The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-03 00:00:00

PRICE sd.

of railways and the Acts relating to them had
very greatly added to the business which tvas
brought before those Courts. The consequence
had been that numerous complaints had been made of
the slew administration of justice. The arrear of busi-
ness was very great. He belived there were at that time
between 12 and 1300 causes in the Court of Chancery.
Between the time when a cause was set down for
hearing, and the time when it came on to be heard,
a period elapsed cf not less than three years, and,
upon an average, it was five years from the time
when a suit was instituted, before it was finally
decided. When it had once been disposed of, it came
on again on further directions, and that would happen
repeatedly before the Court came to its final decision.
The expenses arising from delays in suits frequently
amounted to forty thousand pounds. It often hap-
pened, too, that the solicitors were great sufferers, in
consequence of the large sums which they were obiged
to advance before the causes in which they might be
engaged were ended. Such evils being thus in exist-
ence, what was to be done ? It was quite clear that
some alteration must be made in the administration of
the law.—( Hear, hear.) If they first looked to the
Court of Exchequer, they would find that to
be a tribunal both for the administration of law and
equity. There were two divisions of the Court, one for
common law, the other for equity—one of the many
disadvantages arising from that arrangement was that
the Judge before whom equity causes wore heard was
generally obliged to go on circuit from July to Novem-
ber, and if any injunction was granted by that Judge a
delay necessarily arose from his absence. Another great
evil was that there was no appeal from that Court but
to the House of Lords. Some remedy must be found
for those evils. They must either abolish the equity
jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer, or if they should
(continuo it, the only mode he (the Attorney-General)
could see of their so doing was by appointing another
Judge who would devote himself entirely to the
cqu:ty business of the Court, and from whom
there should be an appeal to the Lord High
Chancellor. It did, however, appear to him (the
Attorney-General) better to abolish the equity juris-
diction of the Court of Exchequer, and allow it to be en-
tirely a Court of Common Law. That was the universal
feeling entertained on the subject. The first object of the
Bill he (the Attorney-General) proposed was to abolish
the equity jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer. The
next question was, what add:tion would be made to the
judicial power of that Court ; because, if they abolished
the equity jurisdiction they should make some substitute.
In 1828, when Lord Lyndhurst was Chancellor, a Bill
was brought down frcm the other House for appointing
a new Vice-Chancellor. That Bill did not pass into a
law. The question now was what should be the amount
of judicial strength in the Court of Chancery.
It was proposed by the present Bill that
there should be two VIM Judges, but that number was
not to be continued without again consulting Parlia-
ment. His (the Attorney-General's) own opinio❑ was,
that the number of Judges i❑ the Court of Chancery
ought to be increased, as by that means a great
influx of the business would take place. The
House would probably be suprised when he stated
that for debts under 1001. no person thought of
going into equity. It was therefore clear that
with respect to sums under that amoun►t
there wes a total denial of justice. Here
there was no remedy in a Court of Law, but under the
Bill passed at the close of the last session there could
be no doubt that great improvements would be effected
is the Master's office, and also in the administra-
tion of Justice in the Court of Chancery
He trusted, therefore, that the House would offer no
opposition to the introduction of the Bill. All that lie
(the Attorney-General) was afraid of was that he
should be blamed for not going far enough. His
Right Honourable Friend the Member for Ripen
had given notice of a Bill to improve the jurisdiction of
the House of Lords and that of the Privy Council.
He (the Attorney General) admitted the
neeee-
sity for such a measure, for he thought that
the Bill he was then asking for leave to
introduce should be kept to itself. He thought that
the proper course would be to appoint a permanent
Judge of the Court of Chancery, and that the Lord
Chancellor should hear appeals in the House of Lords.
A Bill for that purpose had been introduced last se.,;on.
That Bill had not met wi.ll the appeoher;era of the
House of 1 .nrila UrOUght, in a Bill, intim,
he hoped would prove a large instalment of legal reform.
One of its objects was to abolish the equity juris-
diction of the Exchequer, and to dispatch the
equity business in a manner that would be satis-
factory to the country. There were necessarily
involved in such a manner, a great number of details
which could only he discussed in Committee. But he
was happy to say, that neither retiring allowances nor
compensation for salaries would form part of these
details ; as there were already funds in the
Court of Equity, Exchequer, and the Court of
Chancery, which were quite adequate to meet the ex-
penses of the Bill, which he now begged leave to bring
in, for the better regulation of the administration of
justice.

Sir E. SUGDEN said that it was now the time
for him to state his opinions upon the pre-
sent state of the Courts of Equity. He had sup-
ported a measure for the alteration of the jurisdiction of
the Courts of Equity, but that measure was postponed
by the Noble Lord opposite (we believe Lord J. Rus-
sell), on account of the late period of the Session. It was
now proposed that two new Judges in Equity be appointed.
Each of the proposed new Judges must have a separate
Court, with a separate Bar, and thus in fact it was the
establishment of two new courts which was proposed.
He thought the House would agree with him, that if
there could be a greater evil than the want of sufficient
judicial power to meet the judicial exigencies of the country
it must he the having more Courts than the exigencies
of the country required—there could not be a greater
evil than the useless multiplication of Courts. He knew
that it was proposed that one of the Judges only be a
temporary Judge, and that at an uncertain period,
namely, at his death, the Court should no longer be
an effective Court. Had the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman le fleeted on the inconvenience that must
necessarily ensue from a great Court of Justice being
suddenly extinguished? The creation of a new Court
would at the same time create a body of lawyers attend-
ing that Court; the supply would be equal to the demand
created, and he put it to the House what must be the
effect of the sudden extinction of such a Court. He was
ready to go to the full extent of granting all the judicial
power that might be wanted, if that want were proved,
whatever might be the inconvenience attending it ;
but ho felt so strongly the evils arising from the
establishments of more Courts than were wanting that
he should expect a strong case to be made out for the
establishment of two more Courts. His Learned
Friend had not entered much into detail in stating the
case to the House, but the returns for which he
(Sir E. Sugden) had moved, which he himself had
seen, and which would be in the hands of Hon. Members
in the course of a few days, would show that his
Honourable and Learned Friend was entirely mis- 1
taken in the statement he had made, with regard
to the state of the arrears in these Courts,
His Honourable and Learned Friend had stated
that there were from 1,200 to 1,800 cases in arrear in
the Court of Chancery. Now his Hon. and Learned
Friend had in his statement more than doubled the ac-
tual amount—the number of cases in arrear did net
amount to one-half that number. Again, his
Hottearable and Learned Friend had stated that
no cause could he heard until three years after it had
been set down. Now, the fact was, as regarded
one of those Courts, that the Master of the
Rolls was now engaged in hearing causes
in their regular course, not one of which
had been set down prior to Easter term, 18-10.
He entirely acquitted his Hon. and Learned Friend
of any intention of misleading the House, but he had
certainly entirely mistaken the case. Ile would not
deny that great and unavoidable delays had taken
place in the Court of Chancery, and, seeing how all the
great offices of that Court were filled, he would
admit that it was hopeless ever to expect to see
Judges more capable of filling their high stations
than those learned persons who presided over these
Courts. It was impossible men could do more by a
total devotion of all their time to the execution of the
duties of their office than those learned persons did—
(Cheers.) And he felt assured that what they hed
not been able to do, no othar persons would be
able to accomplish. His Hon. and Learned Friend had
reminded the House, that in 1829 ho had proposed in
that House what was commonly called Lord Lynd-
hurst's Bill, for the appointment of one
if now f
that aew
in Chancery, and he would say ththataew
Judge had been then granted with the same
good will with which he was now disposed
to grant it,
the delays complained of would not now have existed,-.....
(Hear, hear.) The Honourable) and Learned Gen-
tlemen had also said, that the Court of Review had
not answered the expectations which had been enter-
tained of it, and that it was proposed that it
should be abolished. Now when the establishment
of that Court had been first proposed, they had talked
for hours against. it on his side of the House without
avail.—(Opposition cheers.) Ho himself had shown
the utter impossibility of there ever being business
sufficient to occupy the time of that Court
and, notwithstanding all, a new Court had been
established with four new Judges, in the face of
every argument. What had been the consequence?
Why, that Court bad sunk lower and lower
io his esteem, until at length it was acknowledged
to be of no use whatever, and had gone far to bring the