practice of the Court—at least in its outline—hut also to those who are not practically ac quainted with the Court, and who have no previous knowledge upon the subject. In the first place, therefore, it will be neces sary to understand the nature of the subject, that I should get rid of all those cavils and objections which have no bearing upon the question we are about to examine. I may say, with confidence, that I have never found any one individual, upon whose judg ment I could place the least reliance, who attempted to find fault with that system of jurisprudence which distinguishes the Court of Chancery from the other Courts of Civil and Criminal Law, and which is with us called Equity. I never recollect any one who ventured to assert that the jurisdiction of that Court could be dispensed with ; and, considering the nature of the subjects brought uuder its consideration, which it is called upon to be con versant with, I consider it impossible that such a Court could be dispensed with in the present state of society. If a party enters into an agreement, the stipulations of which may be binding to a great extent, every person knows that if we attempt to call him to a specific performance of his contract, the law affords no re medy. The relief which, in that case, must be obtained, is pe culiar to a Court of Equity. If I have a tenant who, under the power of a lease, attempts to cut down my timber and to commit other dilapidations upon my property, what remedy have I in a Court of Law ? There is none to be had. If I wish to obtain my object, I moat call upon a Court of Equity to interpose, and prevent what would otherwise prove perhaps an irreparable injury to my property.—(Hear, hear.) — I mention these instances to show that a Court of Equity pos sesses a power of affording relief which cannot be dispensed with, and which we might seek in vain from a Court of Law ; and I repeat an observation I made before, that I never knew an individual, who possessed any knowledge upon the subject, and whose opinion could be relied upon, who would venture to say that equity could be dispensed with, that what is called equity could be even administered by the Courts of Law, or that it could be afforded by any other means than a distinct and dif ferent tribunal, limited to a peculiar object. If that be so, and I can scarcely think it will be denied, then it will not bediffi cult to understand the points to which our inquiries must be di rected. Before, however, I go farther, I think it right to en deavour to remove a reproach which has been frequently cast upon the Court of Chancery with respect to the slowness o£ its operations as compared with those of the Courts of Law. In one respect the operations of the Court of Chancery are im peded from the very nature of the questions which it is called upon to determine. In a Court of Law, there is only one issue to be tried, upon which the Court may be, perhaps, able to decide almost instantly. In a Court of Equity, the Judge who presides is called upon to determine upon many complicated questions connected with large masses of property in the hands of various individuals, and to decide between the claims of one body of men and another body, supporting their rights upon different interests. To take, for an illustration to the House, a familiar instance of the nature of proceedings in the Court of Law and the Court of Equity. A man sues another for a debt in a court of law. The questions to be determined are simple—the existence of the debt, and its amount, and the process is ended. Let us take an analagous case in a court of equity, and see the course of proceeding there. A man dies insolvent, and the whole mass of his creditors step in--and demand a division of his effects ; but instead of the question being determined there, as in a court of law, by one action, every individual creditor is called upon to prove his debt, and there are, consequently, as many causes to be tried as there are creditors to claim. It would be no difficult matter to enumerate many other instances in which a complexity, arising from the claims of several parties might occur, which could only be settled in a court of equity. Th e interests and the proportion of interests which contending claim ants had frequently in property, could only be adjusted in such a court. No person, therefore, I presume, supposes that equity can or ought to he dispensed with, or that it is not essentially ne cessary to continue and persevere in our jurisprudence. I yield to no man in my admiration of Cie simplicity of proceedings in courts of law-1 have been brought up in early prejudices in fa vour of that simplicity; hut it is in consequence of the separation of the business in the courts of law, from that which should be conducted in courts of equity, that the simplicity of the former has been preserved ; it is in consequence of this just distribution, that a single Judge in one year has been able to dispose of, during the sittings of Middlesex and Westminster, causes to the number of 3,ooo.—(Hear !)--These preliminary observations I deemed it necessary to make, to assist me in directing the attention of the House to the points which it appeared to me most requisite that their attention should he directed. It is necessary in the next instance, I should call the attention of the House to the course pursued by the Commission appointed two years ago to inquire into the supposed abuses of the mode of proceedings in the Court of Chancery. When that Commission was issued for the pur pose of suggesting the mode of rectifying those abuses ; the objects to which they directed their inquiries were —the practice of the Court; whether any, and what alteration could be introduced into that practice, with a view of introducing alterations in it, in order to diminish the expence and abridge the time which it was com plained that the proceedings in that Court entailed. These were, in my opinion, legitimate and proper objects. And for this pur pose the Commission was directed to persons of great intelligence, great learning, and, with the exception of two or three persons (to whom I will presently refer), to persons conversant in the business and mode of proceeding in the Cotirt of agnecry. Persons better qualified for the task entrusted to them could not be found in the country. I know it has been said, that though they were very learned persons, yet the Commission was composed of men, wh,)3e prejudices prevented them from coming to a just judgment on the subject. In answer ,to that obiection, I beg to say, that on that Commission was to be found the name Ot niy notion:Ale and Learned Friend the Member for Tregony (Dr. Lushington), who if he was capable of being swayed by prejudices at all on such a subject, his prejudices certainly leant the other way. The Report of that Commission, to which the name of my Honourable and Learned Friend was subscribed, formed the basis of the Bill which it is my intention this night to introduce. To that Re port was also subscribed the name of an Honourable Gentle man, not no* a Member of that Hotise (we believe Mr. Robert Smith)—a gentleman Whom lam proud to call his frierfel--:-a gentleman of great learning, and an accomplished scholar— active, industrious, zealous, indefatigable, and whose in flexible and uncompromising character was an assurance of his views not being influenced by prejudice of any kin. The applause . of the country was due to this Gentleman for his asaiduous and pereevering attention, day after day, at the Committee. I will then confidently reft. to the autbority of these two names—l might refer to that of others—to contradict and refute the supposition that prejudice prevailed in the prepa ration of the Report on which the Bill I propose to introduce has been founded. The Bill, therefore, will have this recommenda tion, that it had not been founded or any crude and undigested suggestions of my own, but that it takes the result of two years' deliberate inquiry as the basis of its recommendation to the adoption of Parliament. The object of the Bill then is, to give effect to that Commission which was appointed with the applause of the House and the Country—(Hear, hear)—l do not undertake implicitly to follow or abide by all the recommendations in that Report. A year and upwards has elapsed since that Report was published, and it is not to be wondered that that Report on so complex a subject, and embracing such intricate details as it ne cessarily did, should have been so long before the public—so long before the acute and discerning eye of a learned profession, with out having many improvements suggested and superadded to those contained in the Report of the Commission. Of some of these suggestions I propose to avail myself, in altering and modifying some of the propositions recommended by the Commission for the adoption of the Legislature, where such suggestions appear to me to promote more effectually, than the propositions themselves, the due administration of justice. And here I must take leave to remark upon the course pursued by a Noble and Learned Lord, a member of that Commission, but who did not sign the Report (Lord Redesdale), than whom there is no man better informed—in deed I may say so well informed—on the details of the subject into which the Commission was appointed to inquire. With all the respect that I entertain for that Noble Lord, I cannot forbear from expressing my regret that he did not attend at the investi gations of the Commission day after day, to discuss the proposi tions which thew proposed, or to suggest others which he might wish to have substituted for them. I regret, Sir, I say, that lie did not adopt this course rather than adopt the mode which he has done of afterwards publishing his opinions in a pamphlet, canvassing and questioning the propriety and prudence of the propositions contained in the Report of the Commissioners.— (Hear, hear, hear.)—l feel myself called upon to speak out thus boldly of the course pursued by the Noble Lord, notwithstanding the great respect I entertain for his extensive learning and great talents. In considering this subject fully and impartially, how ever, I am free to admit that there are some suggestions of the Noble Lord deserving the greatest „attention. I have availed myself of and profited by those suggestions. Into the detail of these suggestions in the pamphlet of the Noble Lord I will not now enter. I will merely mention one, and I will mention it because it is a striking one. My learned friends will understand me when I say, that among the propositions recommended by the Commission, is one " that the decision of Masters in Chan cery should be final on questions of exceptions." Now the voice of the profession has been very loudly, and, I think, not unrea sonably, raised against the adoption of that proposition, and I will tell the House why—without explaining fully the nature of ex ceptions, I will merely say that it not unfrequently happens that the issue of a cause involving property to a considerable amount, may depend upon exceptions. To leave, therefore, the decision of the blaster final on that on which may determine the disposal of large property in some cases, though not in all, without a permission to appeal, is a power which, I concur with Lord Re desdale in thinking, ought not to be vested in Masters, and is one that in practice would be found inconsistent with a sound system of jurisprudence. The inconvenience that would arise must be obvious, from the consideration of their being ten Masters in Chancery, and there might be ten different rules of decision— (Hear, hear, hear !)—and the House must perceive that this would lead to the evil (than which could be more mischievous) the introduction of vagueness into the law of property. I object to the recommendation of the commission, which would not allow Appeal from the decision of the Master on questions of exceptions, but I propose also to restrict the pi ivilege of Appeal, and not to permit it to be transferred from the Master's to the Vice-Chaneel lor's Court, or the Master of the Rolls, and from their Courts to the Lord Chancellor, and from his decision finally to the House of Lords. This, I think, would be too extensive a permission of Appeal, and instead of this unrestricted right of Appeal, it may_ be well to enter into some compromise, to adopt some restrictive modification of the right, and to limit it to one Appeal; the party having the choice of the Court to which the Appeal may be brought, and reserving a power, in cases of nicety and intricacy, to give his sanction, if he should deem it necessary, to an Appeal to the ultimate tribunal. I will now proceed to other propo sitions recommended in the Report of the Commissioners, and with the view of rendering the subject intelligible to all the Mem bers of the House, I will first explain what a suit in Chancery is, than the outline of which there can be nothing more simple.—(A slight laugh from the Opposition.)—l repeat, there is nothing more simple than the outline of a Suit in Chancery ; it is in the minuteness of filling up the details that the evil exists. If I may borrow an illustration from the art of painting—it is as a picture —the outline of which is simple and beautiful, but the effect of which is destroyed by the elaborate detail of the artist. The mode of proceeding in a suit in Chancery is this:—The plaintiff starts in the cause by filing a bill, in which he states his own case in his own way. The opposite party is called upon for an an swer, which is made on oath. In many cases, from the contra diction in the allegation—from the secret trusts to be sifted out— and from various causes, a supplemental bill and answer are filed by the plaintiff, and then the case is generally ripe for hearing. In many instances the case may be decided upon the bill and answer alone. In a variety of cases evidence is heard on both sides, the case is set down for hearing, and the Judge pronounces hjuisddgeechisasion.proAnofutenreeedvihdeisncjeudggomnee i nt, nt h o efo o r n b e. ot o h t e h r sides, trihn nnaslsd, the sciaosne ofis u th su e a j ll n y dg at e a in n en E d q . nity ßu is t n na ot er s e o ly in de e e q is i i n v t o y. on T t h h e e p fi r r i s n t c d ip ec ie t This decision leads to an inquiry into the next of kin or other porn • ts of detailed investigation, according to the circumstances of the case. This inquiry is conducted in the Master's Office, and, upon it, the Master makes his report. This is the course of pro ceeding in a suit of Chancery, than which nothing can be more simple and intelligible. Now the Commission recently appointed, directed its inquiries with a view of ascertaining the causes of de lay from the issuing of the first process up to final judgment. In prosecuting this inquiry the Commission followed the several stages of a suit in Chancery, in every possible shape which, in its progress, it could assume. They strove to determine what could be dispensed with, what step could be abated, what process extin guished, what alterations, accompanied by improvement of any kind, could be adopted ; and these objects of investigation the Commission pursued with a patience and perseverance that en titled them to the applause of the country. I have not heard any Gentleman say that the Commission has not done enough. The only doubt I have at all heard expressed, is whether they have not done too much.—(Hear, and a laugh.)---Hon. Gentlemen may smile, but the course pursued by the Commission, I contend, has been a legitimate and a proper one. Among the complaints alleged against the Court of Chancery, was the evil that was stated to arise from setting down causes for hearing within a given period of time, which hearing did not take place until long after that given time had elapsed. In order to form a just judgment on this part of the subject, it was material that the Commission should ascertain if any and what impediments created this inconvenience. The principal impediment was found to be the multiplicity of business of the Court ; and to remedy this inconvenience, it was proposed that part of the business should be taken away from that Court and transferred to other tribunals. It might be a fair subject of inquiry, what portion and what de scription of business it was that might, with safety to the due a dministration of justice, be removed from the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, and transferred iu the manner recommended. Upon the subject of the increase of arrears, by returns laid be fore Parliament two years ago, the business of Courts of Equity was certainly considerably in arrear. That arrear was in a great degree occasioned by the long indisposition of Sir Thos. Ploiner, and of the Vice-Chancellor. I can state, that upon recent in quiries which I have made into the subject, there has been no growing increase of arrears. It is so far, therefore, a console ion to knots, that there has been of late years no growing in- crease of business, and that We will be able to apply the addi tional facilities which the present Bill proposes, without having greater difficulties to contend against than we contemplated at the commencement of the labours of the Commission.—(Hear, hear !)—Another ground of complaint against proceedings in Chancery, is the delay in the Master's office. That there it great delay in this department, I admit ; and I admit, too, that the great secret of the delay generally com plained of, lies in the delay here. This, for the most part, is attributable to the nature of the inquiries conducted in the Master's office; certainly not to any neglect or dilatori neSs op the part of the Masters themselves. When the busi ness then Was ripe for decision, and ready for decision as promptly and rapidly as a decision under circumstances could be prepared, the blame of delay was r ot attributable to them ; the evil was that they have no power to give activity to their proceedings. They had not adequate means to advance the business in their offices. To whom then is the blame attri butable? Unwilling as I am to say any thing that might appear disadvantageous to any class of men, yet I am bound to say that this delay is chiefly imputable to the agents. Indeed, situated as the agents were in their relation to the Master's office, it was not to be wondered at that they were not more attentive than they were to the business there. There is scarcely a respectable soli citor in London who has not more business in the Courts of Law than he can conveniently get through, and he naturally attends to that which he is obliged to do, and leaves undone that which he can do at any time. If a Solicitor in a Court of Law does .not attend to the businees of his client, the suffering client has a claim upon bins to pay his costs. But the Solicitor who attends at the Master's offices merely takes out a warrant which only costs two shillings, so that Whether he attends or not, he only sustains a trifling loss in consequence of his neglect. This was no doubt a great inconvenience, and one which presented difficulties against which it was not perhaps easy to provide by a legislative measure. It is necessary, however, to give adequate authority to the Master, in order to expedite advance the business of the office. The Report of the Commission suggested a remedy for this evil, which it would be fair at first to put to the test of trial ; and if it was not found adequate to the purpose for which it was intended, the Legislature may apply a fresh stimulus with a view of getting rid of the Oil. Another object to be attained was, the diminishing Whatever forms Were not found necessary for the efficient adminis tration of justice. Whatever deduction could be made, and what ever process could be safely spared, should be done with a view of expediting the business. Another inconvenience, and a very great one was, that by a little ceremony, and ingenuity of practice, a party in the Court of Chancery might prevent the termination in form of a mit, for two years from the commencement of it. Now this was a great inconvenience, and resulted from the power possessed by the party of amending his Bill. This permission should not he unrestricted, or it must necessarily lead to inter minable protraction of suits, and he attended with manifest in- justice to the party to whose fair interests this delay was opposed. Accordingly, it is proposed in the present Bill, to place proper limits to the practice in this department of the business of the Court of Chancery ; and one ef the propositions, With which were ect t 1800 res in number, suggested a remedy for p these propositions, it had been said that ethviely mbraced for the . most part recommendations, to which the Lord Chan::. ellor, by his own fiat, could give the force of law—(Hear, hear, lies. from the Opposition !)—Gentlemen might cheer ; but it was doubtful if the Lord Chancellor could, by his authority alone, give to some of the measures contained in these propositions the force of law ; and it was therefore better by far to give to those propositions a Legislative sanction at once—recommended as they were by the patient persevering attention given to the preparation of them by twelve eminently qualified gentlemen, who continued their labours for two years, and of which labours these proposi tions were the result. I will now direct the notice of the House to the course respecting the Bill founded on these pro positions, which I would recommend the House to adopt. There were two courses which the Legislature might pursue. The first was, it might authorise the Lord Chancellor to give the effect of law to these propositions. Secondly, we might, from a certain day, declare that they shall be law. The latter of these courses I think the preferable one; it is more direct and rapid in its effects than the former one—and advantages, which I shall be prepared to point out, if the Bill should go into a Com mittee, will be derived, from a legislative sanction being given to them, and from making them consistent with the rest of the sys tem. In the Bill which I intend to introduce, I propose to re - serve a power for the Lord Chancellor to act, from time to time, on these propositions, in such manner as he may think proper—. that is, that the Legislature should give the stamp and sanction of law to the proposition it adopts, and that it may then leave to the Lord Chancellor the exercise of a discretion to bring them into force and action, as circumstances may require. This is not a novel course of proceeding. Besides the reason of the thing, and the certain inconvenience that must result from adopting a dif ferent course, this mode of proceeding is not a novel one—it is not without precedent. It was impossible to anticipate the work ing of the system which I propose, until it is fairly tried, and therefore much must depend upon the foresight and prudence to whom the superintendence of the working of it was en trusted. In a similar case, the adoption of certain regulations by Parliament, in the reign of George 1., for regulating the office of Accountant-General —in the Bill of confirmation of those regulations, a clause of reservation was introduced, autho rising the Court of Chancery to alter and modify these regu lations which had passed into law, if it should see a case of necessity that required. tinder present circumstances there appears to me an absolute necessity of pursuing a similar course. This will appear more fully when these propositions come to be discussed in a Committee, into which I shall enter without any anxiety, without any partiality for the propositions, but that they may be as perfect as possible—that they' may con tribute to the accomplishment of the good which we all have in view. —(Hear, hear !)—For this reason I solicit the support and assistance in the Committee of my Hon. and Learned Friends in this House, and also of the many Gentlemen in this House, who, although unacquainted with a technical knowledge of the profession, from their intelligence and acuteness, may be able to give very valuable assistance. I invite them to assist me in the vigorous prosecution of a measure in which there is nothing of party, nothing of passion, nothing of what is personal.—(Hear.) I call particularly on my Honourable and Learned Friend (Mr. Brougham), who is so capable of affording valuable and useful co operation; and to another lion. and Learned Friend (Dr. Lush ington), who signified his approbation of these propositions by affixing his signature to the, Report. I call upon them to put from all parts of the House, instead of tchoemirmshitotueeld;erasntdo I th e e x s p v e h e ee t l, by becoming active Members of the indulging in complaints and thwarting our design, to assist in ac complishing ir,to p this opgreatoost: someject, nesolw regulationsf orongcalledv I by ithe ther spt to ec country. I intend, the Masters in Chancery ; and I will explain to the House the course which I mean to recommend to them to adopt on this subject, not doubting that they will agree with me in the pro priety of the measure. I mean th en t o p ro p ose an a lt era ti on i n the mode in which Masters in Chancery are now paid. The principal source of their present emolument is what is called Copy-money. They receive twelve pence per folio on their pro ceedings ; being three times the price of the ordinary common law charges. This anode of payment has given rise tovarious reproaches am insinuations, from illiberal minds ; and the assertion which I am persuaded is utterly unfounded that the Masters frequently ex tend their proceedings, merely for the sake of the additional emolu ment which they thence derive. Now. Sir, Judges ought not to be subject to such imputations, however groundless; there should not be any room whatever for any suspicion upon the su bject--(Hear). In a country like this, not even the most illiberal person living should be able to breathe the slightest accusation against the purity of an individual in such a station, or have the slightest colourable pretext for the charge. The Commissioners there fore recommend that the present mode of remunerating the Mas ters in Chancery should be abolished ; and I am persuaded that the House will see the propriety of adopting the recommendation. But, Sir, when I state that the e moluments of each Master of Chancery, according to the mode in which they are at present remunerated, a mount to from fifteen hundred to eighteen hundred pounds a year, the House will see that as there are six Masters there will be a large deficiency to supply. When we are intro ducing reforms in the Court of Chancery we ought not to endeav our to render those reforms efficient at the expence of the fair re muneration which is due to any individual. Every public man ought to be justly paid for the services which he renders to the public. The services of the Masters in Chancery are of a most arduous description, demanding great industry and toil ; and the persons who are qualified to fill the highly respectable situation of a Master in Chancery, are entitled to liberal advantages. The revenue which I have just described as that which they at present receive, is by no means too large for their services. But if we de prive them of the source from which that revenue is now de rived, from what source shall we determine that it shall henceforth be derived ? The fees on their Reports are at present exceedingly small. In consequence of the large allowance which they are at pre - sent accustomed to receive as copy-money, no attention has been paid to their fees, which are on the lowest scale. What is the re • medy then which I propose? I propose, in the first place, that the fees shall be raised to bear. a snore just proportion to the services performed by the Masters; always taking care that they shall not be so much raised as to give them more than they at present re , ceive. But even when the fees shall be raised to the extent which I recommend, there will still be a deficiency. How is that to be supplied ? Each of the Masters in Chancery has already a salary of six hundred pounds which he receives out of a fund in the Court of Chancery, which has been gradually accumulating for above a century. There are various and large charges Paid out of that fund, but still there is a residue amply, and more than amply, sufficient to meet the purpose in view. I propose, therefore, that the deficiency in the emoluments of the Masters in Chancery, created by the alteration which I have described, shall be supplied out of that fund ; I think the House will be of opinion that I have suggested a very proper mode of effecting the object.—(Hear, hear, hear.)—The Masters in Chancery themselves, will, I should suppose, be, generally speaking, much pleased at the alteration. They must, I should suppose, be anxious to free themselves from the reproaches and insinuations of illiberal minds, and from the suspicion that they are interested in extending the proceedings before them. While I say this Sir, I must be allowed to protest against an opinion which, within a few days, has been promul gated by a single Master in Chancery, the Senior Master, but who I hope speaks his own opinion alone, and not the opinion of the body to which he belongs. This Senior Master in Chancery de clares, it seems, that Parliament has no right to interfere on the subject. He declares that if the interference should be persevered in, the Masters ought all to retire. Let them retire But this Learned Gentleman says they ought to retire with all the salaries and emoluments which they enjoyed during the perform ance of their duty. Sir, this Learned Gentleman ought to be aware that there is not a Session of Parliament in which an Act does net pass imposing additional burdens of duty on the Judges, both in Courts of Law and Courts of Equity, without giving them any additional emolument ; and that it ig on these terms that those individuals accept their high offices. I feel entitled to animadvert in this House on the , Learned Gentleman's statment, because the time at which he made it, and the industry with which it has been circu lated, sufficiently show that it was intended to influence the House in their decision on the proposed Bill ; and I really cannot applaud the style in which the Learned Gentleman says that he feels called upon to discharge an important duty, and that as far as in him lies he will not suffer any injury to be inflicted on the sovereignty of the Great Seal, and therefore protests against the proposed Bill.—Sir, among the other recommendations of the Commissioners is the appointment of some other off., .s namely, of two additional Registrars. I have attentively considered this part of the Report, in conjunction with other individuals, and I am perfectly satisfied that it will not be necessary to take any step with reference to it at the present period. I am unwilling when we are about to entail a long series of compensations on the country, to add to the pressure by any such measure. I think that without any public injury it may be postponed. Let us at least try the system as it is now proposed to modify it ; and, if it is found that the existing officers are not adequate to the discharge of the new duties cast upon them, then will be the time to come to Parliament for aid. But, Sir, I do not want to encounter the present Bill, or to endanger the success of it ; for which I am so anxious, by provisions which might give dissatisfaction on pecuniary grounds. I am afraid that it may he said, that under the pretext of in troducing a reform into the Court of Chancery favourable to the public, we are turning round upon the public, and, instead of effectually protecting them from the grievances of which they complain, are adding to their burdens. Until, therefore, I am satisfied, by the working of the system, as modified, that thes. ; new officers are necessary, 1, for one, will not propose h , Letion. There is one subject, Sir, connected with this i r question, i n wh,, ls is of great and paramount importance. I mesa to bankruptcy. These are questions most tntrn of a great commercial cou n try to state, that the result of deeply p questions e affectingstion r ela theti s i i : n like this. On that questo t n ere l st: Lce . much anxious consideration and consultation: is, that I do not think it advisable to recommend the adoption, as th zrt of the pre sent Bill, of the proposition of the Commissioners respees`jnY Bank ruptcy. The subjects ought not to be blended. The great tpea tion of bankruptcy ought not to be united to propositions respects ing extensive and minute details respecting the Court of Chancery. With the permission of the House, therefore, I will not submit that subject as a part of the measure which I am about to propose- It is a subject which well deserves to be considered by itself. If the House shall agree with me in opinion, I pledge myself always to keep in view the recommendations of the Commissioners as the Bankruptcy Question ; and to bring forward a separate messace respecting it, which shall have the most full and explicit discsas sion.—(Hear, hear, hear.)—Surely, Sir, the reform of the Court of Chancery is quite enough fur the subject - of one Bill. The Court of Chancery has no jurisdiction in cases of bankruptcy. Althosagb the Lord Chancellor decides on those cases, he desides not as Lord Chancellor, but as Keeper of the Great Seal. The two subjects have no connexion, and should net be comprehended in tte- same Bill. The bankruptcy question deserves a separate consideration; and I again pledge myself that the House shall have ample oppor tunities of considering it. Sir, I have already said, and I repeat it, that I am most anxious for the success of this Bill. It is an anxiety which I know that I only share with his Majesty'l Minis ters. It has been asserted, Sir, that the Chancery Commission originated only in the motion after motion which was made on the subject on the other side of the House. I deny it ; and I can po sitively state that from the moment the Commission was issued, every Member of his Majesty's Government was anxious for its successful investigation of the subjects submitted to. Of the dis position of Government on these points the House has, indeed, practical evidence in the noble and anxious efforts made by my Right Hon. Friend the Secretarrof State for the Home Depart ment, from time to time, to reform the Criminal Law of the coun try. I trust, Sir, that we shall all unite in these and similar ex , ertions ; I trust that no personal consideration, and no party feel ing, will interpose. If so, there is no difficulty on the subject which the House of Ciammons cannot surmount ; and in this per suasion I beg leave to conclude by moving for leave to bring Ma Bill to alter and amend the practice of the Court of Chancery.- - (Hear, hear, hear.) Mr. M. A. TAYLOR declared that the present was only another of those measures which on former occasions had been proposed for the purpose, not of accomplishing, but of defeating the object which the House ought to keep steadily in view. To those who had not witnessed the transactions in that House respecting the Court of Chancery during the last twenty years, his Right Honouralale and Learned Friend must have ap peared ,to open a very fair and pleasant case. The dispensing power asked for by the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman was a new feature in legislative transactions. It was impossible to accede to this proposition ; and , with regard to the proposed Bill itself, whatever facility his Majesty's Government might be disposed to give on the subject, and however anxious both sides of the House might be to amend the Bill in the Com mittee, he (Mr. Taylor) would venture to say, that it would its no way expedite the business in the Court of Chancery. Before the year 1811, he . (Mr. Tay lor) had repeatedly called the attention of the House to the delays in the Court of Chancery ; but all that he said appeared to make no impression. At length, in 1811, by the casting vote of the Right Hon. Gentleman in the Chair, he obtained a decision of the House, that they would examine into the causes of the de lays in the Court of Chancery. In all his statements on these subjects, he was not actuated by any personal feeling hostile to wards Lords Lord Eldon ; but he was bound to speak the truth and he would speak it. It was well known that, on the occasion to which he had just alluded, so anxious was the Noble and Learned Lord, that he remained in his own room until the result of the debate was ascertained. In the appointment of the Committee, to whom the examination was referred, however, Mr. Perceval, the Minister of that day, very dexterously took care that the ma jority of the names should be of persons friendly to the Lord Chancellor's views ; and left him (Mr. Taylor) with very few friends ; among whom, however, he had the satisfaction to find his lamented and valuable friend Sir S. Romilly. On that occasion Mr. Perceval had shown the cloven foot ; and notwithstanding the polished manners of the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had just addressed them, the cloven foot was again visible. In the year 1811, after many difficul ties, and notwithstanding the efforts of the Lord Chancellor's adherents, a Report was at length made; and if the House would revert to that Report they would see what the state of the Court forte tee I s r a h t i a c g h a n t l i v n a 3 1 8 a p l po 2 . inte d if tohfeChn pd ed th t e o n i s t v t a o s. folfi l l 'h t e he Co ob m j e ln ct it and to inquire into the causes of the delays in the Court of Chancery. " 0 no," said one of the Members, a Master in Chancery, " we are merely assembled to inquire what are the arrears." It is true, he was a new made Master, and knew then very little about the matter.—(A laugh.)—l showed him the vote of the House. He asked in what way it could be complied with. Sir S. Romilly replied, by calling on professional men to oats what they conceived to be the cause of the delays, " Oh no !' rejoined the Master, " that will be driving at the Lord Chan. cellos." The result was, that, he (Mr. Taylor) was left in a minority in the Committee, with Sir Samuel Romilly, aid a few others. Upon that he made a motion in the House fee fresh instructions to the Committee. The motion was negatived. The fact was, that Lord Eldon would not consent to it. Th( Noble and Learned Lord had himself told hitn so.—(A laugh.)— When the Noble and Learned Lord found that the business which he had to perform was more than he could accomplish—when hi found that the possession of the Great Seal added intolerably to his burdens_ ought he not to have come forward and relieved laimsel from the oppression. And why did he not do so ? Because the possession of that office was most profitable.—(Hear, hear - bear.: Had it not been so, Lord Eldon would long ago have dissever%