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

terruption would produce a fresh accumulation. At the pre-
sent moment I may say there is no arrear. It has been my
fate:to see what I believe has not been seen before for a cen-
tury past—a paper for the causes of the day containing two ap-
peals, with a note at the bottom announcing, ‘` There are no
further appeals ready for hearing. That I attribute to no ex-
ertions of my own, for I have not the time, if I had the abi-
lity, to subdue that arrear of business. Ido not attribute it,
then, to any exertions of my own, but to the exertions of those
who have gone before me. Since I had the honour of being
appointed the First Commissioner of the Great Seal, it was
not in the power of myself or my brother Commissioners, con-
sistently with the performance of our other duties, to devote
a large portion of time to the hearing of appeals in the
Court of Chancery. In fact, there were but two days
in each week devoted to that purpose. Before I accepted
that appointment, T .thought it my duty to consider whe-
ther I could perform the duties of without neglecting
the other duties which it would be incumbent on me to per-
them, and the arrangement I made was with the Vice-Chan-
cellor, that not one or the other shonld be less devoted to their
courts than in former years, but that left only two days on
which it was possible to sit, with the addition of some days
that were borrowed from the vacations to make up the time.
It is a mistake to say that the appeal business of the Court of,
Chancery cannot be kept under ; it is down now, and may be
kept down without devoting a large amount of time to that
court. Two days from the month of April till January were
sufficient for that purpose. When I come to another part of
the subject I beg your Lordships to recollect what I am now
stating, because I think it proves that the Lord Chancellor
may not only get through all the appeal business of the Court
of Chancery, but will have a considerable proportion of time
which he may 'devote to other business.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
I have now brought down to the present time the state cf the
Court of Chancery, and in a few words I will call the atten-
tion of your Lordships to the state of the appeal business in
this House. The last year was one most favourable to the dis-
patch of business of that description. There was my Noble
and Learned Friend to whom I have alluded; and my Noble
and Learned Friend the Noble Baron, whom I see in his
place, who devoted much of their time to the dispatch of
the business of this House, and a large number of appeals
were disposed of. in addition to that most grievous cause,
(it is supposed Small v. Attwood) which occupied the time
of this House during a considerable portion of the last session,
and which, I am sorry to say, must occupy a very large por-
tion of the time of this House whenever we think it our duty
to resume the consideration of it. It is obvious, then, that the
appeal causes in this House cannot be kept down without a
constant and vigilant attention to the interests of the suitors.
They may, however, be kept down by devoting that portion
of time to them which was given to them last session. The
case to which I have referred is an illustration of the necessity
of having a powerful machinery in this House to keep down
the arrears. According to the calculations made by the par-
ties in that cause, if the bearing of it Isere to commence im-
mediately, and proceeded at the rate of three days in the
week, it would scarcely be completed within the probable du-
ration of this session. If that be the state of things, what is
to become of the other suitors ? That involves a serious ques-
tion for this House to decide. Is the attention of the House
to be denied to this particular cause, or is this cause to be
heard, and is a hearine.ui to be denied to the multitude ? That
question, I say, must be decided by the Committee of Appeals.
But let me now say, that great inconvenience arose from this
House not having the power of exercising, throughout the
year, the jurisdiction which belongs to it, as the ultimate
Court of Appeal of this kingdom. There is another part
of the jurisdiction of this country which is nearly connec-
ted with the appellate jurisdiction of this House, and to 1
which I wish to call the attention of your Lordships—l
mean the jurisdiction of the Privy Council in matters of
appeal.--(llear.) Not only has the Privy Council to dis-
charge all that business which peculiarly belongs to it, aris-
ing from the colonies, but by a modern Act of Parliament, all
the important functions of the House of Delegates.,,-Various
other duties are also imposed on it by modern Aefi of Par-
liament. It appears to me that, by some modification of the
existing system, it might be made as good a tribunal for dis-
charging these important functions as could be devised. The
Bill establishing the judicial Committee of the Privy Council
had this defect—it did not make it the duty of any one in-
dividual to superintend and watch over the judicial business
of that Court.—(Hear.) There. were numerous individuals
who constituted the members of the Judicial Committee, and
there was no one whose duty it was to attend to it, or who
was answerable for the proper performance of the duties.
The consequence was, that that high tribunal has been open
to the great inconvenience of a change from time to time,
even from day to day, of the officer's who attended to ad.
minister justice there. Such are the inconveniences that
exist at present in these three great tribunals—the House
of Lords, the Privy Council, and the Court of Chan-
cery. It is now my duty to endeavour to find some remedy
by which those inconveniences can be remedied. My Lords,
in applying ourselves to the consideration of this question, it
behoves us to consider it well. In the Court of Chancery, the
great, the crying evil is, the want of an individual who might
be at the head of that Court to perform the importaut duties
belonging to it, and who could devote himself to those duties
without having his attention. directed to other matters—with-
out being called away to other duties. As in the case of other
legal tribunals, he should be able to devote his whole time,
his whole talents, and his whole industry to the high duties
of the Court entrusted to him. Why should the Court of
Chancery be placed on a different footing from other
Courts? Is its businei, less important, or has he who pre-
sides over it less important functions to perform ?—( Hear.)
I thick I have stated enough to show that whether we regard
its functions or the amount of property under its control, it far
exceeds in importance any other Court, or, I may say, all the
other Courts put together. The first measure then which I
have to propose is to provide for the Court of Chancery a per-
manent judge--(Hear, hear)—able to devote himself to the
business of the Court, and whose attention should not be
called away to other subjects. The great evil which exists
at the present moment in the appellate jurisdiction of this
House is, that during the greater portion of the year it
is shut from the suitor.—( Hear, hear.) It can only, as at
present constituted, administer justice during the period of the
session ; for six months therefore—for one-half of the year,
those who are suitors to this House, who are appellants or
respondents, have no tribunal to apply to. They have
no means of bringing their cases on for decision during that
time, and if they cannot accomplish their object of having
their appeal heard during. the session, there is an end of the
appeal for six months to come.—( Hear, hear.) The case which
I before referred to exemplifies this strongly. It proceeded .for
19 days, and then, from the length of the argument, a question
arose as to what probability there was that it would be
concluded during that session. If it was not to be finished
in that time, it was obviously unjust to press one party to
complete his case, inasmuch as during the recess, the facts
might escape the recollection of thoSe who would have to de-
cide upon it, and then to allow the other party to commence
his case at the commencement of the next session. The only
just course, therefore, which could. be, taken was to prevent
the case from proceeding further, the parties having permis-
sion to resume it next session. Unfortunately, it happens that
it is impossible to resume the discussion before the same in-
dividuals who heard it before. What course, then, can be
adopted ? This evil arises from this House not being able to
continue hearing appeals after the close of the session. The
very case which I have just described may occur again. The
argument may be once more commenced ; from its great
length no man can prophecy, with any certainty, when it will
be concluded. Suppose it were commenced, and suppose,
owing to the length of the discussion, or to the session being
speedily terminated, the parties are left in.the same predica-
ment as before.—(Hear, hear.) Could any thing be more
injurious—could any thing be more destructive to their in-
terests ? The expense is perfectly enormous—it is fright-
ful. What remedy, I say, can be applied to the evil ?
As this House constitutes the highest tribunal for ap-
peals in this country, and as the suitor may sue where
he pleases, in my opinion he ought never to have this
Court of justice shut to him. Close it if you please, so
far as concerns its legislative powers ; prorogue it or adjourn
it according to the old constitutional form, but allow it to con-
tinue to sit for strictly judicial purposes. It is then said that
connected with auy scheme for the improvement of the judicial
system, something ought to be done with regard to the Court
of Review. When I speak of that, I must call to your Lord-
ships' recollection the period when it was established, and the
purpose it was intended to answer. I believe these were the
circumstances. I have lived long enough in the Court of
Chancery to know that there was not a grievance more press-
leg than the necessity of attending to the business of bank-
ruptcy. The subject being brought before the House of Com-
mons in 1823, Sir S. Romilly stated that of all the sugges-
tions he bad heard for redressing the inconveniences of the
Court of Chancery, none were so likely to be beneficial as the
removal of the bankruptcy business of that Court. I believe
that was the universal feeling—beyond all question it was my
own, and when the proposal came into the House of Commons
I thought it my duty to support it.. The complaint is that the
Court in question has not sufficient business to do ; the prin.
cipal.grievance is that the machinery is too large. The ob-
ject in instituting the Court of Review was to substitute for
a body of not fewer than 70 Bankruptcy Commissioners a
limited number of competent individuals, who should devote
their whole time and talents to the business of bankruptcy,
and all points connected with it ; and I must, in justice to the
Noble and Learned originator of the measure, state to your
Lordships that so far from its having proved a failure, there is
not a single trader or merchant in London who has had any-
thing to do with matters connected with bankruptcy since it
came into operation who does not confess himself deeply sen-
sible of the great advantages i.e has derived from the institu-
tion of this Court.—( Hear, hear.) It is no doubt true that the
business before the Court of Review ha's :become considerably,
less than it was at one time, but this is precisely owing to the
efficiency of the system, the labours of the Commissioners of
Bankruptcy, and the appointment of official assignees, whose
services have been found of very great advantage. It is, in
fact, as I have said, the very success of the measure which has
rendered its machinery too extensive for its present require-
ment; one part of the system has operated so successfully that
the other part has become almost superfluous under ex-
isting circumstances. For, my Lords, I will not disguise
from you that at the present moment the Court of Review has
not adequate duties to perform ; and I am also ready, quite
ready, to admit that it is the duty of Government not only
to direct attention to the existing evils in the s) stem of law,
as in every other department df the State, but to sec and
consider how these evils may be remedied. In reference to
the Court of Review, howevk though, the fact of its greatly
lessened extent of its business be as I have admitted, yet I
cannot say that I think any change in it can at the present
moment be safely or satisfactorily made : and I will in one
word give your Lordships my reason. My Lords, a measure
was last year sent up to this House from the House of Com-
mons, which your Lordships had not time to attend to at the
late period of the session at which it came before you. I el-