The Sun.
London, England, 1839-07-17 00:00:00

CHURCH-RATES.

Mr. FOX MAULE rose and said that, before proceed-
ing to read the Orders of the Day, he wished to allude
to a petition which had been presented the other day
by the Hon. Member for Finsbury from John Thorogood,
complaining of the treatment he bad experienced in
C;belmsfurd gaol, vitae he wa3 imprisoned for non-pay-
ment of Cl;nrch-rates. As that petition had been
printed he thought it right the House should be put in
possession of the justification of the Magistrates.
Mr. \V A KLE Y rose to order. Hon. Members on pre-
senting petitions were, by a Standing Order, precluded
from entering into any details as to the contents of the
petitLns. This he considered a great evil on petitioners,
but if the course pursued by the Hon. Member were to he
adopted, the evil would be infinitely worse, because,
although the petitioner would not be heard, the allegations
in opposition to it would be all laid before the Home.
He would take this opportunity of stating that
tarly in the next Session he should move that
the Standing Orders relating to petitions be rescinded.
Mr. HUME rose, but was met with loud cries of " Or-
der, order.")
The SPEAKER raid that if the Hon. Member was not
about to bring forward any question of privilege, he was
clearly out of order.
Mr. F. MAULE was not about to brig, forward a
question of privilege, but as the petition had been printed,
he thought it was but fair that the vindication of the Visit-
ing Justices should likewise be made known. He should,
therefore, move that the papers be laid on the table.

Mr. HUME suggested that the proper course for the
Hon. Member would be that the parties complaining
should present a petition, and then when the House hzd
the two petitions before it they could better decide upcn
their relative merits.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE—This was .an explanation of
the conduct of the Magistrates towards John Thorn-
good. He thought the Honourable Member could make
that statement in answer to a question from him • he
would, therefore, take the liberty of asking the Hon. 3fetn-
her whether he could give any explanation of the treat-
ment of John Thorogood, by the Visiting Justices dur-
ing his imprisonment in Chelmsford Gaol. •
Mr. FOX M AUL E said he had a very full
explanation to give, but ho thought the better
ccurae would be to lay the document on the table, arid on
a subs-quent day to move for certain papers connected
with the subject

Mr. GEORGE PALMER. thought the Hon. Mem-
ber wac entitled to give the House an explanation.
After a few words from Mr. GOULBUIIN and Mr. BAINES,
the papers were laid on the table.
COURT OF CHANCERY.

Mr. FRE SUFI E leD then rose to bring under the con •
sideration of the House the subject of which he had given
notice ; the object of which was to show as shortly as pos-
sible the present state of the Court of Chancery, or ra-
ther of the suitors in that Court, and the advantages that
would be derived from the assistance of the Court of
Exchequer, and ha would show the necessity of the
proposed alterations by the returns which he would
move for, He was aware that on a subject like the present
he should be as brief as possible, and he should therefore
confine his ob.ervations within a very narrow compass. It
appeared that there were at the present moment 712 cases
waiting for hearing, and when he talked of the hearing of
a case, it implied that a considerable delay had token place
before the parties were entitled to set down causes for hear-
ing. Prom the inquiries he had made, it appeared that it
would take three entire years to dispose of these 712 cases.
The Honourable Member then stated a case in which the
petitioners sought to recover a property of 30,000/. a year,
and whose case had been considered and thought quite clear
by Sir A. Piggot, Sir S. Romily, Sir V. Gibbs, Mr.
Butter, Mr. Preston, Mr. Serjeant Williams., Mr. Serjeant
Sheppard, Mr. Mayne, and Mr Baur—yet after the case
had been before the Court for years, the party was obliged
to give up the prosecution of the suit from the immense
expense attendant upon it and frcm utter hopelessness; in
that case the delay and expense had prevented him from
art iving at the justice of the case. In 1803 an individual
died, and his daughter instituted proceedings in Chancery
in 1809. She obtained her decree in 1812, but that decree
was not in the nature of a verdict at commo►► law. It
merely said, that she had established her right, but that
an account must be taken in order to find out what amount.
That account was taken before one of the Masters who
made his first report in 1817, stating that 62,0001. was due.
That report was sent to another :Master who made his
report in 1822, and he found that only 34,000/. was
due. But who, knowing that the ease was twelve years
in the Court, would have supposed that the original
decree would have been questioned ? Yet so it was,
forthe case was carrried to the House of Lords, and
then the judgment of the Court below was affirmed.
Bat even now the case was not done with. The lady
did not yet get her money. Lord Eldon, in 1827, re-
ferred the former Master's report to a third Master,
and he found that the sum due was only 18,500/.
He had adduced those instances, not as instances of ex-
treme distress, but as allowing what an amount of incon-
venience arose from delay, and which in his belief
greatly exceeded a positive denial of justice. Delay
was worse than a positive denial of justice in its im-
mediate as well as in its. remoter consequences. If the
Court of Chancery was in such a state that at this moment
it would require three years to clear off the arrears, was
it not necessary the Court should have some assistance?
Was there not a foundation laid to convince the House
there was a great grievance which required remedy ?
Up to a certain period the Court of Chancery
had indirecly the assistance of the Court of Exchequer.
—( Hear.) The Court of Exchequer being in 1817 a Court
of concurrent jurisdiction with that of the Lord Chancellor.
The two Courts might be said to be sitting all the term,
and fcr a certain number of weeks after the term, and
there was no day in which a party might not take proceed-
ings. At that time the Court never sat less than 123 days
►n the course of the year. The extent of business was het
so great in consequence of having so much to do
with tithe causes, but still the suitors derived
considerable advantage from having the choice of
j going either to the Court of Chancery or the Exchequer.