The Sun.
London, England, 1834-08-15 00:00:00

PETITIONS

The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a vast multitude
of petitions from all parts of England, the various objects of
which, however, the Noble and Learned Lord stated with so
much rapidity, that we found it impossible to follow him.
Among them were a petition from the inhabitants of Bath,
against any further law of restriction with respect to religious
matters ; a petition from the inhabitants of Brough, against
tithes ; a petition from a place in Somersetshire, against any
additional laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath ;
petitions from Lancashire, in favour of a measure for i egister-
ing births and marriages ; petitions respecting the Beer Bill ;
a petition from Mr. Robert Owen (whom the Noble and
Learned Lord eulogised as a man of singular moderation
and temper, and devotion to what he considered useful
objects), on the condition of the employed and the un-
employed classes ; petitions in favour of the admission of
Dissenters to the Universities, &c. &c. The Noble and
Learned Lord proceeded to present almost as many peti-
tions from Scotland. The first portion related to the
Church Patronage of that country ; on which subject we
understood the Noble and Learned Lord to say, that he
had the satisfaction to state that the sentiments of the General
Assembly of the Church of Scotland coincided with his own.
Among these petitions were fourteen from Dissenting Con-
gregations in Scotland, praying for the removal of certain
grievances under which they laboured ; in the prayer of which
petitions the Noble and Learned Lord entirely concurred.
Next followed. various Petitions Dravinz.for an inc-ease in the
salaries of the Parochial Schoolmasters in Scotland. The
Noble and Learned Lord observed that the parochial school-
masters of• Scotland were a most useful and meritorious body
of individuals, whose emoluments had been fixed in the reign
of James the Second, and William the Third, which emolu-
ments consisted of a house in the parish, and a small salary,
much too low for the present times. They were 684 in
number, and, the petitions which he presented were from 60
Presbyteries, the whole number of Presbyteries in Scotland
being only 78. Very injurious consequences had resulted
from the inadequate emoluments granted to the parochial
schoolmasters of Scotland. That country was no longer an
example of education. In many parts of England education was
much better conducted. In 1818 an inquiry had been in-
stituted into the subject, and the deterioration to which he had
alluded, had then been distinctly shown.
The petitions were ordered to lie on the table.
JOINT STOCK BANKS.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE, seeing the Noble Viscount in his
place, wished to put a question to him respecting the Joint
Stock Banks which had spread throughout the country. At
the time of the discussions on the Charter of the Bank of
England, he understood that a deputation had waited on the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the capital
which these Joint Stock Banks were to possess ; and he un-
derstood that the Noble Lord had stated, that care should be
taken that that capital was sufficient to answer the obligations
incurred by the banks in question. In some cases he (Lord
Wharncliffe) believed that although the nominal capital was
500,0001., scarcely a third of that capital was ever called for,
or put into activity. Not satisfied, however, with this and
other advantages, these banks had established a number of
branch banks, more especially in the northern parts of
England, which were exceedingly injurious not only to
private bankers, but to other Joint Stock Banks. In the
interview to which he had already alluded, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer had stated that the Joint Stock Banks were to
be considered as parent banks. What he (Lord Wharncliffe)
wished to ask the Noble Viscount was, whether his Majesty's
Government had it in contemplation to propose any regulation
with respect to the branch bank system ?
Viscount MELBOURNE adntted that the subject was
one of great importance. He was aware that the circulating
medium had been increased by the Joint Stock Banks, but he
did not think that it had been so to an injurious extent. Ne-
vertheless, the matter required serious consideration ; and he
certainly thought that some regulation on the subject would
be necessary.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE HOUSE
OF LORDS.

The LORD CHANCELLOR presented a 13111 to improve
the Appellate Jurisdiction of the House of Lords. In doing so
he begged to state to their Lordships, that the appeals in their
Lordships' House were never so little in arrear as at the pre-
sent moment. Whenever the parties were ready to proceed,
there had never been any delay. There was not a single case
standing for hearing which was entered before February last.
This was the more remarkable, as he had known appeals seven,
eight, or nine Sessions in arrear. Their Lordships, during
the session, had sat sixty days on appeals, during which time
they had heard about sixty causes, some of them of great
magnitude and importance ; one of which, " Morgan v.
Lewis," lasted fourteen days. At the same time the dispatch
in the Court of Chancery had been unexampled ; no cause re-
mained unheard ; for the last five or six weeks the Court had
been almost shut up, nor would there be any further proceed-
ings in it till November. Arrears, therefore, either in their
Lordships' House, or in the Court of Chancery, were not the
causes which induced him to submit to their Lordships the
present proposition ; the object of which was to correct cer-
tain evils equally injurious to the character of their Lordships'
authority, and to the interests of the suitors who came before
them. By the arrangement which at present existed, two
Noble Lords heard the appellant's case ; two Noble Lords
afterwards heard the respondent's case, who had not heard
the appellant's case ; two Noble Lords afterwards heard
the reply of the appellants, who had not heard either the
appellant's case or the respondent's
case ; and probably
two Noble Lords afterwards assisted in giving judgment
who had *not heard either the appellant's case, the respondent's
case, or the reply. Now was this fair towards the suitors or the
public ? There was another evil. In the course of the time during
which he had had the honour of sitting on the Woolsack, he hal
felt himself obliged to postpone many appeals which had
been brought before him from his own judgments. He had
done so in the hope of being assisted either by his Noble and
Learned Friend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, or by his
Noble and Learned Friend the Chief Baron of the Exche-
quer. At last, however, he had been compelled to hear those
cases ; and although he had endeavoured to divest his mind as
much as possible from any bias left upon it by his former opi-
nions, still it was a state of things which he had no doubt
their Lordships would see ought no longer to be allowed to
exist. Indeed the question to be determined was whether
there ought ever to be an appeal made to a single judge—
whether, in order to inspire the suitor with confidence, and to
insure a uniformity of judgment a Court of Appeal ought not
always to consist of more than one judge ? It was quite clear
that as far as that House went, the law assumed the fact, for
it made all the Peers hereditary judges in a Court of Appeal.
In common law cases also it required the assistance of the
judges in cases of appeal. In all other cases, however, the
practice was that the appeal was actually made to a single
judge.—( Hear, hear.) Now, in many instances, that was
attended with great inconvenience. It sometimes occurred
that an • appeal was made from the decision of thirteen or
fourteen persons who were profoundly versed in the Scottish

law to the judgment of an individual who knew little or no-
thing of that law. It was on record that Lord Thurlow had
reversed a judgment in the case of an appeal from Scotland
against the decision of thirteen Scottish Judges ; only one
being favourable to his Lordship's view of the question. Now,
if instead of a single individual, half a dozen, or even a smaller
number of qualified parsons were to be placed in the situation
of Judges of Appeal, the result would be beneficial both to the
suitors and to the public. In confirmation of this opinion he
need only state the entire success which has attended the ap-
pointment of the Judicial Commission of the Privy Council,
in which the presence of five Judges was always insured. The
decision of a single Judge would always be liable to doubt,
but the decision of five assembled Judges must command re-
. spett. In France the Judges, fourteen or fifteen hundred
in number, were, comparatively speaking, of an inferior
class, and the only Courts of Appeal, which by comparison
were powerful, were the Cour Royal and the Cour de Ces-
sation. The system pursued in France would not, how-
ever, do in this country. It was impossible that in this country
a Judge could be good for any thing, if he sat only in a Court
of Appeal. For himself, he felt that he should be of no value
in a Court of Appeal unless he were at other times engaged
in a constant forensic strepitus. It would be impossible to
have an efficient Court of Appeal in the House of Lords un-
less they availed themselves of the services of individuals who
were, or who had been, engaged in the discharge of judicial
functions in the Courts below. In the causes which took
place in the Courts below, the appeals were always from one
judge to several judges. If a motion for a new trial were
granted in the Court of King's Bench, in the Court of
Common Pleas, or in the Court of Exchequer, it was in
effect an appeal to the other judges. Eventually, the
appeal was to the House of Lords, which occcasionally
sent for other judges both of Common Law and of
Equity, to assist in the decision. It was with re-
ference to the expediency of constituting a Court of Appeal of
several Judges that the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council bad been framed ; and it was on the model of
that Committee that the-Bill which he had now the honour of
presenting to their Lordships was framed. According to the
arrangement made in the Privy Council, a substantive Court
was erected, consisting of the present Lord Chancellor, or
former Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, the Vice-
Chancellor, the Chief Justice of the Court of King's
Bench, the Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas,
the Chief Baron of the Exchequer, and other Judges, amount-
in.- altogether to fifteen; and it was provided 'hat a judgment
should never be given by less than four of that number. It
was upon this principle that the Bill which he held in his hand
proceeded. It left the jurisdiction of the House of Lords pre-
cisely in the situation in which it at present stood ; but it
gave to their Lisrdships the power of directing any case of ap-
peal to be tried before a Judicial Committee, founded on the
same principle as that on which the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council was founded. For further securing
the objects of justice, the Bill provided that that Judicial
Committee should always be presided over either by the Lord
Chancellor or by the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of
King's Bench, or by another officer, whom it was proposed to
create under the title of Vice-President of the Council, who
was not to have any salary, and who must have been previously
either Lord Chancellor, or Chief Justice of the Court of
King's Bench, or Chief Justice of the Court of Common
Pleas. By the provisions of the Bill the great object was se-
cured, that in all cases in which it was deemed necessary, the
suitors, in cases of appeal to the House of Lords, should have
the opinions of four eminent Judges, consisting of the present
and late Lord Chancellor, and of the present and late Chief
Justices of the Court of King's Bench and Common Pleas.
He repeated, that by this proposed measure the jurisdiction of
the House of Lords was left precisely in its present state. He
should, indeed, be sorry to do anything, or to see any-
thing done, calculated in any way to disparage the autho-
rity of that House. He was always prepared to bear his
testimony to the incalculable use, or rather, indeed, to the
absolute necessity, of a branch of the Legislature which
formed so important and integral a part of the British
Monarchy. If there were no House of Lords, either all legis-
lation must be stopped, or the House of Commons—he spoke
it with the utmost respect for that body, would occasionally
plunge into the greatest possible absurdities. Nor was it sur-
prising that 658 men, having so large a body of constituents of
various conflicting interests, should be constantly contending
with one another, and be unable to pay that calm and delibe-
rate attention to the details of legislative measures which
might be justly expected from their Lordships, who had not
so many extraneous circumstances to distract them. The re-
sult had been shown during the present session in several mea-
sures which had been brought from the House of Commons,
and been greatly improved by the deliberations of their Lord-
ships. Not one of those measures down to the Poor Law
Amendment Bill, but had been considerably ameliorated
by the amendments which their Lordships had intro-
duced into them. The judgment of their Lordships fre-
quently cut out the rotten parts of Bills brought to them
from the other House of Parliament ; it was true
that they sometimes cut off the head—(A laugh)—but
it was not because they might occasionally, perhaps,
go too far, that the knife which they used should be
blunted, or that it would be expedient to say they should no
longer have the power of wielding it. Before he sat down he
wished to say one word with respect to the Bill which he had
given notice of his intention to bring in for new-modelling the
administration of the Court of Chancery, L'y severing the ju-
dicial from the political functions of the Lord Chancellor. The
fact was, that when a abort time ago he looked at the 2tatc of
tne arrears in the Court of Chancery, :and in their Lordships'
House, he felt that he should have no ground to stand upon
in making such a proposition, because it was evident that if a
Lord Chancellor chose to bestir himself, the existing duties of
his office were not more than lie could conveniently discharge.
His Lordship concluded by presenting a Bill to improve the
appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords.
Read a first time and ordered to be printed.
A message from the House of Commons stated that that
House had agreed to the amendments of the Lords upon the
Irish Church Temporalities Bill, the South Australia Bill,
and the Beer Bill.
Their Lordships then adjourned,

HOUSE OF COMMONS, August 14.
The House met at a quarter to four o'clock, immediately
after which the Deputy Usher of the Black Rod summoned
the Speaker and the House to attend the House of Lords, for
the purpose of hearing his Majesty's assent given by commis-
sion to several Bills, for which see the Lords' Report.
The SPEAKER and several Members accordingly left the