The Sun.
London, England, 1840-05-12 00:00:00

the difficulties which had been alluded to by his Noble and
Learned Friend. He well knew there was no person
living who, for intelligence, independence, and spirit, was
more proper to preside at that tribunal than his Noble and
Learned Friend the Master of the Rolls. But this would
be attended with great inconvenience. He must be taken
from his Court—that Court which was now the most re-
gular of the Equity Courts—where the Judge sat regu-
larly day after day, where there was a regular bar, and
where nothing could be more regular than its whole pro-
ceedings. This regularity he (Lord Lyndhurst) was
most unwilling to interrupt. And while the inconvenience
was complained of, as he had frequently heard it, of the
Chancellor being taken from his Court to attend proceed-
ings in the House of Lords, while everybody felt and ad-
mitted the inconvenience resulting from this, which he
Ifelt, at the same time, would be difficult to remedy, it was
kproposed to introduce precisely the same inconvenience
into the Rolls' Court. This was matter for grave con-
sideration. Therefore, when they came into Com-
mittee, it would be for them to consider
whether they would appoint a permanent Judge
as President of the Council, or the Master of the Rolls,
who could not attend without the greatest inconvenience.
His Noble and Learned Friend bad said what was a little
fallacious, when he said that for the last fifty years,
previous to the establishment of the Judicial Committee,
the Master of the Rolls was in the habit of presiding at
the Privy Council. lie (Lord Lyndhurst) admitted that,
and that he had done so without inconvenience, and why ?
Because then the Master of the Rolls sat in the evening
and in the morning for a short period only during a por-
tion of the year, so that fact would not apply to the pre-
sent Master of the Rolls, who now sat every morning.
As to another part of the Bill, in which his Noble and
Learned Friend did not seem disposed to allow of altera-
tion—the proposal to call in the Judges to assist the Privy
Council—he thought this:was not treating the Judges with
great respect. It was their interest to uphold the dignity
of the Judges of the land, and place them in the highest
possible position. By long custom and ancient usage
they had been in the habit of attending their Lordships'
House, to answer questions on points of law, but to
make them attend • the call of the Vice-President
of the Privy Council was, he thought, a little inconsis-
tent with their rank and station. But ho thought it also
inconsistent with the whole constitution of the Privy
Council. By this Bill Assistant Judges were to be called
in and sit with the Privy Council—to be co-ordinate with
them, and have voices, so that:in case of divisions of opinion
it was possible the Council might have to advise the
Crown to adopt a measure they condemned, because it
was recommended by a body of their assistants. But
further, the Privy Council took an oath, and the Judges
took an oath. There was a Judge in this country who
was not bound to administer justice according to his oath.
If they adopted the provision of his Noble and Learned
Friend's Bill some alteration must be made in this respect.
Again, he thought the power it gave of judicial ap-
pointment might possibly lead to the most serious abuses.
But these were matters they would consider with un-
biassed minds in Committee. He considered the main
principle of the Bill was that, there being a great arrear
of causes in the Court of Chancery to be disposed of—
;meats not of to-day or yesterday, but which had been ex-
isting for 100 years—this was clearly a grievance, and
must be got rid of by the appointment of additional
Judges. The other parts of the Bill were subsidiary,
and if rejected would not affect this vital principle. He
therefore proposed that the Bill should be read a second
time, leaving himself unbiassed as to the union points,
the number of Judges, the removing the Equity jurisdic-
tion from the Exchequer, and the permanence of the Pre-
sident of the Judicial Committee of Privy Council, which
were subjects of great importance, no doubt, but which it
would be better to discuss in Committee than on that ac-
casion.—( Hear.)
Lord ABING ER rose to support the motion, but was
quite inaudible in the gallery. We understood his Lord-
ship to say he agreed with his Noble and Learned Friend
who had just sat down, in his opinion of the main princi-
ple of the Bill. He objected to the abolition of the equity
jurisdiction of the Court of Exchequer. The Noble and
Learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) had said only 102
causes were filed in that Court, but of petitions for pay-
ment of money accruing from property, the title to which
was the subject of contention in the Court of Chancery,
and which were of the nature of suits, the number was
432 last year, which proved the business of the Court
had increased instead of having diminished. The Court
was a favourite Court with suiters, on account of its afford-
ing them more speedy decisions their! the Court of
Chancery. He had no personal motive for its con-
tinuance, for it would relieve him from some
part of his labour if it were abolished.—(llear. )
Before he sat down he wished to make an observation on
that past of the Bill which related to the new duties im-
posed on the Master of the Rolls. The office of a Master
of the Rolls was now of very essential importance to the
Court of Chancery. It appeared, therefore, to him, that
the wiser course to follow would be to meet the case fully,
and to appoint the Vice-Chancellor Vice-President of the
Privy Council. That would certainly appear to him the
most advisable mode of proceeding. The Noble and.
Learned Lord concluded by saying that he would not op-
pose the second reading of the Bill, but he should cer-
tainly use his utmost endeavours to prevent the abolition of
the Court of Exchequer.
Lord LYNDII U R ST wished to explain a statement of
his. He had said that the Judges who were to be
called to: the assistance of the Privy Council, were
to have a voice equal to the Members of the Privy
Council. He was mistaken in that assertion, and his
error arose from referring to a copy of the Bill, which
was not that which bad been laid on the table of the
House.
Lord WYNFORD then addressed the House, but in
so low a tone, that he was almost completely inaudible.
We understood him to say that he had no objection to the
appointment of any additional Judges that might be re-
quired to assist the Court of Chancery. With regard to
the Privy Council, he thought that what principally called
for correction in its constitution was, that there was ut
present no fixed time for its assembling. It was not a
president who was wanted for that Court, but Judges
who would sit in it. As to the abolition of the Court of
Exchequer, he thought that such a measure would not
contribute to relieve the Court of Chancery, and that it
would be attended with inconvenience. He believed that
the transfer in question could do no good, and that it
should, therefore, do harm. He would, however, con-
sent that the Bill should go into Committee, when he
would propose any amendment he might think proper.
Lord L ANG DALE said that he approved of the prin-
ciples of the Bill, and he would not think it necessary
to trespass long on the attention of their Lordships.
There were some points, however, on which he wished to
make a few observations. Every one agreed in thinking
that assistance was required in the Court of Chancery,
and the mode of affording that assistance was all that re-
quired discussion. As a friend of the Bill, he had been
glad to hear of the intention of his Noble and Learned
Friend opposite ( Lord Lyndhurst) to give to it his sup-
port, but he confessed that, after hearing of the intention
of his Noble and Learned Friend to agree to
the second reading of the Bill, it was impossible
for any friend of the measure to listen without a feeling
of disappointment to the objections which his Noble and
Learned Friend afterwards made to it. His Noble and
Learned Friend had stated that he would enter on the dis-
cussion of the question without any bias whatever. That
might be so, and he (Lord Langdale) should observe that
he had no doubt as to the issue of the Bill. It would be
right that he should state to their Lordships his reasons for
assenting to that part of the Bill in which he was himself
immediately concerned. It had been his wish to unite the
appellate jurisdiction of all the Courts, but their Loidships
were not prepared to accede to that proposal, and the juris-
diction of the Privy Council was still to be left a separate
jurisdiction by the present Bill. It would be necessary,
therefore, either to appoint a judge who should have to
preside over the Privy Council, which did not sit more than
a quarter of the year, or else they should calla judge from
sonic other Court for the purpose. The latter course had
been adopted, and he did not know any Court from which
a judge could be more properly borrowed than from the
Rolls. The Master of the Rolls had the great advantage
of being accustomed to the hearing of such cases as would
come before the Privy Council. As far as he himself was
concerned, the proposed measure could not have been
framed for his convenience, as it would only add to his la-
bour. The Noble and Learned Lord concluded by sup_
porting the second reading of the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that in reply to
some of the arguments brought for ward as objections to the
Bill, he would read a statement made by a high authority
—by a Noble and Learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst)—who
bad addressed the House that night. In the reports of the
Parliamentary proceedings of the year 1829, he found the
following sentence attributed to the then Lord Chancel-
lor I propose additional Judges in the Court of Chan.
eery, and I propose that to those new Judges the Equity
business of the Court of Exchequer shall be transferred."
With regard to the arrangements relating to the Privy
Council, be (the Lord Chancellor) found the following
sentence attributed to the Noble and Learned Lord in
1836 :—" I propose that there be an additional Judge ap-
pointed in the Court of Chancery, and that that Judge should
preside over the Privy Council. He (the Lord Chancellor)
would content himself with reading those two passages, and
he would snake no further observation except to express a
hope that the deliberate opinion formed in 1829 and 1836 i
would now be adhered to by his Noble and Learned Friend.
Lord L YNDH URST said that the first passages which
his Noble and Learned Friend had read were those to which
he had himsel f referred in the course of his speech. In the
time of Lord Eldon he had proposed a change in the Court
of Chancery, to which he was not now opposed. With
regard to the other passage, he had merely expressed a
wish for the appointment of an additional Judge in the
Court of Chancery, for the purpose of wiping off the
arrears of business, and he thought that the time of the
Chancellor would afterwards be available for the Privy
Council.

The Bill was then read a second time, and their Lord-
ships adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MA r 11.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Five
o'Clock.

The Swinford Minnis Enclosure Bill was read a
second time.

The Birmingham, Bristol, and Thames Junction
Railway Bill was read a second time, and referred to
the General Committee on Railways.
Captain ALSAGER brought up the Report on
the Thames Tunnel Bill.
EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY BILL.
Mr. Alderman WOOD presented a petition, nume-
rously signed by Shareholders of the Eastern Counties
Railway, against the Bill brought in by the Right Hon.
and Gallant Member for East Suffolk, for the amend-
ment of that Company's Act of Incorpori.tion.
Mr. MILNES presented a similar petition (whence
we did not learn).
The Marquis of DOURO presented two petitions
from Norwich, one in favour, and the other against the
Bill—(A laugh).
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET presented two
petitions against the Bill, one from Ipswich, the other
from Great Yarmouth,