The Sun.
London, England, 1823-06-06 00:00:00

would say that he bed held his great station for a number of
years with great service to the putt c ; that his learning was uni-
versally acknowledged and that his integrity was umnepeached.
Yet it was now attacked for the first time, a:'d if the House
went to the Committee, it would be for the trial of the Lord
Chancellor. For his own part he should object t) an inquiry,
which he believed in his conscience could lead to no good.—
Ilefore he sat down, he would read to the House what he. be-
lieved ought to be the answer of every honest man, to the only
charge which could be made against the character of Lord El-
don. During the Regency of Louis HIV. thee was a Chan-
cellor of France, against whom the only charge was dilatori-
ness in decisions. One day his son told him of these rumens,
and he made the following answer :—" My child, when you
have read what 1 have read, seen what I have seen, and heard
what I have heard, you will feel that upon any subect of which
you know much, there is much that you do not know. You
will then be sensible of the mischievous and ruinous conse-
quences of the smallest error committed from • want of relict:,
tion."—( Ilea; hear!))
Mr. ABERCROM By said, that he would not offer any opi-
nion of his own with respect to Lord Eldon, but he believed
that if the opinion of the country could be collected, it would
be that Lord Eldon possessed great acuteness, extensive infor-
Matiene and a sound judgment. But he belietred also that the
best friends of Lord Eldon would not deny the existence of that
unfortunate infirmity which deprived the public of all the be-
nefit which- it might derive from the Noble Lord's judgment;
and it was- certain that great public inconvenience might
occasionally be. derived from the operation of that infirmity.
Now, he thought that his Learned friend had been unfairly
dealt with, in the supposition that he had imputed to Lord
Eldon a surreptitious decree, beCattse it appeared that his II o-
noutable Friend had only read an affidavit imputing that which
his Honourable Friend was now accused of imputing. There
was no accusation of delay to be made against the Vice-Chan-
cellor ; for it was generally allowed that no charge of that
kind could be made against him. There was now no original
ease 'heard before the Lord Chancellor; he would therefore put
the charge of inconvenience to the public on the mere issue of
the dates of the times when a cause was ordered for hearing after
the appeal was made to the Lcird Chancellor; and on how many
attendances were charged to the suitors? The House and the
public knew that they were very great. Taking the conduct of
Sir W. Grant for a criterion, how little was the quantity of
brtsiness which was now got through ? The public had two great
evils to complain of ; the difficulty which existed to obtain the
opinion of the Lord• Chancellor, and the great delay which took
plate in the Court of Chancery after an appeal was made. If
the Lord Chancellor should be restored to the Court this Session,
the House was bound to inquire whether the time and property
of the suitors could not be saved. There were many internal
regulations respecting the mode of transacting'the business in
the Court which would be highly advantageous. He would

therefore support the motion.
Mr. WETHERELL said, he was not under any obligation
to Lord Eldon ; and had no wish to uphold the abuses of any
Court of Justice ; but, with every respect for the talents of
his Hon. and Learned Friend, he differed from him in most of
his facts, and in all of his conclusions. The first branch of the
speech of his Hon. Friend inculpated the Chancellor ; and the
other attacked the system. His lion. Friend complained of a
revolution ; and, certainly, if there was any revolution, he had
proposed a complete counteraction to it. And yet, out of six
plans he had suggested, his Honourable Friend had not said
which he preferred. lie (Mr. 'Wetherell) was not disposed
to go into a Committee until he had sonic data to assist him
towards a certain remedy. He (Mr. W.) denied that there
had been a revolution in' the Court, though he admitted that
the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor had not produced all the
good which had been atiticipated front it. He hail voted for
the Bill constituting datt Office ; and, notwithstanding the ad-
mission he had just made, lie would give the same vote if the
questionwere to be again discussed. He asserted, as a fact,
that there was no arrear of causes at the Rolls, at the Vice-
Chancellor's, or at the Lord Chancellor's. The causes now in
the papers were new causes, and it was an error to state, that
because there were the same numbers now as there were some
years ago, therefore that there was an errata of causes. And yet
this assertion was the whole foundation of the case, brought
forward by his Hon. Friend. But then it was said the number
of appeal was excessive. He would not vindicate Lord
Eldon at the expence of Sir John Leach ; but the ratio of iii.
crease of appeals was little greater than it had been formerly ;
they were not more than 14 per cent. It was argued, also,
that the Chancellor heard fewer appeals than he did original
causes; but he (Mr. W.) wished to know bow this affected the
adMinistration of justice I. It was better to have fns Lordship's
attention to the original anuses than to the appeals, if they
Could, not have it to both. In the Vice-Chancellor's, Court
there Was nm en arrear of any cause two Terms old. Ile could
not quite admit the fact, that an appeal could not 'be heard in
less than two years s • but if that were so, he did not think it a
circumstance on which to overturn the present Administrator of
Justice in this Court. On the whole, be thought it better to
secure the appellant jurisdiction of the Chancellor, if he could
not retain the original jurisdiction. The discussion on the
other part of the subject had, he thought, assumed rather an
irregular and miscellanous character. Personal attack on the
Chancellor hail been disclaimed ; but this disclaimer was not
consistent with stating that delay was the mischief, and that
the Chancellor was they author of that delay. The imputa-
tions conveyed upon the Chancellor in the two particular cases,
referred to by his Ilonourable Friend, he knew to be scanda-
lous. He was himself Counsel in one of the cases, and was
therefore as conversant with it, as the (Wow who had instruct-
ed his Honourable Friend.—lle never knew a more . difficult
case ; it had been argued and re-argued by the concession of
the Lord Chancellor ; and he had devoted a fortnight, of his
own occasional time to the making out of the minutes. A.
scandalous petition, reflecting on the Chancellor on , this oc-
casion, 'was afterwards put into his (Mr. Wetherell's) hands
by the Opera in question, and he had indignantly refused
to open it in Court. Ile broadly stated that the imputation
was false and. scandalous. • This case was that of Ware
and Horwood."—The next was Mr. De Tastet's case, and lie
(Mr. Wetherell) denied that there was any extraordinary de-
lay is the cause. So far from their having been a delay of 12
years, the matter upon which the appeal,. proceeded was not
decided until about two years before the decision of the ap-
peal. The allusion which bad been made to the Court of Ex-
chequer he must. really consider as' an episode to the main
question. Ile could not understand why the circumstance of
one Judge of that Court being ill, and another being. old,
should found a reason foevaccmating (if he might so say) the
Coat of Chancery with the delays. pi* the Court of the }Ache-
. quer. Neither did he see why the circumstance of its being
asserted that, the Chancellor had given erroneous judgments
in particular cases (if he had given such judgments), was a
reason for going into inquiry on a general charge of delay.
Ilut he denied that any such erroneous judgments had been
given in the cases of literary property which had been refer-
red to. He thought those decisions were perfectly sound ; but
sound or not they had nothing to do with the present question
of delay. In the Portsmouth case too., he thought the Chaneel.•
for had given a sound decision ; but what, Inc asked, hstl the
question of delay to do with the question, whe.her Lind Eldon
j had given sound udgment ? That House was not the Court of
Appeal front judgments of Lord Eldon as Chancellor. But,
contrasting the delay. of Courts of Equity with that of the
Courts of Common Law, where, lie would ask, was the dif..
ference ? In the Courts of Common Law two Appeals were
allowed ; and if this, too, were complained of as a grievance,
then, he would say, let them at once go into a Committee
to consider of the whole system. He could not but Ob-
serve before he sat down, that during the twenty-two years
Lord Eldon had pres:ded in.the Court of Chancery, only One
of his judgments had been reversed in the House of Lords.—
Gentlemen talked of delay ; . but he would rather hear dull
truth than brilliant error; he preferred slow accuracy to gnick
blunder; and he would renter have a Judge who decided
five cases slowly and justly, than one who pronounced a
dosenvery quickly but unjustly. He folly conceded to Hon.
Members that Judges were to be found who would-decide
cases quicker than Lord Eldon. Lord Bacon had called•the
trio quick dispatch of justice a pre-digestion, and he left Hon.
illembers to judge of the'consequences of this sort of justice.—
(A laugh.)—The property of nu the country • might depend
.upon the arbitrament of the Lord Chancellor, and strong, there.
fore, must he the mind of that man who would call deliberation
in such a Judge, a demerit. Not only was each particular case
to he decided, but each judgment was to stand as a precedent
for future Caseß. Ile solemnly declared, that no where had he
found, in the course of his professional study, judgments more
learned, more elaborate, more-scientific, or more just, than
those of lava Elden.- Undoubtedly-it would be desirable to
have jurisprudence in all its abstract prefection, but as lie
knew not that this could be obtained, he preferred the present
phut, until he could clearly ere a better. The motion sought
for a Committee •of Inquiry; but the .House had come he
might say, reeking wet oat of an inquiry whirls had lately been
carried on at the Bar about the-Sheriff of Dublin ; and lie did
not think the proposed Inquiry would restore them to their
own confidence, or give satisfaction to the public. Upon these
grounds he thought the inquiry sought for would be useless and
he should oppose the motion.
Mr. SCA IttETT assured his Learned- Friend that'll"! con-
sidered him as labouring under no degree of that judiciel pre.
digestion to which he had alluded ; for, on the contrary, his
speech was well digested and not less well delivered. The 11°i:se
had heard many learned Counsel belonging to the Court of
Chancery, but were there no suitors of the Court who were to
he considered ?—(Hear, hear !).--He (Mr. S.) iliould support
the motion for inquiry, although he should not prilnaturely
give an opinion as, to what might be proper to lie done ,ulti-
niately. Ile had too much respect for the Lord Chancellor to
panegyrize him in that House. lie would only any thnt hip
fame could well bear a discussion on title subject witlit being