The Sun.
London, England, 1836-04-30 00:00:00

entrusted will generally be the head of the law, or
even a lawyer, in anvth;ng but the na:ne.—Morning

We believe it will be generally admitted that the
Bill '' for the better administration of justice in the
high Court of Chancery, and for making provisions
for the hearing. of appeals and writs of error in the
House of Lords," has not conic too soon, and, if it be
a good Bill, cannot be praised too much. Chancery
reform, like a Chancery suit, has moved at a very slow
pace, even in these reforming days ; still, if it really
conies now in the shape of Lord Cottenhain's Bill, we
arc sure the public will be grateful for the boon, and
not value it the less because of its being, so long with-
held. and with so much difficulty ohtained. But is the
Leril Chancellor's Bill a good ooe ? Is it really a
1111 of Chancery reform ? We think not, and we
give our reasons. The Bill sets out in error—it
legislates upon a wrong principle—it does not attack
the master-evil of the Chancery system. On the
contrary, it goes to perpetuate it. The accumu-
lation of arrears of business in Chancery, beyond
what is possible to be disposed of within any
reasouahle time, while the machinery of Equity
judicature remains as at present, is the great
evil to •be remedied. Will Lord Cottenham's Bill
remedy that evil ? We confidently say it will not.
Lord Cottenham's Bill provides, indeed, for the op •
pointment of a Chief Judge in the Court of Chan-
cery, who is not to be Lord Chancellor--but it retains
the intermediate right of appeal from the Courts of
the Master of the Rolls and Vice-Chancellor to the
Court of Chancery. The consequence will be that
the time of that Court will be consumed in hearing
appeals, all, or nearly all, of which will have to travel
to the Court of highest appeal, to the additional ex-
pense of suitors and the needless prolongation of suits.
In the mean time, the arrears of causes in the Courts
of Rolls and Vice-Chancery, if they do not increase,
will certainly not be much diminished, because the
Chief Judge in Equity will have to give the most
of his time and attention to the hearing of appeals.
When Lord Chancellor Brougham took great cre-
dit to himself for getting the appeals under in the
Court of Chancery, he (lid not inform the public that
the arrears of original causes, of which former Chan-
cellors used to take their share, were greatly accumu-
lating in the other Courts of Equity. We need
scarcely remind the public that the Vice-Chancellor's
Court was created in the year 181:3, for the express
purpose of taking off' a portion of the original causes
from the Court of Chancery. Had Lord Brougham
given a fair proportion of his time, like former Chan-
cellor:,, to the dispatch of that business which comes
wahin the original jurisdiction of the Court,. the
arrears of causes in Equity would not hare reached
in his time the same point of accumulation, as near
as possible, as they had in 1812., before the esta
blishment of the Court of Vice-Chancery, but then
he could not have made the ad captandum flourish
that he did touching the reduction of appeals ; nor
could he have 'hod:Acid at any time during his Chan-
cellorship of closing the Court of Chancery for want of
brisiness to go on with. Let us here observe, that,
when it is said that the Noble and Learned Lord's pro-
jects of law reform were thwarted by lawyers lest it
should diminish their gain:, it would be very difficult
to pi-riot out any project of " law reform" of his since
he attained the Woolsack, which did not add to the
burdens of the country. Need we instance the cum-
brous, useless, and most expensive Court of Review
in Bankruptcy, and the addition of 1,000/. per annum
to the retiring pension of Lord Chancellor, which, of
course, was a " reform" also, and one which strangely
exemplified his generous disdain of pecuniary consi-
derations in carrying on the "great work of reform."
llad this been done by Lord Eldon, it would have
roused the indignation of the country : but when be
who denied even to the meritorious poor all right of
relief in sickness, old age, and misfortune, augmented
ha own retiring pension at the public expense, there
was no liberal patriot in either House' of the .Legis-
lattice to question his right of conferring on himise!f his
first and greatest act of liberality. In order to get rid
of the arrears of causes in Equity, the Chief Judge
should be confined to the duties of an original
jur:sdiction, and the intermediate appeal should
be taken away. Our readers will recollect that was
part of Mr. Lynch's plan of Chancery reform, which
he proposed in a letter to Lord Melbourne, just before
the Chancery Commiss:on was put an cod io by the
appointment of Lord Cottenham. We commented at

that tone upon the plan of Mr. Lynch, and expressed
our approbation of its main prJvisions. One of these
was to separate the political from the judicial func-
tions of Loid Chancellor, and another to abolish, as

ice havc, stated, the hitt:ruled:ate \Ve arc glad
to hind that these propositions arc supported by the
high authority of Lord Langdale, who expn!ssed his
regret that the Bill of his Noble and Learned Friend
st;11 left the political and judicial functions of the great-
est .in►portance united in the Lou! Chancellor, and
invested tl►e Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Chan-

eery with a united appellate and Original jurisdiction.
It was part of Mr. I,,,•nch's plan, if we recollect right,
to rtholish the anomalous jurisdiction of the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council, to which there are
other grounds of objection besides the taking away
Judges from their proper Courts. A very extraordinary
part of Lord Cottenham's 8.11, and which appears to
to be against all principle, is the provision for the
sitting of the appellate jurisdiction of that House during
a prorogation, and even a dissolution. Now, as the ap-
pellate jurisdiction of the House belongs to the Lords
only in their Parliamentary character, and while inPar-
liament assembled, the sitting of the appellate juris-
diction when, in point of law and fact, there is no
llouse of Lords, does appear to us to be a violent de-
parture from principle—not a new modelling of an old
jurisdiction, but the creation of an entirely new tribu-
nal, unknown to the Constitution, though, with powers
greater than any other. It is no excuse for the de-
fects of this measure that it is a cautious one, as Lord
Melbourne described it ; and that if found not to sue-

coed, the country can return to the old strte of things.
We can easily tin.lerAand the difference between a

cautious measure on a right principle, and a bad or im-
perfect measure on a mono. one. The former may be
amended in progress of time ; but as the latter sets

out in a wrong direction, the further it goes the more
wrong it is. If we are to have Chancery reform by
the slowest imaginary degrees, be it so—let us have a
bit" now and a " bit" again, but let the first bit be
upon the right principle. It is only by avoiding blun-
ders in the commencement of the work, that a strong
foundation can be laid for a solid superstructure of a
reformed system of equity. The outline of Lord Cot-
tcultAm's Bill we can assure the Government gives
the greatest uissatisfaction to the Bar. There are other
points of it to which we shall A° another opportunity
of a:lverting.—Morning Herald.
The cordial reception given to Mr. Aglionby's mo-
t= last night in the House of Commons shows that
the day of exterminating punishments is fast drawing
to a close. The Hon. Gentleman's motion, indeed,
was confined to the simple object of putting an end to
the intemperate precipitancy of a law which ordains
that persons convicted of murder shall die within the
next 48 hours—a law which has, not unfrequently, oc-
casioned the immolation of an innocent victim, as
many of our readers will remember : but the short dis-
cussion which arose upon it furnished an opportunity
for communicating sonic. most important information to
the House. Upwards of three years have now elapsed
since the Legislature abolished the punishment of death
for several offences, and both Mr. Hume and Mr. Len-
nard last night availed themselves of the occasion to
prove, from statistical facts, the beneficial effects which
have resulted. This they did by reference to abstracts
of ParLamentary rettn us, showing that a great deal of
blood had been shed upon the scaffold, not only use-
lessly, but with positive injury, as appeared by the con-
sequent increase of the crimes so punislied. Mr.
flume demonstrated that while in three years ending
with 1329, no fewer than 42 persons had been put to
death in IVEldie.ex, and in the three v'c:rtts ending.
with 1835, only one person had undergone that
punishment for the same offences, the substitution
of rational and more Certain penalties in the latter
period had brought with it a diminution in the coin-
mitments, the number laving fallen from 67.2 to 64-9.
On the other hand, Mr. Leunard 'moved a similar re-
salt with regard to the eiL!lit circuits of England, where
in the firs'.-mentioned period of three years, 54 con-
victs had suffered death for the crimes referred to,