The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-19 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

We had thought the blaze of truth which we have
thrown upon so many of the calumnies against the Lord
Chancellor, and by which we have exposed their baseness
and blackness, would have overwhelmed the authors of
them with shame, and made them silent; but we have
been mistaken. In the John Bull of Sunday there is a
statement, which was copied into the Post of yest, rday.
appearing to possess the precision of "chapter and verse,"
from which it should result, that the Chancellor has really
been sitting in his court from ten o'clock in the morning to
five in the afternoon (for so long does his Lordship sit every
day) without despatching any business. " In two years,'
says the charge, " the Lord Chancellor has heard 32 causes
--pray remember, reader, two and thirty ; in the sam,
space of time the Vice-Chancellor has heard 931,
and the Master of the Rolls 1,790." The reader
of this article will, we hope, remember this calumny.
Why did not the writer add to his defamation, that in the
last two years the Recorder of London has tried, perhaps,
a thousand prisoners, and the Lord Chancellor not one ?
The inuendo would have been equally just. The ti uth
that it is extraordinary that the Lord Chancellor should
have heard so many as 32 causes, for this plain reason—
that it is only upon special application, and by a departure
from the ordinart».ule of practice,that he hears any causes
at all! Since the Vice-Chancellor's bill passed, upwards
of 20 yews ago, the Lord Chancellor has become ettictl)
an appellate Judge; no causes are set down before him
and almost the whole of his time is employed exclusively
upon appeals. Lord Eldon from 1812 to 1821 beard
only 53 original causes, being less than six a.year ; and
the average baldly reached seven or eight in the time of Lured
Lyndhurst. The only test of the werk done bya LortlChan•
cellor ie the list of appeals. Now, it may be easih
ascertained, by inspection of the list, that Lord Brougham,
in the period of three years, has decided the incredi'd,
number of nearly 100 appeals more than even Lord Lynd
burst (a judge whose promptitude and despatch are un-
doubted) was able to dispose of within the same time.
And there is another point that deserves considera-
tion also. The most prudent system for an appellate
judge to go upon, and one that imposes least trouble, is
to confirm pretty generally the judgments of the courts
below. This costs little tune or thought ; but no judge
of appeal ever more minutely ransacked the merits ref
a cause de novo, before he confirmed or reverud
judgments already passed, than the present Lord
Chancellor, or more fully explained the priori-
plea and motives of the final decision. A confir-
'nation of the judgment of the subordinate court has
not with his lordship seems matter of course. The
gulled
be
a cautious
person. of
subtle author of these charges against the Lord Chan-
cellor must have known full well himself the treachery
of anding th e rfirseesipveecsta Ittloe journals
ie
uld should
bysuch
Since writing these remarks, we have read the report
of a conversation in the House of Lords, to which we
invite the attention of our readers. The Lord Chan•
cellor was. indirectly put on his defence, and a more
triumphant vindication we bare never seen. That stile
ment exhibits to the public what is already known to that
branch of the profession practising in Chancery, that a
mote indefatigable—a more painstaking—a mere punctual
Judge, never presided in any Court in any period of our
legal annals. His lordship, by his persevering attention, his
unremitting assiduity, and his unexampled regularity, has
afforded a striking proof that talents of the highest order,
and eloquence of matchless power can descend with cheer-
fulness and ease to the monotonous duties of the most
laborious and patient drudgery. The dullest fag who ever
plodded without a thought beyond the pale of the techni-
calities of his profession, never worked so hard and so
constantly as the man whom even his enemies allowed to
be endowed with the most comprehensive and brilliant
intellect of his age and country.—Times.
The John Bull of last Sunday has made the remark-
able discovery—which of course the Morning Post has
lost no time in communicating to its readers—that the
Lord Chancellor, during the years 1831, 1832, and
1833, has heard only thirty-two causes; and a comparison
is made of the numbers heard by the Vice-Chancellor and
Master of the Rolls, as if the causes were a species of bu-
siness belonging to the Chancellor's department. Why
the wonder is, as every lawyter kn stvs, not that only
thirty-two have been heard by his Lordship, but that be
should have h and any at all. The Chancellor has, ever
since the Vice-Chancellor's Bill n as passed, been almost
s' the only matters
b
exclusively an appellate judge; and it is notorious that the
a
bitihm.sligThhte
causesexcep fortion
the last twenty years
have been carried to the Vice •Chancellor and Master of
l:
are,
before
the Rolls alone ; and it is only when the parties are dissa-
tisfied with the decisions that the cases ale discussed be-
fore the Lord Chancellor. We doubt much whether Lord
Lyndhurst ever heard a dozen causes during his whole
Chancellorship; certainly Lord Eldon, during the last
thirteen ur fourteen years that he held the Seals, could not
have beard more than three or four per annum, and those
under some peculiar circumstances, as must, indeed, have
been the case with the thirty-two that have been heard
by Lord Brougham. The same remarks apply with re-
gard to pleas, demurrers, exceptions, further directions,
&c. • All business of this kind belongs to the inferior
judges; and complaint might as well be made that
time Chancellor does nut try actions pending in the
Courts of Common Law, as that he does not adju-
dicate upon these matters. The truth is the Chan-
cellor, whether rightly or wrongly, has a mere appel-
late jurisdiction, and the great question has been,
whether the appeals could be kept down ? Lords Eldon
and Lyndhurst signally failed in this, and left their papers
encumbered—not with causes, pleas, demurrers, excep-
tione, and further directions, for with these they had
nothing to do—but with appeals. The delay in causes,
pleas, demurrers, exceptions, and further directions, was
never imputed to either of the learned Chancellors, but to
the other judges of the court. Lord Brougham's merit
has been, that he has several times succeeded in disposing
of the whole of the appeals, being, with a trifling excep-
tion, the only description of business set down for hearing
before him : and at the present moment, were it not that
one or two appeals that have been advanced have occupied
lan almost unprecedented time, there would not be a single
matter waiting for hearing. We challenge the John Bull
and the Morning Post, and their coadjutors, to show that
either Lord Eldon or Lord Lyndhurst got through business
at all approaching in quantity to that disposed of by Lord
Brougham. It should be recollected, too, that the judg.
relents have never been in arrear, that they have always been
pronounced when the facts were fresh in the memory of
the court and the counsel—our professional readers will
not fail to appreciate this circumstance. Causes, pleas,
demurrers, exceptions, and further directions can rarely
come before the Chancellor ; but of these Lord Brilughain
has heari as many as his predecessors—but if lie had not,
it would have made no difference. The business to which,
according to the constitution of the court, the Chancellor
is a'inost exclusively confined, is the appeals; and it is by
the number of these which Lord Brougham has determined

',at his pr-ogress must be judged, the .7Gfin Bull states tilt,
I Stappealshave haen heard in three years by Lord Brougl a
—l4 it he shown that Lords Eldon and Lyndhurst dis
posed of tive.thirds of the number in,'the same space el
.ime. We doubt much if they ever "disposed of one-ball.
In conclusion, we cannot help observing, that we strong),
-uspect that the writer in the John Bull was away,
of the fallacy and absurdity of cotnparing the quan-
tity of business' done by the Lord Chancellor with
the quantities done by the Vice-Chancellor and the
Nfaster of the Rolls, instead of with that disposed
sf by his predecessors: and if this be the cow,
he artifice is one of which we do not envy him
the use. Hating disposed of the attempt to mislead the
ottblic with respect to the number of causes decided in the
Court of Chancery (the subject was alluded to in the
course of the lord Chancellor's answer to one of Lord
Ellenborough's speeches last night), we will now advert to
the claim put in by Lord Ellenborouv,h on behalf of the
Scotch appellants. We are assured by respectable solici
tors that the advocacy of their claims by Lord Ellenbo-
rough is quite gratuitous. The Scotch suitors and their
,olicitors are quite satisfied with the present state of the
appeals, which are not in arrear. The first appeal must-
t9 be taken for argument in 1834 is the first appeal pre.
sented in 1833 ; andthis is as early as suits the conve-
nience of parties to proceed. The Scotch may well plot,
the proverb, " Save us from our friends." They know
very well that there are learned lords who would willir gly
despatch their causes; but they are not so eager for de.
spatch as to be indiffewlt about the quality of the deci-
.ion. Something is due to the wishes of the Scotch
nation, who do not consider every member of their lord-
ships' house equally fit for disposing of appeals. LordEllen-
borough, as every one knows who has come in contact
with him, is one of those individuals who possess a trou-
blesome share of activity with very little judgment to
guide it, and who, as they must be meddling wi'h some-
thing, as often do mischief as good. His . lordship has
already thrown many of the Scotch solicitors into alarm,
in consequence of the alteration which his interference
threatens to produce. The alteration to which we allude
is alluded to in the following observations of the Lord
Ch Incellor :
" There was no arrear of Scotch appeals. In fact, how could
there be an arrear of Scotch appeals, when, according to the
noble baron's own statement, they got into the appeals at the
end of last session which were entered during the same ses-
sion ? Though he remembered perfectly that he heard appeals
last July which were entered in January, he was perfectly
willing and ready to take this as an indication, and he begged
the Scotch suitors to understand that he wished to take it as an
indication, that there was a complaint that Scotch appeals were
not heard. He should take care that they should be heard.
But they must not quarrel with the judges who should hear
them—these Scotch solicitors and suitors—with his noble and
learned friend who had just quitted the house (Lord Wynford),
who was always ready to do his duty with alacrity. He would
be ready to hear the appeal of those suitors. Now, then, as
there was a complaint that business would not be brought on
before Easter, he would take care that it should be heard; but
he was not bound to have an arrear in the Court of Chancery
for their pleasure. The noble baron might tell those complain-
ing, that their appeals would be tried by his noble and learned
friend the late Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas."

Th.ose only who know the ideas which the Scotch en-
tertain of Lord Wynford as a Judge ran fully understand
the force of the above pretended readiness to take the
suitors and solicitors at their word, and consign them to
the late Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas.
But we have the best rea4on for believing that nei her
Scotch suitors nor Scotch solicitors have made any com-
plaint ; they dischiin the advocacy of the noble baron, awl
as they have not the slightest doubt of the zeal of Lord
Wynford, and eagerness to he employed in adjudicating
appeals, they trust, at all events, if they are consigned to
his judicial me, it will not he believed for a moment that
their complaints had any thing to do with the matter.
There is a go id deal of what the French would term
malice (we know not the English synonime) in the fol-
lowing little dialogue with which the conversation termi-
nated :

" Lord Ellenborough said, that after the menace thrown
out by the noble and learned lord, it was certainly of great im-
portance to the Scotch suitors to understand clearly and dis-
tinctly what his intentions were. Did he intend, if this ses.
sion should be sufficiently prolonged, to hear at its end Scotch
appeals presented this year, or did he mean to hear such ap.
peals before Easter next ?
" The Lord Chancellor intended to do exactly what his pre-
decessors had done. He said nothing about the end of the se,
sion; he meant immediately. He meant, like his predecessors,
to sit in the Court of Chancery, and not in the House of Lords.
" Lord Ellenborough—Really a more indistinct answer to
the Scotch suitors I never heard.

" The Lord Chancellor—Oh, they'll understand it."
When a man dreads that his wile will run him into
debt, he cries down her credit. This may not destroy his
liibdity, but it sometimes prevents credit being given.
Though the 'Scotch cannot prevent Lord Ellenborough
from advocating their interests, they may enter a caveat
that they will not be answerable for the freaks of his Lord-
ship.—Morning Chronicle.