The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-14 00:00:00

in trheonecoounss.ideHractiobeijevteltitisthsuobsjeecetrrhoards
been in many rlist the
espects cr
he returns, an t la
had arisen from the fact of- several
dofficterts
thheayv
employed to make out t itiga d b eneont
e hear.)
tei
agra. t)i o n sH
ew
had,hich
all followed the same principle(
had been entrusted to them.- ' h ltd
hteveeertthe satisfach. Con in saying netahrtahte,h esiaonrviar, as t cy re a e
to the laid
(which
from the Returns
blieefer
e
traheaidreLoorndsahipfosr,lntehre occasion
be had then drawn from
Id affect the conclusions
• themselves were correct , and that, therefore, no error in the
heR e t mucharns t re-
them.at
Returns WOO
There was, however, one errrofrronm,hitchhe
4•
appear
in 183 , whereas, in
gretted, inasmucahrraesarit
euf'oualpdpeaaplp
there was
point of facta,lt'here was little or no arrear at that time. The
orrected, would show that the result of the
Return,
exertions of his Noble and Learned Friend,
h had still to lament, was not to reduce the
unparalleleddnect
whose absence e
arrears, whereas,
aien. point of fact, he had reduced them to no-
thing, or near
Their Lordships would recollect that on
former occasion he drew their attention to the business of
the
rof Chancery at several different and distant periods.
Court
Ile called their attention to the state of Chancery business as
existed immediately after Lord Hardwicke ceased to be
it also as it existed in 1813, being the
Chancellor ; a
periboedd when the Vice-Chancellor's Court was este-
w also as it existed in 1823, because in that
blis
r the'ir Lordships inquired into the whole matter of the
yea-
arrears of business both in this House and in the Court of
Chancery, and on which occasion a Select Committee
„n i
made n Report containing very material and important evi-
dence-
upon the subject be was now discussing ; and lastly,
be called his attention to the state of business terminating
with the year 1835. He took the early period_ bay going
back seventy years, in order that their Lordships might form
°me estimate of the manner in which the business of the Court
Chancery had increased. The average of causes from 1661
tof 65 was only 441, whereas from 1831 to 1835 they
amounted to 1,283. From 1661 to 1665 the average number
arilf titions was 379, whereas from 1831 to 1835 they
on," Actedti to 2,813. The appeals from the then only Court-
nii:Court of the Master nf the Rolls-from 1661 to 1665 are-
d only 12, whereas from 1831 to 1835 they amounted to
rasse lee did not state this as being a necessary argument in
b 5.
ore of the proposition he had to submit to their Lordships ;
butnon
b" I
" • order to correct a misconception which had gone
abroadupon the subject-a misconception difficult to
rain-
beex-
but which, upon reference to figures, was shown to
se• bout any foundation whatever. However, the im-
it
eriods to which he was anxious to call their Lord-
.,,,ortant p
ries, atteetion, were the periods of 1813, 1823, and 1835,
e from these it was that their Lordships must form
beca-;s • as to whether the present powers of the Court of
an op.nion
and the appellate business of their Lordships'
tiouse,
andClianccrY
of the Privy Council, were to continue as they
‘„,,se, or whether it was not the bounden duty of the Legisla-
ture to apply such remedy as was necessary in order to dis-
pose of the arrears of business that at present existed, and
must continue to exist unless some remedy were ap-
plied. CU/11 1813, Parliament decided by passing the Bill for
the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor, that the strength of
he Court at that time was not adequate to perform the du-
'ties required. He would now compare what was the state of
business at that time with the state of business at present, and
be thought that their Lordships could not but come to the
lusion, that if the business, as it existed in 1813, called
cone appointment of an additional Judge, the enormous in-
th e
forllase of business since that period was such as made it abso-
iy impossible for the machinery, as fixed by the Vice-
late ellor's Bill to carry on the business of the Court of
„Thane_
Chancery,, in a manner to do justice to the numerous suitors
in that Court. The
Noble and Learned Lard then read the
following statement .-1810, 181], and 1812, average number
of causes set down for bearing, 540 ; 1820, 1821, and 1822,
ditto, 945 ; 1832, 1833, and 1834, ditto, 1,301. That formed
aii important part of the business of the Court, but by no means
constituted the whole. The next subject was petitions--
1810, 1811, and 1812, the average number of petitions was
9 0 ; e 1820, 1821, and 1822, ditto, 1,487 ; 1832, 1833, and
1
034, ditto, 2,817. A similar incacase had taken place in
appeals from the other branches of the Court of Chancery to
.the Lord Chancellor. 1810, 1811, and 1812, the average
'umber of appeals was 16 ; 1820, 1821, and 1822, ditto, 42 ;
1832, 1833, and 1834, ditto, 55. That there should be an
increase of appeals after the creation of the Vice Chancellor's
Court was an inevitable consequence. It was prophesied by
Sir Samuel Roinilly, that the effect of passing that measure
would be to make the Lord Chancellor a judge of appeal
only ; and he would cease to be a judge in original causes.
With some trifling exceptions, that prophecy had been ful-
oed; and from that time it might be truly said, that the
business of the Lord Chancellor in the Court of Chancery,
bad been to review the judgments pronounced in the two other
branches of the Court. It was not upon appeals and petitions
only that the Chancellor was engaged, and which consti-
tuted a large proportion of the business of the Court of
‘rbaneery ; but another important part of his duty was the
i'learing, of motions. It was well known that some most int-
natant questions that arose between suitors in the Court of
Chancery, were discussed and decided upon motions.. It was
evade a matter of complaint in Lords Eldon's time,• that the
parties arranged among themselves, or so managed their plead-
ings, as to bring the real merits of the question before the
Court upon motion. It was an extremely inconvenient mode
of proceeding, and one not calculated to promote the interest
of the suitor ; but parties who had great and important in-
terests at stake, if they could not have the doors of the Court
open to them upon the hearing of, the cause, would naturally
adopt any course to obtain a judicial opinion, by which their
rights were to be regulated. On a former occasion he also
called their Lordships' attention to a most striking result of an
inquirS, as to the state of the funds in the hands of the Ac-
countant-General of the Court of Chancery. In the year
1812 it appeared that the money standing in the name of the
Accountant-General was 28,137,000/. ; and that that money
stood to the account of 6.266 causes. It appeared that the
sum in the hands of the Accountant-General, up to the pre-
sent period, was 39,780,0001., and that that money stood to
the account of 10,227 causes. But was all this money
locked up awaiting the decision of the Court ? Not so.
The money so locked up, constituted but a very small part
of this enormous sum. By far the greater part of it was
money from which the suitors derived great and unmixed
benefit. Sometimes from necessity, sometimes from choice,
parties had resorted to the Court of Chancery for a secu-
rity of their money, and for a due administration of the
funds. This was done in cases of infancy, in cases of persons
labouring under disabilities, and in those various and com-
plicated cases affecting individuals or families, in which
those acting for them thought it expedient to put the adminis-
tration of affairs under the direction of the Court of Chancery.
The machinery of the Bill which constituted the Accountant-
General's office was so perfect, the system of the office was so
secure, that persons so situated could not possibly possess a
place of deposit more perfectly free from danger. Although
a small portion of this money was matter of contest, still the
increase of this fund showed to what extent that particular
branch of the business which gave rise to this fund had in-
creased-great as had been the increase of business in the Court
of Chancery, he believed that if the Court were put upon a
footing which would insure to the suitors a speedy determination
of their suits, there would be a much greater resort to it. Par-
ties who had rights to establish and objections to enforce were
deterred from coming to the Court, and either compromised
their suits or abandoned their rights altogether, not because they
thought the ultimate result would be against them but because
the vexation they would have to experience ere the question was
brought to a judicial decision induced them to compromise
or abandon their rights rather than encounter such evils.
When the Vice-Chancellor's Bill passed, it was supposed
that great facilities would be given to the administration of
justice in Chancery, and their Lordships would find, on a
reference to figures, that the hope of such a result brought a
great number of new suitors into the Court. He had already
stated that the average number of causes in the Court of
Chancery for the three years previous to the passing of the
-vice-Chancellor's Bill was 540, and that the average for the
three succeeding years was 717. But the increase of the
number of bills filed in Chancery was still more striking.
On referring to the returns, he found that the average number
of Bills filed in the Court of Chancery in the five years pre-
ceding the establishment of the Vice-Chancellor's Court was
1,830; in the five succeeding years 2,236, and in the last year
2,56'4. This great increase in the business of the Court was
euainly to be attributed to the removal of that dread of delay
which had existed previous to the passing of the Vice-Chan-
elebellor'a Bill. So much then for the period of 1813. In 1823,
smeseiihqtanding that the Vice- Chancellor's Bill had then been
en operation for ten years, it was found that there was such
san accumulation in the judicial business of that House, that
-their Lordships appointed a Select Committee to inquire into
the cause of it, and, if possible, to devise a remedy. It ap-
peared from the report of the Committee so appointed, that
there was at that time an arrear of five years of appeals.
That was to say, that an appellant or a respondent who had
been under the necessity of resorting to their Lordships for
the redress of a supposed erroneous decision in one of the
branches of the Court of Chancery, bad, after presenting the
appeal, to wait five years before his case could possibly be
beard. It was no wonder that such a state of things should
induce their Lordships to institute an investigation with the
view of discovering the cause of this arrear, and, if possible,
of devising a remedy for it. What was the result of •the in-
quiry ? The Select Committee stated in their report, " there
is now a manifest impossibility that any person holding the
Great Seal can find the time required for the business of the
Court of Chancery and of the House of Lords, and for all
the other great and arduous duties which are attached to his
high office." The fact was, that since the passing of the
Vice-Chancellor's Bill these duties of the Lord Chancellor
bad not only been not diminished, but had greatly increased
in consequence of the vast influx of additional suitors, which
the hope of a speedier administration of justice had brought
into the Court of Chancery. What was the remedy sug-
gested by their Lordships' committee in 1823, and subse-
quently adopted by the House ? It was in a great measure a
temporary expedient, and one which, although justified by the
great pressure of the arrears then before the House, was one
which he (the Lord Chtncellor) thought they would be slow
to adopt as a permanent plan. The plan 'recommended and
adopted was that in the highest appellate court in the king-
dom, namely, in that House, the highest officer of the law
should not preside, but that others should be selected for the
purpose of performing those duties which undoubtedly ought
only to be discharged oy the highest legal officer appointed
under the Crown. He did not mean to say that the indivi-
duals selected on that occasion, and who afterwards devoted
so much of their time to the administration of justice in that
House, were not as well qualified to perform the new duties
imposed upon them as any men could possibly be. But be
contended that it was not becoming or fit, that in the highest
court of appellate jurisdiction, the individual presiding should
be any other than the highest judicial officer under the
Crown. Great assistance was undoubtedly derived from the
exertions of the individuals who were selected in 1823. Their

woeuldtaaskll,ra m
e rheeawt
aLordbo our
Giffheordd
ehrande
happlied
.
Lor
himselfdship
tos
th
siding in that House from ten till four in the morning, and
nmd e the be
r g
in the Rolls Court from six to tenin the evening—this was a
more than any human being ought
degree of exertion greatly
mind could bear, or any human strength sustain. Because
to be called upon to perform—greatly more than any human
their Lordships must remember, that
he severe as a Judge's la-
bour might be while Court, his duties by no
sat in open
meons ceased when he left the bench. A great and important
part of the duties of a Judge was to deliberate on the argu-
ments he had heard advanced by counsel in Court, to investi-
gate the authorities quoted, and, as far as possible, to make
himself master of all the facts of the case brought forward for
his decision. If a judge were called upon to sit from ten in
the morning till ten at night, it was perfectly impossible that
he could have any time left for the discharge of these import-
ant duties. Such, however, was the expedient to which the
House resorted in 1823. It in a great degree answered the
purpose for which it was intended, because the House was
then enabled to sit every day in its judicial capacity, or at
least to sit five days a week, the Lord Chancellor pre-
siding on three days, and the Lord Speaker (as he was
called) on two. The result was, that after the lapse of
a certain length of time the assistance of the additional
judges was not so largely called for, and not so freely used ;
and although from the year 1823 down to 1835, there had
been no one case in which some assistance had not been
afforded to the officer holding the Great Seal in the adminis-
tration of the appellate jurisdiction of that House, of late
years that assistance had become comparatively small, and
at no period had it been so great as in the time of Lord
Gifford, Of arrears in that House there were now com-
paratively none, and their reduction might in a great degree
be attributed to the assistance which their Lordships had de-
rived from two Noble and Learned Lords who had no other
judicial functions to perform—who were therefore enabled to
defote the whole or a great part of their time to the judicial
business of the House, and who, by devoting so much of
their time to that business, had conferred a great benefit upon
the public. It was owing to the exertions of those Noble
and Learned Lords (one of whom be saw present) that the
arrears were at this moment so much reduced. Could any
fact more strongly prove the propriety of the suggestion he
took the liberty of making to their Lordships? How was it
that the arrears had been so much subdued? Was it riot be-
cause there happened to be in the House Noble and Learned
Lords not attached to any other Court, and who conse-
quently had it in their power to devote the whole of their
time to the judicial business of that House ? As far, then, as
that House was concerned, he considered that the experiment
embodied in the present Bill had been fairly tried. Having
by a statement of figures shown the state of business in that
House at the two periods to which he had directed their Lord-
ships' attention, he would now shortly state what was the arrear
of business in the Court of Chancery. Here, again, he had
the satisfaction of stating that the exertions of those who had
preceded him had been such as completely to subdue the arrear
which, during the previous thirty years of his experience, he
had known to exist in the Court of Chancery. Of appeals
from the other branches of the Court of Chancery pending
before the Lord Chancellor there were now none ; because,
from the return made up to the last day of last Michaelmas
Term, there then appeared to be only nine cases in arrcar, and
he had the satisfaction to state, that the case which he heard
on Saturday last, was within three of the end of the list
brought forward at the commencement of the last Term. Of
the business, therefore, at present pending before the Lord
Chancellor, it might be said that there was no arrear. He
stated this fact to enable their Lordships to come to this con-
clusion—that if there were a judge whose sole duty should be
to attend to the Court of Chancery, that judge would not
only be able to dispose of all the appellate cases that could be
brought before him, but would also have it in his power to
devote a large portion of his time to the hearing of original
business, which now, and ever since the year 1813, had been
exclusively heard by the other branches of the Court. Of
original causes in Chancery, now in ai-rear, ready for hear-
ing, and waiting to be heard, there were between 700 and
800--and, looking at the average number of causes deter-
mined, and the average number of causes set down for
hearing, it was obvious that this arrear must go on increasing,
unless some step were taken to prevent it.--( Hear, hear.)
During the last three years, the average number of original
causes heard and determined was 1,158; the average number
of causes set down for hearing within the same period was
1,340. So that with an existing arrcar of 700 causes, their
Lordships had this additional fact before them, that the ave-
rage number of causes heard for the last three years had
fallen very considerably short of the number set down for
hearing. Did not this state of things. in the Court of Chan-
cery require some remedy ? Why should they deny to the
suitors in that Court the right of having their causes heard
without delay ? If the arrear had arisen from the temporary
illness of the Judge, or from any other accidental cause, the
case would be different; but when it was found, from the
general business of the Court, that there was no proba-
bility of subduing the arrear, he was sure their Lordships
would agree with him in thinking that this was a state
of things which ought not to be allowed to continue. But
the Bill which he had the honour to introduce to your Lord-
ships' notice was not limited to the business of that House,
or of the Court of Chancery. It related to another and a
most important branch of the judicial business of the country
which was transacted before the Privy Council. From the
colonies appeals lay, and lay only, to the Privy Council.
Their Lordships must be aware that within a very short
time, great and important alterations had taken place in the
law, and that important duties were now imposed upon
the Privy Council, which formerly had been performed by
other branches of the judicature. Their Lordships were
aware that the Court of Delegates no longer existed, and that
the whole of its duties, together with those of the Vice-Ad-
miralty Court, bad been transferred to the Privy Council.
Thus the Privy Council had of late years become a most im-
portant court of judicial proceedings —a Court where the ulti-
mate rights of many parties were now finally adjudicated.
The want of professional aid in the Privy Council was felt
when Parliament passed the Bill imposing all these additional
duties upon it, and with the view of remedying the deficiency,
that which was called the Judicial Committee was established,
and a great improvement it certainly turned out to be. But
the parties of whom this Committee was formed were Judges
of other Courts, having other important judicial functions to
perform, and a great deal of arrangement was necessary—out
of which, of course, great delay originated—to enable all these
parties to assemble at the same time, for the pnrpose of hear-
ins, the causes which might be brought before the Privy Coun-
cil,' and upon which their judgment was required. [Here
the Noble and Learned Lord gave an instance of recent oc-
currence.] But the great object he had in view, and that
which he was satisfied was most important, not only to a due
administration of justice in the Privy Council, but that with-
out which no Court could properly and adequately perform its
judicial duties, was, that there should be some one person who,
from professional habits and knowledge of the law, was proper
to take the lead. At present the Lord President of the Council
was not necessarily a lawyer, and as far as the ordinary duties
of the office were concerned, it was not requisite that he
should be a lawyer ; but when he had to preside over impor-
tant judicial investigations, it was, he thought, absolutely and
positively necessary that the person so presiding should have
not only a competent knowledge of the law, but that he should
be a person who had attained to high eminence in the pro-
fession. And when their Lordships considered the nature of
the appeals which were now likely to be made from the colonies
to the Privy Council, they would see, lie was sure, that nothing
ought to be omitted or spared that could possibly give weight
and propriety to its decisions. With that view he thought
that the highest judicial officer under the Crown ought to pre-
side in the Privy Council as well as in that House. Where
could their Lordships place the highest judicial officer ex-
cept in those courts from whose decision there was no appeal?
From the decision of the Privy Council there was no appeal
any more than there was from the decision of that House.
In the Privy Council, then, as well as in that House, the Lord
Chancellor ought to preside. If their Lordships adopted that
view of the case—if they were desirous that there should be
no arrcar of business in that House—if they were desirous
that there should be no arrear of business in the Privy
Council—if they were desirous that the highest officer of the
law should preside in causes now pending, and hereafter
to be brought in the Privy Council as well as in that
House, it was obvious that the only course they could
adopt was to make the Lord Chancellor for the time be-
ing President over all judicial matters brought before those
two tribunals. But it would be impossible that the Lord
Chancellor could perform these duties unless he were re-
lieved from those which he was at present called upon to
perform in the Court of Chancery. In the Court of Chan-
cery at the present moment, the great difficulty was to find
time for the hearing of original causes. After entering at
considerable detail into difficulties at present existing on this
point, the Noble and Learned Lord proceeded to say, that
what lie suggested was to appoint a third equity judge to pre-
side in the Court of Chancery alone, leaving to the Lord
Chancellor for the time being the appellate jurisdiction in
the House of Lords in the Privy Council. The Noble and
Learned Lord next combated the suggestion which had been
made to abolish all intermediate appeals from the inferior to
the superior Courts of Chancery, and to direct all appeals to
be made at once to that House. This would be to burden the
suitors with mach heavier expenses, whilst it would give no
corresponding advantage to any party. To show that his
plan was not without a precedent, the Noble and Learned
Lord quoted the statute 14th Edward 111., by which one
judge, two earls, and four barons were appointed during the
period that Parliament was not sitting to hear and determine
any appeals that might be brought before them. The Noble
and Learned Lord then went on to contend that there could
be no constitutional objection to the House sitting for the dis-
charge of judicial business during the prorogation of Parlia-
ment.

Lord LYNDHURST could not give his consent to the
measure now introduced. ( Here the Noble and Learned
Lord entered into a statement to show under the proposed
Bill the office of Chancellor would be degraded, and how in-
significant its duties would become, how much its emoluments
would be reduced, and how difficult it would therefore be to
find any lawyer of eminence to undertake it.) Of the result
who could doubt ? The appellate judge would soon become
inferior to the judge from whose decision an appeal was
brought before him. What would the profession, what would
suitors think, of a Lord Chancellor so circumstanced? There
would be another evil which the public and the profession
would consider almost as great as that to which he had al-
luded. Let their Lordships look at the position of their own
House. In their judicial station they had the high character
to maintain which they had long maintained, and which he
trusted they would long maintain. It was of the utmost im-
portance to that House that it shculd remain in fact as well as
in name, the highest judicial tribunal in the country. Now
that must always materially depend on the talent
.and know-
ledge of the Lord Chancellor, and on the confidence reposed
in him by the profession and the epnntry. If the Lord Chan-

cellor fell in public estimation, their Lordships' would fall
with him. They would lose the character which, be thanked
God, they still possessed. And, further, what would be the
neevitable tendency of this change? In the Bill itself that
tendency was foreseen and provided for. The Lord Chancel-
lor was, when necessary, to have the assistance of the Master
of the Rolls, •the Vice-Chancellor, or a Judge of one of the
Common Law Courts. Now, what would happen? The at-
tendance of any of those persons, at first occasional, would soon
become habitual ; the office of Lord Chancellor would soon
sink in public estimation, and an office formerly judicial,
would become almost entirely political. So much for the evils
which would result from the proposed measure, which was.
not only vicious in its principle, but inefficient with reference
to its object. By the Bill the House was to be enabled, un-
der a proclamation from the Crown, to sit to hear appeals
after a prorogation. If the Lord Chancellor had the power to
hear appeals, notwithstanding a prorogation, and after a pro-
rogation, what would be the consequence ? That during the
Session, he would be engaged more actively as a politician
and a legislator ; while his judicial duties would be relaxed.
He (Lord Lyndhurst) had taken pains to ascertain from the
returns the quantity of judicial business transacted in that
House, and the time occupied in transacting it, and he found
that the statements made respecting it were enormous exag-
gerations. In the course of 14 years, 1,078 writs of error and
appeals had been entered in that House. Divide that number
by fourteen, and it gave an average of seventy-six in the
year. Experience had taught him that about a fifth of the
number entered were withdrawn or compromised.—(Hear.)
That left the annual average number sixty-two. What was
the average time occupied in hearing an appeal in that
House ? Reference might be had to the time occupied by the
last appeal heard, and still hearing in the House ; but that
was a case singular in its circumstances. In fourteen years,
the House of Lords sat 836 days, and had decided 745 ap-
peals, being not much less than one a day. The 62 appeals,
therefore, to which he had adverted, might be disposed of in
63 or 64 days. At any rate, 70 days (he admitted that they
would be days of hard labour) would be sufficient for the pur-
pose. Now that formed but a small part of the year. There
were usually about 120 judicial days in a session. Two-thirds
only of that time would be necessary for the purpose. When
Lord Eldon sat in that House as Lord Chancellor, and Lord
Gifford as Deputy Speaker, in 1824, sitting only five days in
the week, in 84 days, ninety cases were disposed of. In two
years, they not only got through the current business, but dis-
posed of an arrear of 212 causes. No argument could be
urged against such a feet. It was clear that what was pro-
posed by his Noble and Learned Friend was absolutely unne-
cessary. But it was by no means a new proposition. It had
been before !the country for near a century. All statesmen
and all lawyers, however, had pronounced but one opinion upon
it—a condemnatory one. Lord Hardwicke bad reprobated
it. In a speech of Mr. Pitt's edited by Lord Redesdale, Mr.
Pitt had warmly condemned it.—(The Noble and Learned
Lord here read an extract from the speech in question.) Sir
Samuel Romilly had also declared the same opinion ; not in a
speech, but in a pamphlet.---[The Noble and Learned Lord
here read an extract from the pamphlet in question, in which
Sir S. Romilly maintained that it was highly necessary that
the legal knowledge of the Lord Chancellor should be re-
freshed, by his being daily employed in the administration of
justice in a subordinate Court.] All these great authorities
concurred in opposing the separation of the duties of Lord
Chancellor in the Court of Chancery, from his duties as the
head of .the appellate jurisdiction in that House. In a debate
in the House of Commons on the subject, the late Master- of
the Rolls, a consummate Equity Judge, expressed the same
opinion. The Noble and Learned and Venerable Earl who
had for so many years graced the situation now held by his
Noble and Learned Friend on the Woolsack, entertained
similar opinions. There was another authority, that of a
Noble and Learned Friend of his, for whom he (Lord Lynd-
hurst) entertained the highest possible respect, and whose
absence from that House, and the cause of it, every one must
lament. In 1830, that Noble and Learned Lord, then in
the House of Commons, pronounced an opinion on the
subject so exactly in accordance with his (Lord Lyndhurst's)
and couched in such pointed and characteristic language,
that, with their Lordships' leave, he would read a passage
from it :—" If the Lord Chancellor's duties were confined
to sitting in the House of Lords, he would soon become
a mere Judge of Appeal—he would soon cease to be
what the Constitution prescribed be ought to be—the first
lawyer in the country—filling the first situation in that
Court of which he ought to be the ornament. Even as
a judge of appeal, they might set him up, and plant him on
the woolsack ; they might give him power ; but would he have
any authority ? Would he satisfy the courts below ? Would
he satify the suitors ? Would he satisfy the profession ? See
the course which would then be taken in the appointment of a
Lord Chancellor. He would be chosen because he was a
cunning intriguer behind the durtain—because he was a skil-
ful debater in the House of Lords. Would such a man be-
qualified to decide appeals from the Vice-Chancellor, from
the Master of the Rolls, or from any other judge whatever?
Would he be qualified to grapple with the difficulties of a
complicated case ? Would he hare any confidence in him-
self ? Certainly not ; because he would well know that the
profession had no confidence in, him. Such a Lord Chan-
cellor, he would engage to say, would confirm at least nine-
teen out of twenty appeals that came before him. That
which ought to be the resort of suitors, the comptroller of
judges, and the security of right, the power of the appellate
jurisdiction, would exist only in name." Such were his (Lord
Lyndhurst's) authorities ; and he invited his Noble and
Learned Friend on the Woolsack to cite one contradictory
testimony of value. When the Noble Lords opposite, or the
party with which they were connected, came into office, which
was in 1830, it was after loudly reproaching their predeces-
sors for not amending the proceedings in the Court of Chan-
cery, and the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords.
(Cries of " Hear.") That reproach involved the strongest
implied pledge upon the subject on their part. How had that
pledge been redeemed ? He repeated, -that of the Noble and
Learned Lorned who at that period occupied the Woolsack, he
wished to speak with every possible respect. That Noble and
Learned Lord had disposed of more appeals in a given time
than any judge who had preceded him ; and of his efforts at
that period he was now unfortunately suffering the conse-
quences. He begged, therefore, to be understood as alluding
solely to the legislatiee and not to the judicial proceedings of
the party to whom he alluded. It was true they had brought
in a Bill for reforming ministerial offices in the Court of
Chancery ; but of whatever good that measure might have
been productive, it had nothing to do with the judicial office.
In 1833 their first measure on that subject made its ap
pearance. The Bill was laid on the table and printed, but it
never got into circulation ; and it was only by accident that
he (Lord Lyndhurst) had obtained a copy. Its object was
to establish an appellate tribunal of so strange a character,
that no person but one, who was a fit subject for one of the pe-
culiar acts of jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor—(A laugh)
—would ever think of bringing a cause before it. For that tri-
bunal was so constituted, that if the appellant succeeded, the case
might be carried before another tribunal, whereas if he failed,
the failure was final. In 1834 another Bill on the subject was
read a first time and printed. In that Bill a scheme was most
ingeniously contrived for transferring the appellate jurisdic-
tien of the House of Lords to another tribunal; the judicial
committee of the Privy Council, with one of those Chelsea
pensioners (for so he might call them, being one of the body
himself) the ex-chancellors, to preside over it. That plan,
however, was abandoned. And now came the measure under
consideration ; a measure which had been before the profes-
sion and the public for seventy years, and which had been
universally and invariably condemned. Such was the manner
in which, the Noble Lords opposite had redeemed their pledge.
In 1830 their Lordships bad passed a Bill for making an
addititional judge in the Court of Equity. In the House
of Commons that Bill was very roughly handled. It
was not treated with the courtesy which might have
been expected from an unreformed house.—(A laugh.)
He was decidedly of opinion that an addition ought to be
made to the Court of Chancery. But there ought to be
no exaggeration. There certainly bad been a great in-
crease in the business of the Court of Chancery.—[The
Noble Lord here entered into details, the object of which was
to show that in the last sixty years the business of the Court
of Chancery had more than doubled]. But then his Noble
and Learned Friend should recollect that during the period
the strength of the Court of Chancery had been more than
doubled. When lie (Lord Lyndhurst) had the honour to
be Master of the Rolls the siftings in that Court were
only in the evening, and amounted only to twelve hours
in the week. His successor established morning sittings, and
sat thirty hours in the week ; it being also to be takn into
the account that an hour in the morning was 'generally more
effective than an hour after dinner.—(A laugh.) Then there
was the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor, who divided the
whole business of the Court. He (Lord Lyndhurst) would
say without hesitation, that the addition of a judge to the Court
of Chancery was highly desirable, but that the Lord Chan_
cellor should not be removed from the Court. The Noble
and Learned Lord thought that the-Court of Review was
unnecessary. After entering into some details, the Noble
and Learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst) admitted that he
thought that Court might ultimately be extinguished, and
its jurisdiction transferred to other judges. As to the
appellate jurisdiction in that House, he (Lord Lyndhurst)
should suggest no further alteration than this—objection
had frequently been made to appeals from a judge
sitting in the Court of Chancery to the same judge sitting in
that House. That objection was not entirely founded in
fact. He should not, however, object to a regulation by
which the Lord Chancellor, when sitting in that house on
appeals, should have two other judges sitting with him.
The oble and Learned Lord "( Lad Lyndhurst) proceeded
to allude to the judicial Committee of the Privy Council..
He believed that was a tribunal which gave great satisfaction,
and what he proposed with respect to it was, that instead of
the Chancellor, one of the judges of the equity courts should
preside in it, and he thought that the same individual should al-
ways fulfil the duties ,of that office, for the plain and obvious
reason which his Noble Friend had himself alluded to—namely,
the nature of the subjects which arc brought under its investi-
gation. This was his plan. The object, at least the prin-
cipal object of his Noble Friend's Bill was to divide the
office of Chancellor, and to separate the judicial from the po-
litical functions. He objected to that principle for the rea-
sons he had stated, and on the authorities which he had cited
in support of that opinion. He could not, therefore, give his
assent to the second reading of his Noble Friend's Bill. If
his Noble and Learned Friend would frame a Bill on those
principles which he had taken the liberty of stating to their
Lordships—not taking into account details, for with respect to
those he should be found most feasible—he would give it his
ready, warm, and cordial support. He had stated his reasons
for opposing the second reading of this Bill. It was for their
Lordships to say whether they were sufficient to ituluce them
to agree to the amendment which he submitted, that the Bill
be-aead a second time that day six months.—( Cheers.)

Lord LANGDALE said his Noble and learned' Friend
;Lord Lyndhurst) set out with stating that it was his inten•