The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-24 00:00:00

Ever] if a necessity for two did exist would it not be better
first to appoint one in order to see whether the system
worked beneficially? But in his opinion there would not
be found sufficient business to occupy two additional
Judges, and nothing could be more injurious to the prac-
tice of the bar than such a state of things.
Mr. LYNCH said he certainly differed from the Right
Hon. Geftleman in one observation which he had made.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman appeared to think that
nothing could be more injurious than a Court without
business. In his (Mr. Lynch's) opinion, a still greater
evil was, that of suitors without Courts.—(Hear, hear.)
He had really thought, after the evidence which had been
given before the Committee, it was impossible that any one
could deny the necessity for this additional appointment.
Mr. Wigram bad stated that 18 per cent. was the
full amount of causes . decided by the Judges—
the remainder were settled by compromise. Numbers of
causes were compromised after being set down. This
would never happen if there were not great difficulty in
getting them heard. The Judges were now worked be-
yond their strength; it was impossible that they could
get otherwise through the business which came before
them for adjudication, and was continually accumulating.
The number of cases which came on for bearing in the
Court of Chancery, had considerably increased since the
time of Lord Hardwick, when there were no appeals from
Ireland. Such was the difficulty of obtaining a hearing
under the present system, that no suitor would set down
his cause for hearing if there were any other means by
which he could effect his purpose. There were at pre-
sent fifteen common law Judges, at an expense of 75,000/.
a-year. The whole expense of the five equity Judges
would not amount to more than 24,0001. and the business
which they transacted was the most substantial and im-
portant to the country generally. On these grounds he
trusted the House would agree to the clause.
Mr. PEMBERTON said he was not disposed to op-
pose the clause then before the House. He must, how-
ever, remind the House, that when a similar Bill was
brought down from the House of Lords at the close of
last Session, it had met with opposition from the Govern-
ment. In stating his objections to that Bill, the Noble
Lord had pronounced a severe censure upon the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council. He had stated that, in
his opinion, the mode in which justice was administered
was highly discreditable, and a disgrace to this country.
Notwithstanding this censure, nothing had been proposed
with regard to that Court ; and he (Mr. Pemberton)
thought that this circumstance afforded legitimate ground
of complaint. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then
proceeded to state the grounds upon which he should sup-
port the clause for the appointment of new Judges—
namely, the great arrears of business in the Courts of
Equity. In the Rolls Court there were at the present
time one hundred and thirty-nine causes set down for
hearing. The cause now before the Court was set down in
July last. There were twenty parties to it. If any
one of those parties had happened to die in the interim,
the greatest delay must have occurred. In the Vice-
Chancellor's Court there was a still greater arrcar. The
entire number of causes set down for hearing was 619.
He would not, perhaps, have thought that a sufficient
ground for the appointment of two new Judges (for he
fully agreed with his Right Hon. Friend in his objections
to the establishment of new Courts), were it not that by
a Bill introduced last Session, power had been given to
the Lord Chancellor to make all necessary alterations in
the practice of that Court ; and that men of all shades of
politics, some of them at a personal sacrifice of emolu-
ment, had been engaged for months in framing regula-
tions which would have the effect of facilitating the juris-
diction, and be of the greatest advantage to the suitors.
This, in his opinion, would remove the objections which
had been stated by his Right Hon. Friend.
Mr. C. BULL ER said he looked upon this not simply
as a measure beneficial of itself, but also as the first of a
series of amendments in the mode of administering the
laws of this country. In the Courts of Common Law it
was commonly only a small part of a man's property that
was interested, but in the Court of Chancery it was not
uncommon that his whole property was waiting the deci-
sion of the Court. A case had recently occurred in the
Rolls Court which remarkably exhibited the delays in the
Court of Chancery. He alluded to the case of Day v.
Croft. This was the case of a person who recently died,
leaving a property of 400,0001. His widow and daughters
were each left an annuity of 3,0001. a year. In conse-
quence. of some litigation, in which they had no concern,
from these annuities they could not raise a sixpence. In
consequence they had been obliged to borrow 12,0001. and
insure their lives. Thus, because the Court would not decide
their claims, the property of these ladies um being
frittered away, and they were obliged to raise money at,the
most extravagant rate. A still harder case was that of a
poor relative of Mr. Day, who bad been left a legacy of
401. a-3 ear, which, from the same cause, he had been
obliged to mortgage. The Right Hon. Gentleman
seemed much afraid that Judges should be appointed who
would have nothing to do, but this was somewhat incon-
sistent with his conduct in 1830, when he proposed to
create additional Judges. Supposing this system of the
legal profession were adopted in other professions, and the
surgeons in hospitals were accustomed to have an arrear of
patients, he doubted not that at the end of the year it would
be found they bad disposed of a great number of patients.
The present system occasioned a compromise of sixty out
of every hundred suit•, and it was now a common threat
in the City to throw a case into Chancery unless a com-
promise were agreed to. If a legacy of 10,000/. were left
the Right Hon. Gentleman, would he not rather take
8,000/. than suffer it to go into Chancery? It was a mean
and pitiful economy to refuse justice because we would not
pay a sufficient number of Judges, especially when the
whole profession declared that this measure was necessary
for the due administration of justice. —( Hear, hear.)

Sir E. SUGDEN said that cases of hardship similar
to those cited by the Hon. Member were unavoidable.
The Han. Member had asked, what he would do if
a legacy of 10,000/. were left him, and be were
told that unless he would take 8,0001. it should
be thrown into Chancery ? Why he would do this.
He would take the 8,0001. and then file a supple-
mental bill for the remainder—(Laughter)—and if his
claim were just it would be awarded to him with costs. It
was absurd to abolish the Court of Exchequer to establish
another Court that was to be temporary, for such Court
would soon become permanent. The Government would
commit a gross breach of their public duty if they did not
abolish the Court of Review, and transfer the Bankruptcy
business to one of the Courts of Chancery. The Courts
would all be sitting together, vary near each other, so that
the bar would be running from one to another. He had
raised his voice against the clause—he had warned the
Government, and thought he had done his duty, and would
not divide the House upon the clause.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL would only refer to
the evidence of Mr. Baron Alderson, wherein he said dis-
tinctly that if the Equity Exchequer was to be retained,
it would require a Baron to give it his whole attention.
That would require the appointment of another Baron.
Was it not better, then, to call him a Vice-Chancellor, and
so have them all sitting together ?
Mr. J. STEWART could inform the House that al-
though Lord Brougham had formerly thought that the ap-
pointment of one Judge would be enough, only a fortnight
before the Noble Lord left England he told him that he
was now firmly of opinion that the appointment of two was
now necessary. He was of the same opinion, because at
present there was a delay of three years haw eeu the set-
ting down of a cause and its hearing—a delay which in-
duced many persons to allow themselves to be robbed ra-
ther than incur the expense, and trouble, and delay of a
Chancery suit.
Mr. WAKLE Y said, those who were acquainted wi:h
our law courts were giving a very pretty exposition of their
iniquities—he hoped it would be well digested by the pub-
lic. He Was afraid that, by increasing the number of
Judges, they would also increase the number of barristers,
and while they were allowed to interpose such technicali-
ties between suitors as now filled the Courts every day,
they would never have any actual legal reform.
The clause was then ordered to stand part of the all.
Clauses 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 were agreed to.
On clause 25 being proposed,
Mr. HAYTER complained of the alteration made in
the status of the Vice-Chancellor.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the office of
Chief Baron was a very high, an honourable, and an
ancient office; and he had been of opinion that the Vice-
Chancellor's ought to take precedence immediately after
him.

Mr. lIAYTER was not satii,fici with the explanation,
and would take another opportunity of attempting to alter
the clause.

Clauses up to 28 were agread to.
Clause 29 having been proposed,
Mr. AGLIONBY begged to ask whether there was
any intention to make any alteration in the Six Clerks
Office?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was not aware of any
intention to introduce a Bill for such a reform, but he be-
lieved, indeed he knew, that the Lord-Chancellor was
engaged with some eminent lawyers in devising regula-
tions which would prove a great benefit to every suitor in
the Court. . _

Mr. AGLIONBY was aware that the public had much
confidence in the intentions of the Lord Chancellor, and he
hoped they would not be disappointed.
Clauses up to 34 were agreed to without observation.
The clause 35 being read,
Mr. PE MBE RTON moved that the salary of the new
Vice-Chancellor be 6,0001. per annum instead of 5,0001.
Lord J. RUSSELL objected to any increase of the
amount proposed in the clause. The salary of the new
Judge was fixed at 5,0001., the same as was at present
paid to the Puisne Judges.
Sir E. SUGDEN thought there was no comparison
between the labours of a Puisne Judge and those which
were to be performed by the new Judges. It appeared
to him that they would not get men of the necessary stand-
ing and talent at the bar to undertake the office for the
remuneration they now proposed.
Mr. HUME hoped the Noble Lord would not attend to
the suggestion of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite.—
( A laugh.) It was only a very short time since the Right
Hon. Gentleman had been reproaching the Government,
and very justly, with their extravagance, and now he
wished them to add to that extravagant expenditure. The
Right Hon. Gentleman called 5,0001. a paltry sum. Why
5,0001. per annum ought to buy the services of any man,
or at least of any lawyer.—( Laughter.) The Committee
should bear in mind the salary of the President of the
United States was only 5,0001.
The Gallery was then cleared for a division, but none
took place ; and 5,0001. was inserted, and the clause
fig! eel to.
On our return to the Gallery, we found Lord J. RUS-
SELL, in answer to Sir E. Sugden, stating that he did
not think it would be advisable, by any new law, to pre-
vent Masters in Chancery from sitting in Parliament.
Mr. HUME thought the Masters in Chancery, being
in the position of Judges, ought not to be allowed to sit
in Parliament. He objected to such an arrangement upon
principle. Ile wished to know whether it was intended
to introduce any clause to prevent the successor of the
lion, and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Richards) from sit-
tieg in Parliament ?
Mr. LYNCH thought the Hon. and Learned Gentle.
man could sit in Parliament as long as he thought proper.
—( A laugh.) The right of the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman bad been already defined and acknowledged.