The Sun.
London, England, 1836-04-29 00:00:00

member of the causes set down for hearing during the five years
e,efore that period was 1,830 ; the average number during the
:wat?7eears after was 2,236. What the number is now lam not
a sudden
but it greatly exceeds what I have stated. Now here is
tdvidhe_nr! increase—we see the pressure of business taken off,
Ind Probability presented of obtaining speedy justice, and
y,there is the very great increase which I have described
1830 hills
say suddenly, I mean that there is an increase from
Courtno
at-
tention tros filed to 2,236. Hnvingcalled your Lordships' at-
the proportion of the business found to exist in the
Chancery at these several periods, I will next advert
to certain proceedings in this House, which are immediately
eonnsected with the present subject. I need not tell your*Lord-
hi ie% that great difficulty has always been felt—in modern
at least-as to how the attention of the Lord Chancellor
was e
to be divided between his duties in the Court of Chan-
CY,and his duties in this House. In the Court of Chancery
tO 7esrtfueral
;syour Lordships know, a most important duty
your Lordships are also aware of the
r!ture of the duties he has to perform here. There
appearsto the
to have commenced, from the year 1813, owing
itTunreitslougrrteat pressure of the business in this House and in
of Chancery, a sort of contest between the two
jurisdictions for who should have the services of the Lord
Chancenor for the time being. Accordingly, in 1813—
whereas_, it had been the practice for the Lord Chancellor to
e:feach morning in the Court of Chancery, and to coma to
forslouse not long before the public business commenced,
bei the Purpose of proceeding with the appeals—in 1813, it
be og found that devoting so small a portion of the day to the
aring of appeals not only occasioned great expense to the
Parties, as it undoubtedly did, but also interfered with the due
6a,aninistration of justice, it was determined that the Lord
thata wereancellor should sit in that House the whole of the days
devoted to the hearing of appeals, and it was fixed
that, on three days in the week the Lord Chancellor should so
t
in this House. That arrangement greatly interfered with
the business of the Court of Chancery in various ways. It in-
terfered by taking him out of the Court of Chancery during
the session of Parliament for three days out of the six ; it
t.terfered also by breaking into the discussion. Almost all
the cases which came before the Lord Chancellor are cases
NWring a solemn inquiry, are complicated in their details,
taah:f! give rise to more than one day's discussion. Now, no-
tug could be more inconvenient—and it is an inconvenience
_wnich exists at the present time—than for any regulation
to exist which made it necessary for the Judge in the Court
.of Chancery almost invariably to break off in the middle of
the cause. It hardly ever happened, either in this House
or in the Court of Chancery, that the hearing of the cause
;as finished in one day, and the consequence has been that
1" has scarcely ever happened that a cause could be pro-
ceeded with without interruption. If the hearing of a cause
Was commenced in the Court of Chancery, it had to be broken
off that the Lord Chancellor might give his attendance in this
ivase. here to begin the hearing of a cause which had to be
n off for public business, and the next day the hearing
of the unfinished cause in the Court of Chancery was re-
2tinted. It is obvious that where great attention is required
-to a detail of the facts, where the case is important and so
Fc'ta.plicated as to require what the whole mind be devoted to
It• to order to master the subject in its various bearings,
laothing can be more inconvenient than for the individual to
• re withdrawn from its consideration till it is concluded, and
be withdrawn from its consideration in order to give attention
Ito the cause of some other parties, a cause, perhaps, of
'equal difficulties, and demanding, no less than the other,
Wo6tvided attention. This state of things showing, I will
1143 t hiy the necessity, because the history of the past pro-
eeedine• of the Court of Chancery and of this House, proves
that the,-e is no absolute necessity ; but it shows the advan-
tage of a ,change—it establishes at least this, that when a man
has comme need a difficult task he should be permitted to go
°fa with it to the end. As I shall have more particularly to
apply these observations hereafter, I will leave the subject
the preeent, requesting your Lordships not to lose sight
the princ:ple for which I contend, that according to
the natural coostitution of the mind, it must be incon-
venient to .whoever has to attend to an important duty, to
have his mind diverted frnm the business -before he has
brought it to a close. It so went on from 1813 for the
Welt ten years ; and in 1823 a Committee of this House
made a report, one passage of which I will take the li-
'eny of reading to your Lordships. At that time there
Ras a great arrear of appeals. There were 225 appeals
Wilting unheard in this House ; there were five years of ar-
'ears; tlest is, the parties who appealed, according to the then
State of business, had to wait five years before there wt s any
Pruse, aPect of their appeals being heard. The report contains
passage ; it is near the commencement, and on that re-
Port, and on he opinions so stated, all the subsequent recom-
r. elada,ions of this report proceed :—" There is now a mani-
fest impossibility that any person holding the Great Seal can
"d the time that is required for the business of the Court of
ffChancery and the House of Lords, and all the other great and
arduous duties that devolve on him." As a remedy for this,
they prapese that there shall be appointed certain distinguished
Individual(, law) era, for the purpose of assisting in hearing tsp.
Peals and writs of error in, this House. They propose that
certain per ;ons shall be appointed specially to preside over the
hearing of appeals; that such an individual might not be a
''''ember of this House, but that the individual who shall be so
appointed to preside at the hearing of appeals shall have power
to declare his, opinion as judges and privy councillors do when
l'equired. A return is on your Lordship's table, showing what
of the course adopted in pursuance of that recommendation
f
the Cotrrnittee of this House, and commencing' with
Your
'"24. Lordships will find that the sittings of this
House were divided between the Lord Chancellor and
ib the other persons who were appointed to preside over
hew ing of appeals. Lord Gifford appears to have
iyen the first who presided in that character. Lord Gif-
ford Was a peer. Then there was the Lord Chief Baron ;
-"fa there was the Master of the Rolls, who was not a Peer
..713e presided for a considerable time as Speaker of the House
.0
heix a eals. At, the same time there was a considerable
-'41114.r0f days on which it appears the Lord Chancellor sat.
There was then, as I have stated to your Lordships, an ar-
rear 0 f five years of appeals ; there was a necessity, there-
ures f sitting on every day but Saturday, and five days in
the 4 We, this House did sit. The necessity of the case justi-
fied the t arrangement. There being an arrear of five years'
, and an impossibility of a suitor being heard without
tatting for five years, some special remedy was called for-
-"w
.„,_e do tparture from previous practice—some course which
Could enable this House to hear the appeals that were before
„But: was that a course which anything but necessity
°um ju stifv ?—( Hear, hear.) Your Lordships' Court con-
fab
"aka tl3O highest court of jurisdiction—it gives jurisdiction
t° ell other Courts—it is that from which there is no appeal
-wbose decisions of law are to be taken as law in all other
c-
00r.`-a ; and is not that jurisdiction the jurisdiction which is
hid( ,d not only to the assistance of the individual who holds
the 114 '.hest judicial office, but is it not expedient that every
Other istr:schetion where they clash should give way, to give a
reecedonc? to this House, and limit the course of appeal ? I
thrtut say that others may not be competent, but whoever holds
Is, nigh, est judicial office in this country, he is the individual
hi" ougl. it to preside in the highest judicial court of this
ugdona. I will here suggest another inconvenience, In all
sa„„°urts of law there is a great advantage derived from the
Mind ividual presiding, that there may not be a judge one
P ly of tb inking at one time, and at another time another judge
erexrahaps equally eminent, equally competent, but possibly not
th etlY of the same way of thinking. It has been found that
been nU clges have had their decisions most revered, and have
ist successful, who have the longest presided over their
te-eBP"ti. re Courts. They have an opportunity of seeing the ef-
die of their different decisions, and of varying them accor-
ding the varying state of society. Thus it was that Lord
"‘%ie ke is said to have " built up a system of equity." The
tii:essit2 r of the case justified the course which was taken, and
ssisfl.'2St: It was, that after a certain number of years, by the
30)(1'4 tic 3 of individuals, the great ernes was very much
sins @a d• Though, however, it was much subdued, yet it se-
t, bed constant exertion to keep it down ; if the exertions were
It elax xi only for a time it would inevitably rise up agaibe
n.
test
in( a thorefore for the interest of the subject—it cannnt
te "1 the enitor, that any accumulation should be permitted
that's' in this House. I take it to be an admitted principle
tti tete sheeld be found the means of speedily hearing
itsl44lll' peals that are presented, and the individuals whose duty
be to hear those appeals are not only the highest
per eta 1 officers of the Crown, but persons who should sit
tently, and not be taken, as chance may direct, from
the _
ta jet Having called your Lordships' attention to
of the business of this House, and to the various
nisods to which I have adverted, I will now state to your
Cr
eii ips what is the present state of the business of the
aoaratd...t. of Chancery. It has been said—and inaccurately
-tb at the present arrears of the two Courts—l mean
maiC ros irt of Chancery and the Vice-Chancery, though
id Y speaking they are perhaps but one—it has been
z that ,
,the present arrears are 800 causes : they are not
sa•e ,tr such ; it appears that they are not quite 700. They are
h -flora ichan 600, but they are not 700. The average num-
enof causes which have been disposed of its the last three
rs is 1,1'02 ; the average number set down for hearing is
bps mess
.Thorefore there is, according to the present state of
ere in the Court of Chancery, not only a large arrear
11. there ought not to be any ; but, comparing the average
' 01)D• of causes set down for hearing with the average num-
.l. causes heard, there is an increase, which must make a
Pt tle.‘i_clerable annual addition. It follows of necessity, that the
__'.ocrat machinery of the Court of Chancery is not adequate to
‘.. Toni
smhithe duties required of it. My Lords, it would be most
cg to me if it were • for when I call your attention to
he increase which has taken' place in the average, from 1823
mbOwnt the present time, it would indeed be most extraordi-
.eiY.s
whetnhaitts‘vhich was c.onsidered only adequate to the busi-
s very
nasuch extended. I have stated, my Lords, what is
he
3re
sees.sroaf tihm original hearing of causes which comes be-
f of the courts whose duty it is to hear and
t 2; ii?°sistue:teofobtrls then in the first instance. I will next describe
rerage '!" appellate jurisdiction. It appears that the
ranumber of appeals in the Court of Chancery from
bt ,srio
..can the average number of appeals standing for
So to 1.30.the1 average number from 1818 to 1831 varies from
do not give this as an accurate average, but as
;Lziefi
..serneeral
laretult from the figures. The average for some time
ya as 441 in each year. In 1831 there was a most
Are r
exertion made. A Noble Lord, whom I am
shou,,tittuhcall my friend, and whose absence on account of
!r,t2l..tiev,e_ry individual who hears. me, I am sure, deeply
. la-
-that Noble Lord made, in the year I have named, a
6 st miraculous exertion, and the result was that in 1831 no
• th
O.IZ 147 appeals were heard. These efforts, added to
,r 0
ve'd extraordinary exertions of my Noble Friend, as is
pow uy the preet state of his health, went beyond human
Of : Noble
stns , however, that the public had the benefit
3 e)ci
ihl e Friend's exertions. The 147 appeals were dis-
WQre the year. The arrears of the Court of Chancery
Ny
au c e time annihilated—there here no arrears of which
\t/s complain—still it was evident the slightest in-