The Sun.
London, England, 1840-08-06 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY.

The Order of the Day for the further consideration
of the Report on the Court of Chancery Bill having
been read,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the
Lords had sent down a Bill for the improvement of the
Court of Chancery, which had been withdrawn in con-
sequence of the threatened opposition to it, especially
on the part of the Hon. Member for Ripon, having left
no prospect of its being carried in the present Session.
But the Bill now before the House was one to which
no opposition could be offered. Its object was merely
to give the Lord Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor, and
the Master of the Rolls the power of making rules and
regulations for the improvement of the practice and
proceedings of their Courts, being no more than the
power already possessed by the Judges of the Courts of
Law.

Mr. PEMBERTON regretted that the other mea-
sure had been suffered to fall to the ground merely be-
cause a threat had been made by his Hon. Friend the
Member for Ripon.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that all the
forms of the House had been threatened.

Mr. PEMBERTON regretted that the evils and
inconveniences which were admitted on all bands to
exist in the Court of Chancery, did not unite all parties
in some attempt to redress them ; but that every mea-
sure having that object should be looked on rather as
an engine for wounding a Minister, than as a means of
effecting an improvement, in which every man
in the kingdom was interested. He would
look at it as a mere question of expense, and
he would ask whether such a state of things as 700
causes in arrear should exist, and if any change of par-
ties took place, a new Bill was necessary, attended with
great expense and delay ? Mr. Field, a gentleman of
great research in the practice of the Court of Chancery,
had stated with respect to the expense of delay, that
on the 500 causes in arrear in the Vice-Chancery
Court an expense was incurred to the suitors of upwards
of 20,000/, which was of no benefit to any person, and,
therefore, upon the whole arrears of 700 causes in the
Court of Chancery, there was an expense of upwards of
30,0001., which was attended with no good, but with
the heartburnings of thousands. In the Court of
Chancery 1,700 causes were filed in a year, and out
of that number only 300 obtained adverse de-
cisions in the course of a year. Such was the state
of the practice of the Court of Chancery at
the present time that no suitors who had a de-
mand for less than 1,000/. had any chance f
justice, and, in fact, all poor suitors were literally di:-
prived of justice. In the time of Lord Hardwicke the
amount in the hands of the Accountant-General of the
Court of Chancery was 1.660,000/., whereas, in the
present day, it amounted to the enormous sum of
41,000,0001., and yet the number of hills filed and the
suitors had not increased since the time of Lord
Hardwicke. It was therefore incumbent upon the
House, and upon all who thought that questions affect-
ing the general administration of the law and welfare
of the people were of some importance, but not of so
much importance as party disputes—it was incumbent
upon them to state why a measure of such importance
as the Bill that had been introduced by the Lnrd
Chancellor had been so wantonly given up as it had
been. Now, which of the evils complained of in the
Court of Chancery was redressed by the pre-
sent Bill ?—( Hear.) He agreed that the mere
addition of Judges would do no good of itself
—the expense of the system must be put an
end to, for it was the expense and delay in the p..oceed-
ings of the Court that drove away suitors, and prompted
them to put up with their wrongs rather than seek re.
dress by such expensive means. The evils the Bill of
the Lord Chancellor sought to redress were not only
with respect to fees, and the mode of taking evidence,
but also with respect to the different offices by means of
which the business of the Court was carried on. He
thought great good and great improvement would be
effected by adopting the same rules with respect
to counsel in the Court of Chancery that
was adopted in the Courts of Common Law.
He would now direct the attention of the House to
the expenses of the Court. There were anciently six
clerks, who conducted the whole business of the Court
as solicitors/ and these had afterwards various other
clerks under them. The only business which these six
clerks now performed was to attend at all the suits, and
if he attended for the plaintiff, to sign his name on the
Bill, and if for the defendant on the answer, and one of
these gentlemen frequently signed for the other by
procuration, and this was all they had to do. Tice
Clerks' Court did even less than the Six Clerks—they
merely received notices from one solicitor, a cause, and
transmitted it to the adverse solicitor of these services ;
these officers received, and the suitors in Chancery paid,
within the last year 59,971/. 7s. 7d. Of that
27,600/. arose from the copy money paid for those
records, on which the Six Clerks had performed
those important duties he had described. 1 d. a
folio had been allowed to the master's clerks for
copying the records, and they made a profit of 500/. a-
year by it : but the charge in this office was 10d. a
folio. They also received enormous term fees from
their unhappy suitors, not for doing anything, but be-
cause a term had passed during which nothing was
done. Then again they had enormous fees for taxing
costs with which they had- nothing to do ; and he be-
lieved, that deducting ld. per folio from these copies,
every farthing of this 59,9711. 7s. 7d.might besaved to the
suitors. They had heard of sinecures, but where would
they find such sinecures as this, the holder of one of
which was in the receipt of 9,6001. a year, and upwards?
Was it fit that these things should be continued, and
that the Government should be lukewarm in a measure
which was likely to give some remedy to those evils ?
These sinecures had received an addition from the
operation of the recent statute relating to fines and for-
feitures. Did not these matters deserve the serious
consideration of the Government ? There was another
point, which, as far as delay went, required still more
the supervision of the Court—he meant the Master's
office. The Masters he believed to be honourable
and efficient men ; but, from the manner in which busi-
ness was conducted there, it was impossible, until
some alteration was made, that justice could be effec-
tually administered. In Swift's days complaints had
been made of delays in Chancery, and those arose not
from delays in Courts, but in the Master's Office.
Mr. Field told the Committee that it was the interest
of every person connected with the Master's Office
to delay—there were none of the usual stimu-
lants to exertion.—(Hear, hear.) Warrants were
taken out, not attended to, and when attended to, the
sitting lasted perhaps an hour, and then an adjournment
took place, and the consequence was that that which
might have been done in days took months, and that
which might have been done in weeks took years. There
was no power of control over the Masters, they were per-
fectly independent of every power ; they had nothing to
hope, nothing to fear, and consequently it was impossible
that justice could be done unlesssomo alteration took place.
There were none of the Masters attended at their
offices more than six hours a day, and some not more
than three. Was that, be would ask, a fair time to
sit, when their offices were choked with business. He
thought these offices ought to be kept open much
longer each day, the duties of the Masters were not so
onerous as those of the Judges, and much that they had
to do was only Ministerial. The Court of Chancery was
now about to rise for the long vacation, he thought
much too early, but many of the offices of the Mastera
closed before the Courts rose, and the result was, that
when the Court made orders they could not be carried
into effect on account of the Masters' offices being
closed. He thought the whole power of the Governs
nremove the l
,is abuses
regret
rnetthtehaCto
theutt
of i
baend givene tmusto express
Noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) had been re •
meat should
moved from that office, which gave him direct control
over this matter, as he was convinced that it was his
anxious desire to improve the administration of justice in
introducing
this country. The Lord Chancellor, by
this Bill, would entitle himself to the gratitude of the
country and that House, and those who had agreed to
such a step would be covered with shame for consenting
to the postponement of such a measure.