The Sun.
London, England, 1839-06-08 00:00:00

' member, that Court has been considered the oppro-
brium of justice and the ruin of suitors. Lord
LYNDHURST stated last night that it had deserved
the same character from the time of HENRY the
EIGHTH. When Cardinal WOLSEY was Chancel-
lor, causes were twenty years pending. Similar
has continued to be the practice of the
Court of Chancery from that time to this.
At present there are no less than 850
causes standing for hearing, and, on an average,
each cause stands on the paper two years before
it is heard. During the time they are in the book
waiting for a hearing, each cause pays fees
every term. Supposing there are 150 causes, each
occupying on an average two years, the term ftes
alone paid on them would be 7,0001., all out cf
the suitors' pockets, or more than would pay the
salary of an additional Judge. All the Noble and
Learned Lords who spoke admitted that the present
state of the Court was a serious grievance to the
suitors. Such an admission is, we take leave to

say, a great disgrace to the Noble Lords who made
it. The Court of Chancery is a creature of the
Legislature. Of it, as of the wages of labour,

and the condition of the working-classes, the Lords
cannot say that it is a social evil beyond their power
The Courc is a creature of their own,

o cure.

and if they cannot make it answer its professed
purposes, they must admit either that legis-
lation cannot attain its proposed ends, or
they are downright bunglers. In the House of
Lords there are two ex-Chancellors with not much
to do, and an ex-Chief Justice of the Court of
Common Pleas with nothing to do ; there are,
moreover, the Lord Chancellors, both for England
and Ireland, the Master of the Rolls, the Lord
Chief Justice, and perhaps some other Law Lords,
and yet, though they all must have known of this
grievance, for it has long been complained of, they do
not, or cannot, remedy it. A &phi overrun with weeds,
a creaking hinge, or a rattlir,lg sash, are considered
at once as decisive proofs that they have a lazy,
careless owner ; but what is a neglected field or
house to the neglected Court of Chancery, while

the Peers—the fathers of their country--the very
models of wise legislators, sit with their hands folded,
and do nothing.
The remedy for this accumulation of business re-
commended byLord LYNDH URST,iS the appointment
of another permanent Judge. To this the only
objection made was, that with another Judge business
would so rapidly increase that there would be a
greater accumulation of arrears than ever. Before
the Vice-Chancellor's Court was created the average

number of causes in Chancery was 504, and after
it was created the average number was 760. It is
clear, therefore, that to create Judges is to create
causes, and to multiply the barristers' and
the term clerks' fees. Such an increase of causes
gives rise to a suspicion that the solicitors or bar-
risters have the art to make business for themselves.
When there is no chance or hope of getting a case
heard—when they foresee that the client's patience
or purse will be exhausted, they no doubt find
some means of settling the business without allow-
ing it to go into Court. When they see a
probability of carrying a cause through, they advise
accordingly. Thus it is that increasing the number
of Judges increases the number of causes. As it
appears to us, the check should be put on the bar-
risters and the solicitors. Instead of making large
fortunes by increasing the number of causes, they
should be liable to losses. A great reform, therefore,
would be effected in the Court of Chancery, by
empowering the Judge to fine every solicitor and
every barrister, and fine them heavily, who were
parties to bringing an improper cause into Court—
as the Judge would be saved trouble by inflicting
heavy fines, while the suitors would never be denied
justice, though they might not be gratified by
having either.law or equity. We think the reform of
which we have suggested the principle, would be
the only efficacious one. Both the country and the
suitors would save large sums by making it the
interest of solicitors and barristers to be careful and
honest.

The Bishop of EXETER, not contented with
speaking against the Church Discipline Bill, has
written against it, and piiblished his writing in the
shape of a protest. Being first printed in the Lords'
votes and then in the Newspapers, the mode of
publication lays him under no obligation to Mr.
MURRAY. We must place parts of it before our
readers, that they may form an approximative
opinion of,the claims of the Clergy. That they can
ever duly sound the art ogance of this body far be it
from us to determine. The Bishop begins thus—

1. Because, though the Ecclesiastical Judges derive their
power in fora exteriors, even in spiritual matters, from the
State, their authority is independent of, and pre-existent to,
the sanction of the temporal law, which merely adds tem-
poral consequences to the ecclesiastical censures, the inflic-
tion of which is part of the power of the keys, vested in the
Church by its /divine Founder, and exercised by it in the
earliest ages. It follows, that the State, though it may re-
fuse to add a civil sanction to the exercise of the spiritual
authority, cannot either grant that authority which does not
spring from any human source, or take it away from any
oriel in whom the Divine constitution of the Church
has vested it. Consequently, this Bill, prohibiting in
every diocese the exercise of all spiritual jurisdiction, so
far as any spiritual censure on a criminous clergyman is
concerned, except that of the Court of Arches, doth ex.
ceed the power of human law, inasmuch as it affects to de
prive Bishops of that essential authority and inherent right
which appertain to their sacred office by the Word of God.

So the Church of England has the power of the
Keys, which will be a great edification to the
Presbyterians. The Divine founder, too (HENRY
VIII., we presume), gave it that power from the
earliest ages. If this be not mockery it is blas-
phemy. The Keys is a Popish invention, and has
nothing to do with Christianity, as the Dissenters'
discipline, who are very good Christians, distinctly
proves. But it is not enough that the Bishop claims
this power, and with it the " power of binding and
loosing ;" he insists that—
" He by whom Kings reign, and Princes decree justice,"
bath inseparably annexed to Christian magistracy, the
duty of upholding and enforcing the essential discipline of
his Church—a duty which this State, so long as it acknow-
ledges our own apostolic branch of that Church, can only
discharge by sustaining and strengthening, in all things
necessary, the government by Bishops.

The Parliament and the Sovereign, therefore, are
ordered by the AL m IGHTY, according to the Bishop,
to uphold and enforce the government of Bishops.
We cannot conceive any bye-way in these matters•
If it be the duty of the Christian Magistracy
to sustain the government of Bishops, and
if that be ordained by Him by whom Kings
reign, it must be a paramount duty, and the State
is bound at this day—as King CHARLES thought
it was bound in his time, and endeavoured to fulfil
the obligation—to sustain the government of
Bishops in every part of the empire, and not to rest
till the authority of the successors of the Apostles,
who occupy our Bishops' sees, is established in
Scotland. The same principle on which the
Church Discipline Bill is protested against, is suffi-
cient to warrant the complete proscription of Presby-
terianism and of every denyer of episcopal authority.
The Bishops' pretensions are admirably supported
by the Ultra-Tory Evening Journal. It claims
for the Church " a Divine mission," and must
regard it as a sacred duty to carry the Divine will
into effect. There can be no alternative ; if it be
Divine it must be supreme, and all other Churches
and sects must be compelled to acknowledge the
divinity of the Bishops' authority. We are making
rapid progress towards ecclesiastical dominion, and
if the people of England do not put away the
Church blinkers, the Papal power, under the name
of the Anglican Church, will soon be restored here
in all its splendour, without the aid of O'CONNELL
and the Irish Romanists.

The New Zealand Laid Company have for some
time been publishing details of their intended plans
for establishing a British colony in that remote
quarter of the world, and on Monday next there is
to be a meeting of those persons who intend to be-